COP 17 Heater | Rosemary Ainslie

[Hoppy]

Rosemary,

I have taken a quick read of your report and have an initial question. You say that the experiment was conducted over a 16.5 hr period to determine the rate at which 2 x 12 Volt batteries discharged their energy. Are you aware that a battery can raise its potential or stay reasonably constant under load for considerable periods of time, depending on its condition prior to discharge?

Hoppy

[RAMSET]

Jolt's post

Jolt
I personally never took your comment wrong [your words were clear ]
" It works"
I am not qualified to comment on your post ,as i have not built the circuit[your point has been clarified at OU [by you]
I assure you I am no villain and only seek to spread the good ,as Skywatcher has stated The FE OU techs are out there, just in the wrong hands or we would all be using them everyday
Rosemary
just edit your posts
Chet

[witsend]

Notwithstanding my apology to TinselKoala and others that the 555 circuitry was wrong - I've now been assured that it was, in fact, correct. I'm in the happy postion therefore of retracting my apology. I'm reasonably certain that Joit's representations will either not be acknowledged or not believed, but either way - TinselKoala has now lost all credibility in this matter.

I was going to marshall the evidence to prove not only a prejudice but the deliberate distortions that TinselKoala either alluded to, or specifically referenced or simply challenged us to refute. However it is possible that this was required as a function of his interests in any of these forums that look into overunity claims. Happily I don't need to prepare that schedule. We know the facts. And Aaron's instincts in this regard were unerring.

I think we must remember that there are those out there who's mission in life is to discredit any over unity claim. There are those who simply do not believe it possible, those who are prepared to argue it, those who know that over unity is possible and those who are prepared to fight to prove it. I think we can accommodate all such opinions on this thread excepting those in the very first category. They're toxic. Fortunately these detractors grossly underestimate our general intelligence or the expert opinion that is available to us from both within and outside this forum.

I'm relying on Ramset to post this in Overunity.com. EDIT I've deleted a previous point as I'm not in a position to recommend it and nor do I think it necessarily a good point.

[witsend]

Rosemary,

I have taken a quick read of your report and have an initial question. You say that the experiment was conducted over a 16.5 hr period to determine the rate at which 2 x 12 Volt batteries discharged their energy. Are you aware that a battery can raise its potential or stay reasonably constant under load for considerable periods of time, depending on its condition prior to discharge?

Hoppy

Indeed. We were specifically denied the opportunity of comparing battery draw down rates because apparently any such is based on battery vagaries. It's mentioned in the paper. The experiment was conducted with a control. We stopped the test when the control batteries were depleted. But neither Quantum nor the paper prepared for the IET were prepared to look at that evidence. It was therefore omitted. We simply therefore showed the draw down rate on the tested batteries as added data.

[RAMSET]

RE post

Rosemary
As you wish
Chet

[witsend]

Cloxxki - I see you pop in and out of this thread on a regular basis. I do hope that you still read it. I have a very big favour to ask of you. Could you - with your contacts at the international patenting office - I think it's in Geneva - could you see if you could get a copy of their letters to me offering me registration of the patent? And then could you please post it on this thread? I would be very grateful. If this point could be cleared then I think we'd have covered the most of TinselKoala's basis of attack.

I believe all aspect of a patent application are public property. But I may be mistaken. If you need official permission I'll see if my attorney can help you.

Kind regards,
Rosemary Ainslie
EDIT there is no point in my doing this as there would be an evident bias and an evident interference with the facts.

[Hoppy]

Indeed. We were specifically denied the opportunity of comparing battery draw down rates because apparently any such is based on battery vagaries. It's mentioned in the paper. The experiment was conducted with a control. We stopped the test when the control batteries were depleted. But neither Quantum nor the paper prepared for the IET were prepared to look at that evidence. It was therefore omitted. We simply therefore showed the draw down rate on the tested batteries as added data.

I'm not sure I understand what you are saying. The report states that the wattage measured to have been delivered by the battery energy supply source was 1.13 Watts * 997 minutes * 60 seconds being 67596 joules. This is clearly taking the time between the highest and lowest voltages recorded to calculate the total energy delivered by the battery. My concern is the wild fluctuations in voltages read between logs e.g: -

Between 19.00 and 20.00 (60 mins) there was a 0.3V rise in terminal volts.
Between 21.02 and 22.01 (59 mins) there was a 0.1V rise in terminal volts.
Between 23.02 and 24.00 (58 mins) there was zero rise in terminal volts!
Between 09.30 and 09.53 (23 mins) there was 0.14V rise in terminal volts.

