View Single Post
 
Old 02-02-2010, 09:47 AM
FuzzyTomCat's Avatar
FuzzyTomCat FuzzyTomCat is offline
Silver Member
 
Join Date: Jun 2008
Posts: 620
Send a message via Skype™ to FuzzyTomCat
Quote:
Originally Posted by witsend View Post
The broadside was just this. I never expected that this experiment would be considered the result of an anomaly. I understood ALWAYS that this would be considered the result of a prediction in terms of the thesis. This was privately challenged. I am now making it a public issue. Is this test of Glens the result of an entirely unpredicted event based on an unexpected fortutious assembly of experimental apparatus thrown together by chance - and based on no material pre-representations that justify any significant reference. Just that. Then I at least know how much I must still protect.
Your making a possible error in the thinking of the "Open Source" community seeing a published claim of a COP>17 is something huge the question is can you take the "as is" of all listed documented components with the schematic and make it work to achieve a COP>17 and in the Quantum October 2002 paper ..... I found you couldn't as many others have also found and documented.

This opinion is not based on a vision, dream or a prediction, to a experimenter it's the "results" of what was published that works and if it doesn't what happens usually it gets thrown into the round file with the rest of the high COP claims.

Some experimenters chose to pursue the published circuit that did not to operate under the specified parameters even with lacking data, oscilloscope images and no working model at all to replicate from. I had to basically reverse engineer the device using best guess techniques on some items to make a working model. But to this day still never with any modifications using the latest and greatest equipment that was and is graciously provided got the COP>17.

There are a few experimenters left that haven't given up on the circuit "concept" and with further possible modifications one of the biggest being the omission of the 555 timer battery and even a easier tuning method for the preferred mode of operation continue on.

I'm grateful to the Quantum article Rosemary was involved with, and Aaron for my interest in this circuit by publishing all the schematics including his own in "Open Forum" that assisted me to my results with my modifications plus with Harvey's help in the documentation phase on what may be required several such as the "Mesh Current" section in all of the IEEE submittals.

Engineers and Experimenters are "not" Academics we think and do totally different things.

Glen
__________________