COP 17 Heater | Rosemary Ainslie

[Aaron]

IRFPG50 Unclamed Inductive Test Circuit

Hi Harvey,

Here is that pic straight from the datasheet for the IRFPG50.

[witsend]

MileHigh
Advancing science is all about having a debate and defending your opinion.
Not at all. Advancing science needs replicable experimental evidence in support of an hypothesis

It is readilly aparent that you and Rosemary are ready to take any leap and embrace any form of unscrutinized suspect data if you think it advances Rosemary's proposition.
What do you mean by 'unscrutinised'? All data presented by Aaron not only was scrutinised but put on offer for everyone else's scrutiny. And exactly what makes it 'suspect'? Are you insinuating that Aaron tampered with the data?

Regarding ringing - spikes, all that happens when the battery is effectively disconnected from the circuit - that is the object of this study. And regarding the requirement for yet more shunts to be added - why? If you are curious to see this maybe do the test yourself? It will prove nothing. Our argument is that the current flow is reversed through the spike and travels 'backwards' or anti clockwise so to speak. The only way to test this is to check the actual drawdown rate of the battery.

if the new shunt resistor shows little or no activity, that shows that the battery is not recharging during the ringing and the ringing is just ringing in the wire itself, and has nothing to do with the battery.
I have no idea what you mean by this. I do not think that anyone is claiming that a voltage below the source battery voltage can recharge. But are you saying that ringing has no energy?

In a similar fashion, I suggested that you try putting different resistors in series with the flyback diode while you monitor the voltage across the coil-resistor (same as diode + extra resistor) while the circuit runs. The intent here is to see if the coil-resistor will discharge through the diode + extra resistor as per the inductive laws.
It is my opinion here that you're proposing to obviate the effect of the 'spike' voltage required for recharging the battery by blocking it with higher resistance. Why? Are you trying to reduce the value of the voltage in the spike in order to prevent the recharge. It's understood that the spike voltage must be greater than the supply source voltage. It's like saying 'I believe you could, perhaps, run this course, but can you do it without legs?'

The coil-resistor is 10 ohms. I said in the past that when the coil-resistor discharges you will only see 0.6 volts across it when it discharges.
0.6 volts? Is that a percentage? If it is intended as a percentage then it's wrong. And even if it isn't it's a waste of time. It proves nothing. Do the test. You'll see for yourself.

...Following this logic, ...
With respect that was not logical.

Like I say MileHigh. You are setting us a test that will kill the 'effect' needed - to prove that the effect is not there. It is like Poynt testing results on a simulator that is designed to never record OU. And you both propose this unabashedly. Extraordinary. You seem to have a lot to say about Aaron's skills. Where are your own. Are you - at least - capable of doing the tests that you propose Aaron conduct for you while you lean back in that armchair? If so, then do them. I don't think we need to waste our time.

That also applies to Rosemary. You should be open to input from myself and others about how to go about investigating this circuit further.
Just hang on one very long minute here MileHigh. Until I know your credentials then - quite frankly - I prefer to follow the protocal required by experts. We already have these to hand.

You and Rosemary are all excited about all of the resonances that you see in the wires, when in fact all of that is a layer of noise dropped on top of the actual operation of the circuit.
Final measurements will determine this. Not your assumptions here.

Incidentialy, did you notice the curves in TK's temp vs. time graph that show COP < 1.
Did you notice the wattage analysis related to the power delivered by the battery? I didn't. I kept looking but I never saw this.

The following passionate interpretation of Nature in all her glory is - presumably - not intended as a scientific comment. As poetry it's not up to much. As an observation it's tediously repetitive. It is my opinion that the extraordinary lengths that have been employed by mainstream to account for the movement of stored energy - will one day be seen as a blot on the otherwise proud history of our scientific development.

[MileHigh]

Rosemary, at risk of wrath I will respond briefly. Step out of the field and look back at my postings and you know that I don't have to offer up any cedentials, why such rhetoric? As far as your so-called "experts" go that were involved with the writing of your paper, I took a second look at it. I noticed that there was no precise measurement made for value of the shunt resistor. How is it possible that the "experts" did not do this? The description of understanding how Nature works in all her glory *is* scientific, going back to Isaac Newton and Gottfried Leibniz in the 17th century and the development of calculus. The fact that you think it is poetry says it all. It goes right back to the Renaissance and the foundations of Western culture. I can make a great viewing recommendation for you. Try to find the Carl Sagan "Cosmos" series from 1980 and look at all twelve episodes. If you haven't seen it you should find it fascinating.

