COP 17 Heater | Rosemary Ainslie

[poynt99]

poynt99,

If TK claims the mosfet is unable to fully turn on in false triggering mode and battery voltage climbs because it is unable to deliver, do you think there is any integrity in ignoring the fact that I'm bringing up that he needs to scope the shunt at the same time so he can see that his claims are false?

There are more, but seeing that you consider MH a peer and TK a peer, don't you think that you have a personal responsibility to keep TK accountable to his claims just as well by asking him to do more than one test before jumping to conclusions? I see none of this. Claiming to be self triggering and not in self oscillation is not only wrong but laughable.

If you think TK has any qualifications to question what is happening and if he indeed does, then his blunder is either A - Intentional to simply discredit it because he has personal or other reasons to ensure that things remain the same or B - He made a huge mistake and is unwilling to admit it or C - He really doesn't have the expertise with non-equilibrium circuits and he is actually out of his league since we do have experience with these circuits.

Aaron, I am quite confident that if TK finds he has made any errors, he will admit them and openly apologize to you or whomever. I am also certain that he will be covering all your concerns.

.99

[witsend]

This is for .99 and MileHigh's consideration - copied from a previous post. It's a broad brushstroke argument on classical concepts of current flow.

Guys, I copied this from a thread that I started on the Naked Scientist Forum under 'a circuit that produces overunity' - I think it's titled. In the event that any of you want to look it up it's posted under the name Witsend. In any event, this is relevant to point at questions that relate to energy - on a broader basis than the wiki definition. I promise you I won't need to refer to current flow after this except to suggest that it is - in fact - magnetic fields, as proposed in the paper that I submitted to the IET.

Thanks for your patience. I just need to get this on record.

"I cannot understand the existing model because it makes no sense. Let me point out a little known truth. Nobody knows what energy is. It is known to be sourced from four forces, some say three. These are gravity, the strong and weak nuclear force and the electromagnetic force. Some people ascribe the weak nuclear force to the electromagnetic force. The miracle of our physicicts is that, notwithstanding this lack of knowledge, they are able to use and apply their knowledge of these forces with breathtaking and impeccable accuracy. That is the truly amazing.

But notwithstanding this no-one actually knows what energy is. The fact that current flow is ascribed to the flow of electrons is still a question that is actually also still out there. If it flows as a current - like a stream of something - then it flatly contradicts Pauli's exclusion principle. And Dyson emphatically states that it is not the flow of electrons. So does Gary Zukov in his book - the dancing wu li masters. If it is not a 'flow' but rather the interaction of 'clouds' of valence electrons with sundry ions in various structures and amalgams, then what is added to a battery when it's flat and needs to be recharged? It can't be electrons because electrons are widely considered to be stable particles, and not able to decay. So whatever property is re-introduced to the battery during the recharge process, cannot be more electrons else your average battery would eventually be chockablock full of a surplus of electrons. Nor are electrons simply able to change their charge or indeed any of their properties.

However, there is a possibility that one electron can decay into two photons in certain unstable atoms. And therefore it can be argued that electrons decay at the various work stations as photons. This is because photons are known and measured to be dissipated at resistive loads. This would be consistent with measured evidence. But an extension of this argument then requires that your average generator would need to also generate an inexhaustible supply of spare electrons in order to account for the amount of heat dissipated at your average household and the vast number of such houses connected to your average supply grid. This is somewhat unlikely. And even if this were managed, the question remains. Where do these spare electrons come from? And so it goes. Wiki explanation of current flow is so full of holes it's almost comical. Whatever comprises a current flow is defintely not consistent with classical theories of this.

What I am daring to point to is that the entire field of quantum electromagnetic dynamics is not entirely consistent. That it is the single most extraordinary field of endeavour with - among all branches of phyics - the most consistent and effective reach in its applications - does not also put it beyond the reach of further questioning and analysis. Yet there are those in the field of physics and engineering who are offended at any questions applied to its fundamentals. They say it is a complete theory. "

[poynt99]

.99, does your username imply that you don't believe in 1.0 or above? Just wondering.