A battery in good condition, discharging between 24.80V and 24.30V should not be discharging as erratically as this and it suggests to me that it was either damaged, a poor battery connection, or the measuring instrument was faulty.

Hoppy

[witsend]

Hoppy,
Sorry - I misunderstood you. We simply recorded the battery voltage to establish wattage and therefore the joules delivered throughout the test period. We omitted reference to the control which batteries, dissipating the same heat on a load in series with the batteries and no switch - those batteries were entirely discharged. That's when we stopped our test. Then, the editor at Quantum would not let us add that fact of the control as proof of the test. And we could not therefore reference it in our paper to the IET. But the test period was not arbitrary. It was determined by a control that we could not reference.

EDIT - hardly erratic. It hardly discharged voltage over the entire test period. Very stable in fact. I've run hundreds of battery draw down tests and I assure you that this is a typical discharge on our switching circuit albeit atypical from a straight source without our circuit. This is something that I've become a bit of an authority about as I had to do repeated tests for BP (SA) to solicit their accreditation.

[gotoluc]

For your entertainment and or correcting my understanding.

The below was posted by a YouTube user that I had been believing to be an engineer.

Posted by Drevtoobe (1 day ago)
Hey Luc, just a few pointers on measurement techniques for your consideration. For your temperature measurements, everything is relative to the ambient temperature in the room. How hot the resistors are is not about their absolute temperature, it is about their temperature difference from the ambient temperature. All of the information is in the difference temperature. That gives you a sense of how much energy is being dissipated.
One of your big resistors is elevated in the air, and the other one is on your table top. The average experimenter might noght realise that this makes a huge difference in your temperature comparisons between the two resistors. To make the comparison fairer the resistor on the table should also have been elevated in the air.

When you elevate the second resistor, then both electrical resistors with then have a comparable "thermal resistance" to the external environment.

Posted by gotoluc (1 hour ago)
I agree with what you are saying but that is not what is causing the huge differences.

Do you want me to do a video to prove to you how insignificant of a different what you are saying will do?... it will be a pleasure! others will see what a joke this HUGE difference you are imagining this will be.

Luc

Posted by Drevtoobe (6 hours ago)
Luc: Yes, the second resistor is hotter than the first resistor because the first resistor is not showing you all of the energy being supplied by the battery. Look at your schematic, when Q1 switches on, at the beggining, most of the battery energy is being stored in L1, and a smaller amount is being dissipated in R1. When Q1 switches off R1 does nothing and L1 pumps all of it's stored energy into R2, it discharges. You absolutely have to understand this to advance.

Posted by gotoluc (1 hour ago)
Drevtoobe, your arguments are becoming weak! Here are your explanations with my Yes or No replies at the end.

#1, Q1 switches on, Yes!

#2, energy is being stored in L1, Yes!

#3, a smaller amount is being dissipated in R1, No!

#4, When Q1 switches off R1 does nothing, Yes!

#5, L1 pumps all of it's stored energy into R2, Yes and more also.

#3 if all the energy that is stored in L1 is first going through R1 then that amount of energy will be affected by the Resistance of R1 and will heat the resistance of R1. You cannot bypass the energy that is FIRST going though R1 which IS THE SAME Resistance as R2 and dissipate it in R2 and say R2 is heating more because some of that same amount of energy that FIRST went through R1 was able to bypass the resistance of R1. Do you realize how absurd of an argument this is!

#5, are you also considering that when Q1 is switched off and L1 is sending back all its stored energy though R2 which is outputting more heat then R1, the first resistor that SAME AMOUNT OF ENERGY it had to go though (which you believe to be normal) but you are forgetting that some of the energy makes it through R2 and goes BACK in L1 and keeps a one pound magnet levitating! So in fact I'm not even close to dissipating all the energy in R2 that was able to mysteriously slip through R1.

Luc


To everyone: I am open to corrections if I'm not understanding correctly.

[Hoppy]

Hoppy,
Sorry - I misunderstood you. We simply recorded the battery voltage to establish wattage and therefore the joules delivered throughout the test period. We omitted reference to the control which batteries, dissipating the same heat on a load in series with the batteries and no switch - those batteries were entirely discharged. That's when we stopped our test. Then, the editor at Quantum would not let us add that fact of the control as proof of the test. And we could not therefore reference it in our paper to the IET. But the test period was not arbitrary. It was determined by a control that we could not reference.