To Aaron: I really am checking out now, waiting for this thing to end.

[witsend]

Mike - your post 1487
Help me out here. Are you saying that we need to add voltage to increase the effects of the ringing and that this would be enhanced by using a secondary coil as in a transformer?

I think I can comment - but probably not with the accuracy you probably need. But here's my tuppence worth. The circuit design was only intended to prove the effect without any extraneous coils. In point of fact I've always used some extraneous inductive load in all previous tests. It just confused the argument. By using a single resistor and it's own inductance - we managed to get to the heart of the argument. This is because the input power could then be measured against a single laod. Nothing else. Like you say, we could use Kirchoff's Laws.

But the use of inductive coils, primaries, secondaries, - heavens, my own coil for testing has 6 separate windings - all advance the resonance and the results - both. The gains are not, in any way, restricted to the results we achieved. It's the added inductance that will determine the upper limits here. And you're right. I'm reasonably confident that Aaron et al will improve even on those published.

What surprised all of us, on this test, is that we found that aperiodic waveform that gave us our best level of return yet. That's all. We expected to record smaller but unequivocal gains. Instead of which we found - by chance I might add, a resonance that added to the heat and appeared to keep battery voltage virtually stable.

But here's the thing. We need to keep focus on replication. Once that's done, then I think this thread will be so active it will need to be split. This is because the guys on this thread have been advancing a whole lot of applications and replicated tests without actually being able to measure the actual power used - delivered - regenerated - whatever. With access to specialised measuring equipment - and with Aaron's and Peter's input - they'll be able to catch up.

If you are trying to ecompass the actual thrust of this methodology - then. my take, for what it's worth. The flux fields are apparent with 'fire'. Show a spark and you're looking at zipons that have 'slowed down' to the speed of light and have lost momentum and gained heat in a perfectly balanced ratio. As a rule these fields bind all amalgams - and they are perfectly neutral so undetectable. But they sit between and around all atoms in all bound amalgams. They can be induced to move through space and transfer their force thereby. We have, historically, transferred them through 'fire'. But that's relatively crude.

But so is our generation of electric current somewhat crude. Even with all these devices. The actual progress of this technology will, eventually, rest with magnet on magnet field interactions - in my humble opinion. But for now, the object is to simply get the OU barrier down. Then - by all means - lets explore better ways. I'm entirely satisfied that the contributors in this thread will show ways that are far better than anything proven in our little test circuit.

And I do think - in answer to your earlier comments - that this is just a means to 'open' the door to this energy field. My own personal opinion is that the potential has always been there - identified by Peter - Aaron - et al. But the key to unlocking this with more real impact is in the technology of Terrance S McGrath and his type of inventions. What I cannot understand is that the patent is so limited in its applications if he indeed, has the same model as I have.

[Aaron]

diagram correction

Hi Everyone,

With sleep deprivation and spark gaps on the mind from all the Gray projects, I put the mosfet in between the battery and load in my little diagram here - this is CORRECTED so the load is connected directly to the battery - it switches on the negative exactly like the SG circuits.

I apologize for any confusion. ASH - please use this one in your document.

[rave154]

Aaron,

ive got hold of 3 IRF740's

they seem very comparable to the mosfet youre using, avalanche rated, diode inside etc.... will it suffice you think?

David. D

[Aaron]

ringing

The ringing is a dance between the battery and the inductor and occurs because there is no where for the energy to go. A fully charged battery will have a more dramatic effect. When the reactance of the inductor and the battery are matched, the two will be in resonance and the combined load seems to drop to zero resistance. Evidently in Rosemary's circuit, the resonant frequency of those components was around 143KHz. You can pull the rope on a bell in the bell tower once every 10 seconds, but that bell is still going to ring at its resonant frequency - and you can hit Rosemary's circuit with 2.4Khz but that inductor is still going to ring at 143KHz.

Since we suspect that the COP is a result of the ring energy, steps should be taken to enhance it.

Harvey, it does appear to be more dramatic at a higher charge in the battery. The fuller and stronger the charge the better.

With the bounce between battery and coil, does it then seem that higher impedance batteries are the way to go? Seems they would offer more of a tighter stretched trampoline to bounce off of for optimum pinging.

