COP 17 Heater | Rosemary Ainslie

[DrStiffler]

Run with oscillation

This is of course not what I should be doing, but I wanted to see if that 50V hash would do something that would not make sense.

Anyway as it turns out it is 'ho hum', here is the data from the run, 31.4% eff. is what one might expect, but more to come that we do not expect.

Tmin qa qc Vs Is Q = c m dq ein (J) CEC
0 26.4 28.50 12.00 0.022
10 26.3 29.90 12.00 0.020 117.236 151.200
20 26.3 30.02 12.00 0.018 10.049 136.800
30 26.5 31.00 12.00 0.018 82.065 129.600
40 25.8 31.90 12.00 0.018 75.366 129.600
50 26.3 32.00 12.00 0.018 8.374 129.600
60 25.6 32.00 12.00 0.018 0.000 129.600
70 26.0 32.50 12.00 0.018 41.870 129.600
80 25.4 32.50 12.00 0.018 0.000 129.600

334.960 1065.600 0.314339339

Gate pulse was 37uS and the Drain pulse was 72uS

Sorry the Greek symbols do not come across, but qa is the ambient temp, qc is the cell temp and of course Vs and Is need no further. What is so very interesting is that first 10 minutes.

[DrStiffler]

Moving closer

From ~1.5'C in 10 min to 1'C in four minutes, now it starts to look a bit better.

Included is a scope shot of the last run.

[Justalabrat]

I see that it is futile to attempt to have an actual dialog or discussion on this forum, so until that situation improves this will be my last posting.

Here is a summary of my findings and opinions in this matter:

1) The Ainslie circuit as described in the Quantum article produces a 96.3 percent ON duty cycle at 2.4 kHz and with the component values specified cannot be made to produce a 3.7 percent ON duty cycle.
2) This high ON duty cycle produces heating in my load that is similar to the heating reported by Ainslie in her papers.
3) When the circuit is triggered by a function generator or a properly-made 555 circuit at a true known 3.7 percent ON duty cycle, no heating of the load or the mosfet is evident. This finding seems to be independent of the MOSFET used, although I have not been able to find the exact mosfet she used, the IRFPG50. I used IRFP450, 2SK1548, 2SK5138. All gave similar results, with the exception that the IRFP450 showed long turn-off times on the order of 2x gate pulse width at the short input cycles.
4) All mosfets could be made to show inductive spikes, ringdown and parasitic oscillations, but none showed "chaotic" or "random" oscillations as described in the Ainslie papers. It is my opinion at this point that she was seeing false triggering of her oscilloscope and interpreting it as random oscillation.
5) Because of the error in duty cycle, the power calculations in the Ainslie paper, which were done "by spreadsheet" (instead of by the Fluke software integration routines, apparently) are also in error.
6) It has been maintained that my findings show, not an error in the OU calculations, but rather an error in the published circuit diagram of Ainslie. I reject this explanation because an error in the diagram would not have produced a functioning timer, and for other good reasons.
7) Regardless of whether the error is in the diagram itself or in the duty cycle used in the experiment, the paper is wrong and should be corrected, if the diagram is at fault, or retracted, if the duty cycle (as I believe) is at fault.

Nice work TK!

[Allcanadian]

Nice work indeed, TK has managed to kill this topic through repetitious posting---in no less than two forums, LOL. No matter, the facts always have a way of disclosing themselves when their time has come.
Regards
AC

[SkyWatcher]

Hi AllCanadian, I was going to say the same thing. It seems to be a common occurrence in the energy forums lately, the so called controllers must be getting concerned. And yes there is no stopping the world of abundance that is to come and that includes free energy.

[DrStiffler]

Hi AllCanadian, I was going to say the same thing. It seems to be a common occurrence in the energy forums lately, the so called controllers must be getting concerned. And yes there is no stopping the world of abundance that is to come and that includes free energy.

@SkyWatcher & AllCanadian

What is that saying? 'Ignorance is bliss'? Now we have Penguin Debunkers

Sorry for them all that the illusion they see in the mirror is their reality.

[RAMSET]

Gentlemen
Tk's is the only replication [or attempt]of Rosemarys' circuit in this thread
If you have information that would assist in getting better results ,Please share !! He seems quite anxious to share/discuss ,but nobody wants to discuss this with him
One good thing ,a fellow from Norway showed up on the thread at OU
and says he will be posting a build with part#s soup to nuts COP< 2-5[next week] I believe based on Rosemaries patent APPLICATION
Chet
PS I will be sure to share the link here

[TinselKoala]

Does the Quantum article contain a misprinted circuit diagram or not?

