COP 17 Heater | Rosemary Ainslie

[boguslaw]

After reading your last post Rosmary, I just want to add that OU has been achieved in this forum, Dr. Stiffler and his sec is achieving this, and it is in a similar form to yours, and it HAS BEEN REPLICATED BY MANY. For those that do not believe then they should read his thread, it is very enlightning, and they should think about the similarities of self oscillating transistors or semi conductors as I have found.

Mike

Yes,I wanted to gently note this but anyway this thread is dedicated to replication of original circuit not to make a new one.I bet similar OU may be achieved using modified Joule thief circuit.The problem with Rosemary circuit I see (no offence please) is the continuous need to find and hold the resonance frequency.
@witsend
Could we at least add a sensing coil around heating coil back to 555 to trigger resonance ?

[witsend]

Poynt I apologised for my rudeness and amended the post prior to your own post. Check out the times. Also, I very much doubt that Aaron will ban me from the forum - but nor do I use this as license to indulge my 'freedoms' here. I would add that it's not in character. And again. Sorry.

Regarding your acknowledgement - finally. Indeed. There are two options here. The voltmeter may be faulty. It's entirely unlikely that the Tektronix is.

And what about your simulated program. Can you do this for us? It would be easier than trying to replicate the exact components of the circuit apparatus.

[poynt99]

Good God. Now he's back to the meters again.

What ever they are paying you for this, it isn't enough

I presumed that Rosemary's recent posts are referring to the voltage meter readings when she is mentioning "net zero current flow" etc. If that is not the case then I apologize. If it is the case, then you need do the same.

.99

[jibbguy]

Good God. Now he's back to the meters again.

What ever they are paying you for this, it isn't enough

[poynt99]

If there is a NET ZERO CURRENT FLOW from the delivery of a battery supply source - then WHAT MEASUREMENT WOULD PROVE THIS? Zero? Greater zero? Less zero? Where are your brains? How can a zero net loss be proven if any measurement at zero is considered NOISE? USE YOUR BRAINS.

One point I have been trying to get across but is not being understood, is that there are two conditions that will result in a display of "0.000" using the DC vlotage meter as I suggested. One condition is when the positive and negative voltages exactly equal and they average out to 0.000. The second condition that can result in a "0.000" display on the voltage meter is when either the voltage truly is "0" volts, i.e no input whatsoever, OR when the meter's sensitivity is not high enough to register a reading.

The assumption being made here is that the first case is true, whereby there is a readable voltage present and that the positive and negative voltage is averaging to zero.

I am advising that we do not know for certain that this is the case. The second case has just as much chance of being true at this moment. I, and others have suggested that the second case is more likely what is occurring, whereby the meter's sensitivity is not high enough to register even a solid least significant digit on the display.

.99

PS. Thank you for the insults. I hope they will also be reported to Aaron, or are you with impunity here?

[witsend]

and Quantumuppercut and Mike - thanks for your empathy. I must admit I've had better days. But it's always a good thing to deal with realities even if it's not easy. It's just that all the evidence also needs to be correctly assessed and I don't trust my skills here.

[witsend]

Poynt - And by the way - I would settle for the evidence from any experimental construct that is designed to genuinely test the experiment. And from you - I'd be happy with the simple simulated experiment will full replication of the actual experimental apparatus. I cannot understand why you have never done this and yet continually assure us of the outcome. Such a test would at least disclose the extent of the predicted losses that we can use as a gauge.

Sorry for my rude comments.

[jibbguy]

Wrong again.

As stated on the other forum, the vertical accuracy of the scope while at that observed setting of "20mV per div." (which is "160 mV full scale"); would be....

8 screen divisions x ".020 volts per div" (for the total full scale value) = 0.160V .

.160 x .02 (2% vertical accuracy; the published spec) = .0032 ....

" +/- 3.2 mV " .... plus or minus 3.2 millivolts of vertical (voltage) error.

...Which could be vastly improved simply by increasing the sensitivity setting by a notch.. Without danger of any significant difference in reading

So that is another dead horse in your barn to stop flogging before the S.P.C.A. comes after you.

I guess your "Suzy Status Quo" modeling software didn't tell you that.

[witsend]

The noise I am referring to is not in regards to the voltage across the load. The load shunt is used to determine net mean current in the load and in the battery. The net mean voltage across the load shunt was a mere -5.4mV, which in terms of a noise floor comparison and analysis of the scope samples, equates to a magnitude just slightly above the baseline noise present in the samples. What this means is the claimed effect is not supported by solid evidence.

I'd still like to know the answers to these two questions:


There is no need to consider replicating if the same courtesy is not afforded to all, and also it's critical to know what you deem as a valid replication. Also, are you now retracting the COP=17 claim? Please clarify.

.99

If there is a NET ZERO CURRENT FLOW from the delivery of a battery supply source - then WHAT MEASUREMENT WOULD PROVE THIS? Zero? Greater zero? Less zero? Where are your brains? How can a zero net loss be proven if any measurement at zero is considered NOISE? USE YOUR BRAINS.

AND NO - I am not retracting my claim until we've tested with identical resistors or resistors with thicker wires. If no gain is measured then I will retract - not my claim but the extent of my claim depending on the evidence to hand. What I am acknowledging for the first time and publicly is that I may very well be wrong.

[poynt99]

Poynt - But I certainly do not agree with you that it is the result of noise. Noise is not usually associated with plus/minus 2 volts across a 10 Ohm resistor.

