COP 17 Heater | Rosemary Ainslie | Part 2

[jibbguy]

Perhaps the arguments can stop here.

Frankly they serve NO positive purpose (and appear to simply beget more); and only DETRACT from the actual empirical evidence of anomalous energy being discovered with the recent replications... that Universities or companies could see for themselves if they wanted to for about $150 in materials, around 6 hours in labor, and the use of a good oscilloscope.

THAT WAS THE POINT of this Open Source project, and let's not LOSE THAT POINT in these arguments.

Which it is important for all to understand, is not under question in this thread at all.

Everyone who wanted to has had their "says", thousands of words regarding the differences of opinion on what


TACTICS AND STRATEGIES


should be have been used regarding the content of the scientific paper; and the various motives attributed to these differences. It is important for all to understand the above point.

It is unfortunate that the present collaboration has ended this way. But the study of this anomalous energy present MUST GO ON. And it will. It has a life of its own, and is clearly now in the Public Record. It is "owned" by no one, and no one can "monopolize" it or "shelve" it.

Many may someday profit from it by manufacturing and selling useful devices (but not "exclusively" profit, and that was the point). And this will have to do, at least until a Utopian "Star Trek" culture with "no money" comes along...

... or until we get a "Scientific Mainstream" that is more interested in upholding the word "SCIENCE" than the word "MAINSTREAM".

[jibbguy]

Sorry, not interested in being drawn into another argument

[eternalightwithin]

If I may speak plainly...
The original resistor allowed COP>17 due to the geometry of the winding of the resistive wire?
So material makeup and tube diameter have unlocked COP ~8 and some special geometry, not yet elucidated, is responsible for the other ~8x increase.

Hi All,
The commercial resistor applied to the exact same circuit produced very different results as did two other Custom Resistors built to my specifications so as to keep the same inductance but alter the geometry. The overall result is that we have failed to reach COP 17 and are only hopeful of reaching and sustaining about half that.

[witsend]

If I may speak plainly...
The original resistor allowed COP>17 due to the geometry of the winding of the resistive wire?
So material makeup and tube diameter have unlocked COP ~8 and some special geometry, not yet elucidated, is responsible for the other ~8x increase.

Good point eternalightwithin. There is a real need to explore different resistors. Our early tests barely showed cop>1, subsequent tests improved on this. The final best, was published in Quantum and that was greater 17. And we never did a systematic evaluation to see what was required in the resistor. It relates to mass. Counter intuitively, the thicker the wire the more effective. We tested with incredible results, through a bridge rectifier from an variac - and there the winding was as thick as bootlaces and we had to immerse it in water because of the heat off it. I'm trying to point to the need to research the resistors themselves. Or as Mike does it. Look to inductors in parallel to the resistors. There's plenty scope for improvement. And much to learn. And progress from here needs the intuition and genius of you experimentalists.

But the point is that cop>17 is still scratching the surface. And yes, the secret is in the windings. We just do not know where nor why. All I can volunteer is that I needed thick wiring and that I have never found the effect on thin wiring unless I used it in conjuction with inductors. But replication only relates to the 'effect', the waveforms, that aperiodic oscillation, those harmonics. It is meant to show an example of resonance and the benefits this can return to the supply source. It has never been uniquely related to any particular resistor. That is what Harvey is trying to promote to discredit this as a replication. It's an entirely spurious objection.

[eternalightwithin]

Considering that there are only three major components involved here, namely: 1. Inductive Resistor 2. IRFPG50 HEXFET 3. Current Sensing Resistor, and we find that the circuit is identical to the International Rectifier Unclamped Inductive Test Circuit Fig. 12a. found on Page 1120 of the HEXFET Poer MOSFET Designers's Manual HDM-3 September 1993, it is clear that the improvements in COP relative to a DC control for the exact same resistor ( something the original South Africa team never did), must be related to one of these 3 parts or the mode of operation.

Funny you should bring that up, I was thinking of that around 11AM EST today and I threw out that thought.
I was like if they changed operative parameters even a little, they'd have to at least put letter designation down! i.e. IRFG50a or whatever

P.S. I'd like to say I am delighted in your analytical mind and your logical steps in ferreting out answers to problems.

[eternalightwithin]

while I could be totally off base.

It seems to me that getting a good number of events per window of time will give you one good average number. Getting multiple window segments would then be your be your "N" value. ie. number of samples.

If you correlated that with what was coming from the input at ever recorded segment, would you not come to a COP>1 that would be significant?

I'm not sure what statistical tests you would do. But I would think getting standard deviation, Standard Error of the Mean, and a Students T-test would be your bare minimum.

(As most of you know, this would allow you to throw out any data sets 2 deviations from standard as well as showing reviewers that your confidence in the data is >95% ie. p>0.95)

I don't see why you can't use the area of the spike for one data set as well as the peak of said spike. Both are valid, no?