[Aaron]

Irf740

Aaron,

ive got hold of 3 IRF740's

they seem very comparable to the mosfet youre using, avalanche rated, diode inside etc.... will it suffice you think?

David. D

Hi David,

From what Harvey posted, it seems that if it has the avalanche rating, then it can do the high speed flicker. Harvey or someone else could comment better if they looked at the spec sheet to see how the specs compare to the IRFPG50 - as far as specs specific to the avalanche rating.

How much did you pay?

The IRFPG50 cost me about $6 each (that includes shipping) from Hong Kong.

I'm all for easier to get parts and lower price is bonus.

[Hoppy]

Your comments are no longer welcome here. Please leave. Go start a thread with Hoppy and express your opinions there.

There is no need for us to start a new thread because those you are refering are all well versed in the basics of EE. If we see people getting totally confused with what they are measuring, then we have every right to help them understand. If the non classicist wishes to to use the measuring instruments developed used by classicists and then make glaring measuring mistakes and interpretation errors, then it is foolish to ignore good advice and continue making mistakes. Luc is tripping up over and over again with just the basics! If people wish to reject classical EE principles, I suggest they go to college first to understand them properly before making that decision and not just listening and having blind faith in the opinions of others. Rosemary has the strength to admit that she is shaky and calls for other peoples opinions; I admire this.

If you continue to stifle classicists from commenting when they see glaring measuring mistakes and interpretation errors being made by others, then you are doing a disservice to your members. If you want to avoid this constant annoyance, then either throw the 'troublemakers' off your forum, or develop your own exotic measuring instruments.

Finally, please reject the silly conspiracy theory attitude that the classicists have joined your forum as 'MIB' to somehow supress the furtherance of free energy debate. The 'authorities' are more likely laughing aloud that there are so many people on the various FE forums that are clueless about EE principles and yet have the audacity to join the 'movement' to prove them not fit for purpose.

Hoppy

[FuzzyTomCat]

Hi everyone,

Here are some PDF's for reference -

International Rectifier - IRFPG50

Possible Substitutions

Fairchild Semiconductor - FQH8N100C
Fairchild Semiconductor - FQAF11N90C

Regards,
Glen

[Aaron]

TK's new video

Here is TK's new video:

YouTube - Electric OU: Capacitor Charging with the Ainslie Circuit

Here is the description:

--------------------------------------------------------

In which I show a capacitor receiving charge from the running battery through the Ainslie circuit, at a higher voltage, due to the spiky ringdown when the mosfet switches off the current to the load. This represents energy stored in the inductance's magnetic field which is released as the field collapses. A comparison of recirculation diodes and the mosfets shows that faster switching is better, if you like spikes and voltage.

The energy came from the battery in the first place; it can be made to slosh around through the load resistance until it is all dissipated as heat, or it can be "siphoned" off by connecting the recirculation diode to an external capacitor or battery, or it can even be returned to the running battery, slowing its rate of discharge.

It can't create any energy that wasn't in the running battery in the first place, unfortunately.

If you take the input power to the Ainslie circuit and compare its heat output to a DC circuit, the Ainslie circuit makes less heat at the same power levels. The difference is dissipated in other circuit components, is siphoned off to charge a battery, or is due to an overestimate of the input power in the first place because of the recirculation current.

-------------------------------

You can see he is showing a cap getting charged to a higher voltage than battery that is sufficient to charge a battery. I already showed this what seems to be weeks ago - I showed a cap charge to 36v - but we already know all of this and I think Jetijs did the test too.

But at least he is admitting this now and this completely flies in the face of what the local skeptics claim - their own peer - proving them wrong. The spike is not insignificant and it does give enough to charge a cap or battery - even the front battery reducing the draw down rate.

His test of the MUR1100E diode is a good test showing it is superior to the 1N4007. I will probably get some but I'll test my 6A100 diodes first since I have tons of them from the Gray experiments.

However, the 2SK1548 may be faster than the IRFPG50 for standard switching but EVERYONE - PLEASE DO NOT BE DUPED BY THIS. Check the datasheet:
http://www.dzjsw.com/cxyg/2/2SK1548.pdf

It specifically says it is :
AVALANCHE PROOF

So subtle yet so blatant. Anyway, MUR1100E probably a good idea. But the recommended mosfet by TK, the 2SK1548 will ensure that your mosfet will NEVER go into oscillation. Stay FAR AWAY from this recommendation.