EDIT - hardly erratic. It hardly discharged voltage over the entire test period. Very stable in fact. I've run hundreds of battery draw down tests and I assure you that this is a typical discharge on our switching circuit albeit atypical from a straight source without our circuit. This is something that I become a bit of an authority about as I had to do repeated tests for BP (SA) to solicit their accreditation.

With respect, the figures you show in your report are the ones people take notice of and they are erratic! I accept that this may be the norm with your setup and could be indicating something special is going on but it could also be down to something more down to earth. This aside, I should only be commenting on your method, not results and in this respect, I have found battery load testing to be very difficult and results extremely variable depending on battery condition (State of Charge). It is not a method that will convice the proffs. I will build your circuit when I have the time in a couple of weeks time to see if I get similar results.

Hoppy

[witsend]

Hoppy have just seen your post. Hope you get this one. The erratic nature of the battery - I take it that you're referring to the 'recharge' instead of immediate discharge. It's a feature of the circuit as mentioned. However, I was only hoping you'd comment on the measurement protocol - in other words the way we established the energy delivered by the battery.

Could you comment on this. And thank you for undertaking to do the tests.

Kindest regards,
Rosemary

[witsend]

gotoluc - Drevtoobe's argument can be justified in terms of classical analysis. But what cannot be argued is the fact that the circuit is dissipating more heat than has been delivered by the battery. Even Hoppy concedes that there is a difference. He suggests this is in heat over your inductor. If you can prove that this is at ambient or thereby and check the actual heat on the MOSFET - and then no-one should be able to argue a gain.

PLEASE put the link to the video back in your next post. I think we're one short demo from FINAL PROOF.

Can't wait.
Rosemary

[Hoppy]

@ witsend

I need to say that I do understand your reply - "We simply recorded the battery voltage to establish wattage and therefore the joules delivered throughout the test period." However, the average voltage you use to calculate the wattage needs to account for the voltage variance over the whole period of the test. A valid average value can only be determined by accepting that the battery is not malfunctioning, or the volmeter taking the readings is prone to give false readings because of the 'radiant' field present. Have you satisfied yourself that all of the the battery cells are healthy and have you used different battery sets in subsequent tests to compare results? I would also suggest that you run a load test with the batteries fully charged and one with the battery set at a rest voltage of say 12.00V and compare / report the overall results. As you know a battery does not have a linear charge or discharge curve, so the voltage you derive as average for calculating the wattage, could be very different depending on the battery SOC and physical condition.

Hoppy

[witsend]

I get it. Yes indeed. Let me see if I can make this clear. We always ran our tests on 4 or 2 batteries - depending on the dissipation required. 4 means 2 x 24 volts tests. 2 means 1 x 12 volt tests. Both tests always run in conjunction with each other - ie control and experiment. When the test period is completed both batteries swapped - test to control and vice versa. Both battery sets recharged and the same test repeated. That's on EVERY test. And each test had precisely the same battery types so we could compare apples with apples.

Hope that makes it clearer. The battery draw down rate - or amperage from the supply appears to be consistent with the sum of the voltage across the shunt * vbatt.

EDIT In order to solicit BP's accreditation we had to first prove the results through this methodology. It was pretty comprehensive but cost me many hours of really boring testing.

[gotoluc]

gotoluc - Drevtoobe's argument can be justified in terms of classical analysis. But what cannot be argued is the fact that the circuit is dissipating more heat than has been delivered by the battery. Even Hoppy concedes that there is a difference. He suggests this is in heat over your inductor. If you can prove that this is at ambient or thereby and check the actual heat on the MOSFET - and then no-one should be able to argue a gain.

PLEASE put the link to the video back in your next post. I think we're one short demo from FINAL PROOF.

Can't wait.
Rosemary

Hi Rosemary, you know what! I don't even have a grade 10. I quit school on the day of my 16th birthday since I could never learn the way they teach. What I know now at 47 was mainly tough from my life experience. Two years ago I didn't know anything about electronics. Again, what I know today is mainly based on my doing experiments, observing the effect, sharing what I find as interesting and integrating.

I tell you this so you are aware of this fact and also to tell you that as much as EE explain to me the "classical analysis methods" I just don't get them or understand why they are so stuck on doing it only this way. Just one of those thing that go over my head.

Prior to coming to your topic and knowing what was going on here I was noticing that when I re-circulated the flyback the mosfet dramatically dropped in temperature and the inductor started heating up. That's why it was so easy for me to conclude that If I add a resistor on the flyback side pre the input to the coil the resistor would be able to catch that heat energy and the inductor may still be able to do work. Turns out my feeling was right! I like it when that happens

I'm not so clear about your post above. Are you asking me to do a new video?

Luc