I'm not sure who I'm agreeing with , but that's how I'm doing it

[witsend]

Guys, this is my last post in this thread. Many thanks to all contributors. I think this subject is now closed. It's been fun and latterly a bit fraught.

It encourages me that there is an ongoing interest in the technology. There's plenty of potential and much still to be unravelled. I and a couple of members will be doing our own paper here and this time with no threat of sabotage. It'll be on the thesis so may not be of much interest. I'll probably come back and start a thread here when it's finished - and that only for discussion.

Take care and thanks again.

Rosie.

[Guruji]

Negative Dominant wave generator

Hi Murakami about that circuit the negative dominant waveform generator is that a heater circuit too with 12v battery only or I did not understand it?
Thanks
Andrew

[Aaron]

almost same circuit

Andrew,

Yes - almost same circuit but I reduced power quite a bit to all controls
and choking power down on the 555 circuit caused it to go negative.

[Guruji]

Andrew,

Yes - almost same circuit but I reduced power quite a bit to all controls
and choking power down on the 555 circuit caused it to go negative.

Thanks for response Aaron. What are you reffering too when you said caused it to go negative? The heater still heat with same intensity as the common circuit?
I replicated one but used 1n4148 instead does it makes difference?
Thanks

[Aaron]

negative

Hi Andrew,

No. The inductive resistor dropped below room temperature as measured
by a platinum thermoprobe that is impervious to EMF. It is an accurate reading
and it dropped down to 2C below room at the most. And the net draw from
the battery was a net negative showing more was going back to the battery
than leaving.

The entire load side was cold like that and the entire timer 555 side had
some warmth.

[witsend]

The time frame is still wrong, when i read a circuit that produces overunity results. - Naked Scientists Discussion Forum that arise ALOT of question on who make the circuit that you showed to those companies.

Best Regards,
EgmQC

Still don't get it. From memory I was roundly attacked at Naked Scientist forum for proposing that the circuit could work at all. And I was then proposing that they did a replication to disprove it. But I never claimed ignorance of the objects of that circuit and nor did I EVER claim that I did not put the circuit together. In terms of the time frame - the tests I did were way back before 2002. I only found the internet last year. I'm that slow. And I only found this thread around July last year. And at the beginning of last year I did a brief revisit to that experiment because I needed help with submitting a paper to the IET. What are you actually saying? That I had no part in the circuit? I assure you I have spent more man hours on that circuit than I care to remember. It was long and hard and difficult. From all aspects. I usually worked in conjunction with a technician. But I have no option. My eyesight is not that good. I don't have to explain this. Good heavens.

And there are absolutely NO questions relating to who built that circuit. Show me one! The only questions were to the feasibility of the claim. Actually the only questions were that I - a supposed beginner - could come up the concepts - especially as the related to the timer. Fair comment. I admitted to an early ignorance. But surely? That does not mean that I couldn't and did learn. And the quantum paper and the circuit I believe were the reference on that thread.

[FuzzyTomCat]

Research and Development - HAS MOVED

Hi Everyone,

The "Research and Development" of the Mosfet Heating Circuit has been moved to a Sub-Forum thread here at Energetic.

http://www.energeticforum.com/renewa...ead.php?t=5359

This new thread which is entirely made for public viewing "BUT" is by *invitation* "ONLY" on posting is to keep the thread on topic.

All that have participated in making replications have already been given access .... if you possibly been forgotten or want to be included please follow the instructions posted there.

Thanks for your participation and support !!

Glen


P.S. - *invitation* - PM to ask for posting if you can't .... most all participating members were already pre-approved

[Guruji]

Heater is working

Hi Andrew,

No. The inductive resistor dropped below room temperature as measured
by a platinum thermoprobe that is impervious to EMF. It is an accurate reading
and it dropped down to 2C below room at the most. And the net draw from
the battery was a net negative showing more was going back to the battery
than leaving.

The entire load side was cold like that and the entire timer 555 side had
some warmth.

Hi Aaron heater is working . Last night I was tweaking with the pots and the resistor came hot . I am using that circuit of yours Aaron and mine was heating up. I noticed that there is a small window in pot adjustment when heat comes and this happens when there is a slight of voltage drop on my DMM.
It is true that is a bit difficult without a scope but with patience to the adjusting pots while being aware of the voltage drop one can do it.
Thanks
Andrew

[witsend]

Guys, apparently this is now the ruling regarding this thread. I was hoping to 'unlock' the previous thread. I have now been informed that this is not going to happen. The previous is to remain archived. I actually agree with this ruling. It would be a shame to expose any of that information to potential corruption.

So. I was hoping this would be redundant. It now seems that this is actually the only repository for the Mosfet Heating circuit and any developments in that direction. It is entirely open for discussion - back on topic - and anyone may post here without restrictions.

I will see what I can do about getting the lastest aborted paper published on scribd. At the moment Glen has complained to the administrators of Scribd that I'm trying to advance this as my own work and that it's plagiarised. Therefore - until the matter is cleared it'll not be available to you all. I'll find out how I can get this problem fixed.