If so:
Why hasn't it been corrected? What is the correct diagram? Why does the "misprinted" diagram produce the heating behaviour described, if it's wrong? How are replicators supposed to replicate if the published diagram is wrong?

If not:
What is the explanation for the inverted duty cycle that the circuit produces? What is the effect of using the Correct duty cycle figures on the energy input/output calculations? If the values in the paper were obtained using the published circuit, why haven't they been retracted, since they are wrong?

It isn't me who "killed" two threads. I'm just asking questions and looking for answers that make sense. If nobody's got answers--then perhaps it is they who have killed the threads.

(And, DrStiffler, you still have your scope shots labelled incorrectly. Where it says "0.2 volts" shouldn't it say "2.0 volts" since your vertical scale is at 20 v/div and that peak is 1/2 division below the "12 volt" peak...and 12 minus 10 is 2, not 0.2 ... but what do I know, right, Ignorance is Bliss...)

[Mark]

Ramset I think you need to read this thread from the beginning.

[RAMSET]

Mark
Perhaps I am naive,when Peter and Aaron first posted this circuit I was quite excited to see it verified [still am]
Some folks here seem to know things about this that they are not willing to discuss.
Or are they willing to let TK's replication/findings be the final word?
If there is some history here [bad feelings etc...] between members ,what a shame to have it come to light at this time!
I can not fathom a reason to hold back productive comments on this circuit
Isn't that why you are here?
A guy takes the time and effort to replicate a posted circuit,and people throw stones [instead of roses]
Guy's that have the ability to replicate are a great resource for this community.
Guy's that have the ability to comment on those replications are just as important.
YOUR SILENCE IS DEAFENING
Chet

[Armagdn03]

just speculation,

But it seems like here, the strict replication is what people are interested in and after. Really, I haven't done many, if any replications, only experiments. But maybe a discussion on why this circuit works, how it should best be built if no component values were provided etc.

[DrStiffler]

just speculation,

But it seems like here, the strict replication is what people are interested in and after. Really, I haven't done many, if any replications, only experiments. But maybe a discussion on why this circuit works, how it should best be built if no component values were provided etc.

@Rosemary Ainslie & @Armagdn03

If you are watching this thread would it be possible for you to contact me at stifflerscientific at embarqmail dot com. I have a question about the problem of the R value increasing due to its own heating. It appears after many runs that a built in limitation is present that is influenced by the changing R more so than the lack of higher currents for greater heating.

[RAMSET]

ArMagdn03
Hopefully the retired EE [33yrs] from Norway will put this on the fast Track next week.He is in contact with user Groundloop From OU [THE RIGHT STUFF] about the details now
Chet
PS ArMagdn03 love your work!!,and your approach [to solving this]

[Aaron]

replicate self oscillating mosfet

Also, am I correct in what I have read so far in this thread that nobody has been able to get the mosfet into self-oscillation?

From the Quantum article: "Reducing the gate current of the mosfet results in an oscillation that overrides the predetermined frequency and duty cycle."

So basically increasing resistance to the base until it self-oscillates just like in any Bedini type circuit or similar with a transistor - to my understanding of her explanation.

The self-oscillation is said to have this difference:
From 3.7% duty cycle @ 2.4 kHz to 1.3% duty cycle @ 143 kHz to 200 kHz

I just quoted myself. lol

Anyway, the Quantum article seems to state that the self oscillation deal as described above is where the magic happens and I'm not sure if this has been replicated yet.

[TinselKoala]

I just quoted myself. lol

Anyway, the Quantum article seems to state that the self oscillation deal as described above is where the magic happens and I'm not sure if this has been replicated yet.

These data in the Quantum paper are taken from the ScopeMeter Fluke 199's readouts. I have tested the Fluke 199 scopemeter on the Ainslie circuit, in parallel with my analog oscilloscopes. I have looked at the behavior of 4 different MOSFETs in the circuit. (No, I still don't have an IRFPG50, unfortunately. I am mostly still using the 2SK1548.)
The increased frequency reported by the FLUKE is easy to replicate. Unfortunately it isn't telling you the real frequency of the pulses at that point. The reduced duty cycle reading is also an easily-replicable Fluke anomaly, caused by reading the "shoulders" of the mosfet's pulse. I have reproduced both of these behaviours on the Fluke 199. The analog scopes are less sensitive to this sort of thing.

The Quantum article is wrong, the heating happens because the mosfet in the published circuit is ON almost 100 percent of the time. Making claims about short duty cycles and increased frequencies doesn't change that fact.