Interesting how this is posted so soon after Harvey's discovery.

Make sure any mosfet you use has the "Repetitive Avalanche Rated" information on the datasheets!

[Aaron]

@hoppy

If we see people getting totally confused with what they are measuring, then we have every right to help them understand. If the non classicist wishes to to use the measuring instruments developed used by classicists and then make glaring measuring mistakes and interpretation errors, then it is foolish to ignore good advice and continue making mistakes. Luc is tripping up over and over again with just the basics! If people wish to reject classical EE principles, I suggest they go to college first to understand them properly before making that decision for and not just listening and believing others.

Harvey appears to have a strong background in classical EE and I have no problem listening to his posts as they contribute something valuable to the progress of this thread.

I know other EE's that I talk to behind the scenes because they have knowledge and experience that I don't have.

But if you think it does any good trying to convince anyone here that the spike is insignificant (MH and 99 sure did and you seem to be on the same team), etc... it can't go back to the front battery and a bunch of nonsense over and over.... all those comments don't show me what you know. It shows what you don't know.

Can't have more in than out, etc... and virtually every recommendation that you, poynt99 and MH have made are VERY carefully crafted to reduce the effectiveness of the circuit. I know enough about electronics and components that I can see this very clearly. You appear to want to help but it is sabotage plain and simple. Now add TK to the list for the umpteenth time as he now specifically recommends a mosfet that is oscillation proof!

You guys, whoever you are that hide anonymously behind usernames, please give up but on your misinformation campaigns. That age is over.

And you have not been able demonstrate a working knowledge of is non-classical behaviour of circuits. And if you really do know, then you are hurting people because of the misinformation.

And no, you don't have a RIGHT to do anything here. This is a private forum and it is not a democracy. Anyone can be removed for violating the posting rules. This is our home and if someone comes into my house and pees on the rug, I'll walk them to the door. It is as simple as that and is is because of that - that this forum has such high integrity in the posts here, lots of empowering information, open sharing, no spam, etc...

We don't have to deal with skeptics that want to go around proving the world ends at the tip of their nose. It isn't productive, it isn't appreciated and it isn't going to happen here. If there is a skeptic here, they are welcome to start a thread on their skepticism but don't clutter productive threads with that.

If it is obvious that you are helping people with testing, that is one thing but all I have witnessed here is a very methodical operation going on between you, MH, Poynt99 and TK and even OC at ou.com to chip away at this project to plant seeds of doubt along the way.

Like I posted before on ou about this project.... the skeptics lost the game way before they ever started to play.

By the way, TK probably already really sees over 1.0 cop and this is why he isn't posting any power measurements. If you want to advance this cause and ensure that real science is being done - go keep TK accountable to his "results" and get him to post POWER MEASUREMENTS.

And if you or any of your "peers" want to be taken seriously, don't do it hiding behind an anonymous user name. Any immature child can throw eggs at a car from an overpass. If you have one single bit of confidence is ANYTHING you believe, post your real name and show a pic.

[rave154]

[Hoppy]

Aaron wrote: -

But if you think it does any good trying to convince anyone here that the spike is insignificant (MH and 99 sure did and you seem to be on the same team), etc... it can't go back to the front battery and a bunch of nonsense over and over.... all those comments don't show me what you know.

I'm not trying to convince anyone that the spike is insignificant. If I take half a pint out of a pint bottle and drink 90% of it. I can still put back 10% of the 50% originally taken out. Its just not a gain on input. No point arguing the toss on this one here, we already have an apples thread to do that in.

Hoppy

[witsend]

Aaron wrote: -

But if you think it does any good trying to convince anyone here that the spike is insignificant (MH and 99 sure did and you seem to be on the same team), etc... it can't go back to the front battery and a bunch of nonsense over and over.... all those comments don't show me what you know.

I'm not trying to convince anyone that the spike is insignificant. If I take half a pint out of a pint bottle and drink 90% of it. I can still put back 10% of the 50% originally taken out. Its just not a gain on input. No point arguing the toss on this one here, we already have an apples thread to do that in.

Hoppy

I keep trying to answer this and couldn't edit - so another attempt.

We have a test that empties the bottle and returns 16 bottles to the fridge. If it were a paltry 10% of 90% or 50% or whatever - then, indeed, we'd be arguing the point.