The noise I am referring to is not in regards to the voltage across the load. The load shunt is used to determine net mean current in the load and in the battery. The net mean voltage across the load shunt was a mere -5.4mV, which in terms of a noise floor comparison and analysis of the scope samples, equates to a magnitude just slightly above the baseline noise present in the samples. What this means is the claimed effect is not supported by solid evidence.

I'd still like to know the answers to these two questions:

To whom else does this apply, and what's the basis for which you consider someone's replication a worthy replication?

There is no need to consider replicating if the same courtesy is not afforded to all, and also it's critical to know what you deem as a valid replication. Also, are you now retracting the COP=17 claim? Please clarify.

.99

[quantumuppercut]

That is interesting - so you did build it and measured the input energy and output energy? You should video that information and put a link to the video in your thread - many people would enjoy experimenting with that.

Cheers,

I didn't measure the energy. I measured the voltage differential accross the LEDs and use that as a reference for calculating the current going through all LEDs. There are too much excitement on here already. My goal is not convincing anyone but working on a model that suitable for high school level. There are too many evidents that one can put half of them together and find the answer.

I've warned Rose on many occasions that this situation would happened. I forsee that people will not be happy with zipons even if the circuit is valid. I'm worried of her sensitivity cause her unhappy. I guess I couldn't do anything about it.

Rose, you must allow science to have their moment alone. That's the only way this will progress.

[Michael John Nunnerley]

we are all working to the same goal

After reading your last post Rosmary, I just want to add that OU has been achieved in this forum, Dr. Stiffler and his sec is achieving this, and it is in a similar form to yours, and it HAS BEEN REPLICATED BY MANY. For those that do not believe then they should read his thread, it is very enlightning, and they should think about the similarities of self oscillating transistors or semi conductors as I have found.

Mike

[witsend]

summation

Poynt - The lack of proof from a replicated circuit so far has been done by TK who managed it - as I mentioned - through the artifice of innuendo rather than scientific analysis. And latterly by Harvey who has bent over backwards to find some explanation for the phenomenon albeit that he could not find the evidence of a gain on his apparatus. Aaron has had the same difficulties as Harvey in trying to find the heat on the load at some wattage that is consistent with the claim in the published article. And others such as QU, ELW, Luc and even Joit have achieved anomolous evidence without managing the detailed power analysis required for proof or otherwise and all apparently using variations of the circuit that we also used prior to that final published test.

My own take is this. I cannot fully understand Harvey's explanation for our own result. I'm still applying myself here. But through all these tests - the single outstanding feature is that COP >17 is not easily realised and I have now begun to doubt the validity of my claim in the first instance. My assumption was always that it would be as clear as daylight and easily evidenced. If there was some unique property in our apparatus that was omitted from the published paper - then the thesis may quite simply wrong. It was based on the proposal that energy from an inductor is the result of regenerated rather than recycled energy.

What is still suggested is this. Aaron has found COP at a greater than 1 - but at a 'smidgen' as you've used the term. This was simply through running the load as well as the switch off the same supply and resulting in a greater heat dissipation than measured from the control. Also, the battery lasted longer. He is waiting for Fuzzy's resistor before he concludes anything here. QU and ELW have found gains on variations of the published circuit - using an inductor in parallel to the load. And even TK showed that the running of a motor in parallel to the load indicated some anomalous results. But TK's evidence is also presented with the intention to deny it soon thereafter so it may be inappropriate to reference his result. And quite frankly - if we're now talking values lower than COP > something significant - is it worth persuing? I suppose that would be up to each contributor to determine.

My own summation is this. I think that it's significant that the published circuit can apparently be run at zero loss. That in itself is better than mainstream allows through losses on the circuitry and should, at its least, raise questions. I'm satisfied that no such switching circuit, regardless of its application - is allowed at zero loss or 100% efficiency. This possibly suggests that where inductive loads are used then the application of a switch and some return path for the energies could result in enhanced efficiencies. That may be a good thing but I'm not sure of its commercial value.

It would still need fuller exploration to find whether loads in parallel to inductive components or even motors would also result in some efficiency if not a gain - but to test this would depend on the willingness of contributors. I suspect that Aaron may be prepared to explore this option.

But the really extraordinary result is in that waveform that he found over the last experiment that he posted on this thread. The downside here - of course - is the low level of wattage and the new phenomenon of reduced heat that you seem to find trivial. Frankly I have no idea if this is in anyway significant. But I certainly do not agree with you that it is the result of noise. Noise is not usually associated with plus/minus 2 volts across a 10 Ohm resistor. But - quite frankly - I would prefer to find out what Harvey thinks about this too. I need some critical analysis here without a bias.

EDIT - I would add that there is still the outside possibility that the resistor has some properties that are critical to this result. So we badly need your contribution here Fuzzy. It will either prove or put paid to the extreme efficiencies that we claimed.

[poynt99]

If you can't actually replicate then I'm happy to take the knowledge - on the chin. I really much prefer to deal with the situation head on - so to speak.

To whom else does this apply, and what's the basis for which you consider someone's replication a worthy replication?

.99

[Joit]

Hi witsend,
Actually its not my (only) loyalty for you or any one else, its my Opinion.
A lot know of the BEMF, and try to use them, other still only deny it.
Thats the Stoneage.
And its not my fault, when Peoples hear or see COP17 and think,
Ooooh a Power spitting Device, what Powers our Cities.
They should read more the Facts as to start dreaming, and see, what they CAN have, not what they want have.

Oh well, got to run.