Anyway, you say that we are the ones labeling you as part of the "establishment."

However, your argument is that if we don't accept the norms of ESTABLISHED science, then we open ourselves up.

Therefore, you are are calling yourself a part of the establishment for the fact that you are scrutinizing what we are doing since we don't accept your science.

So this forum has little to do with labeling you and your peers as "establishment" because you are already considering yourself as such before you ever got here seeing that you DO believe in "established" science.

EDIT: For the fact that something is "established" as a reality for the masses does not equate with objective reality. It is only consensus reality, which is subjective.

LOL. No Aaron that's not how/why I chose my username. That's the first time I ever considered it's meaning in that way though, interesting that you are the only one to have ever interpreted it that way.

It goes without saying that those sticking to the known laws are more or less part of the "establishment".

I was referring more to the "critics" and "detractors" labels that have been inappropriately placed on us.

I am involved in FE research because I believe in the possibility of OU. However, I will do everything in my power to prove my circuit or device or anyone's circuit or device is operating within normal parameters before making any blanket claims that it is COP>1. If it can not be explained with conventional science, then it is worth investigating. But the initial testing and examination better be pretty darn good to begin with.

.99

[witsend]

and a second post on the same theme

In order to prove the claim I also need to refer to the model's definition of current. But this would hardly be appropriate without some reference to known definitions of current flow. If I may I'm starting with a definition of current flow as per wiki's definition. It's so full of holes its laughable. I'll then follow up with a more classicallly accepted defnition. All I'm trying to point to is that current flow may not, in fact be the flow of electrons. At this stage I'm not referring to an alternative. If the tenor of this post is offensive then let me apologise in advance. But there is a real need to show those points that classical physics has not, in fact, addressed.

'Wiki definition of current flow requires 'free floating electrons'. Given that these electrons that come from - somewhere? - also somehow 'attach' to a wire or any such conductive circuit components then can someone please explain this scenario. Take your average lead acid battery as a DC power supply. If these electrons 'travel' where do they go once they've reached the opposite terminal? Through the battery courtesy the 'pump action' provided by the battery?

Now Wiki explains that batteries, fortunately, have 'free floating protons'. This gets ever more interesting. Where do these 'free floating protons come from? Then. The electrons presumably need to travel through the battery. Presumably also they do this by attaching to the protons, somehow? But, if the electrons attach to the protons during their journey through the battery - then we get simple hydrogen atoms. The battery would then, theoretically, become a repository of pure hydrogen or subtle variations of this, each state - deuterium - tritium - becoming progressively more explosive than the last.

If the quantum of electrons on the wire or in the circuitry, exceeds the number of free floating protons - then we have a problem with that 'cluster' of electrons that cannot get past the terminal.

If by some happy accident the number of 'free floating' electrons precisely equals the number of 'free floating' protons then 'attachment' would result not in a reduction in potential difference but in an increase. This is because hydrogen - apart from being highly combustible in any condition - is also a negatively ionised atom. Therefore one would think that the increased ionisation would also result in an increase in the potential difference measured across the battery. It would not result in a decrease. What then accounts for the decrease is the actual measured result of current flow?

If, on the other hand - given that these innate logical contradictions were somehow answered by some force not yet incorporated in conventional explanations of current flow - but yet requires the flow of electrons - then the speed at which the electrons again 'detach' from the structure of those protons - would in no way equal the rate at which current is measured to flow through circuitry.

Then, assuming that the potential difference is reduced, notwithstanding the increase to potential difference courtesy the ionised state of these hydrogen atoms, and over time the battery indeed becomes flat - we recharge it - how? By adding more 'free floating electrons' or 'free floating protons / or possibly both?

So I put it to you that the 'flow of electrons' is logically inconsistent with the known properties of current flow. Here's the thing. The 'flow of electrons' was proposed as an enabling image - never a fact. That it then became incorporated into classical definition as 'a fact' is a sad reflection on the reluctance of scientists to grapple with contradictory evidence. Rather do they just accept all such explanations, the more obtuse the explanation, the more likely it is to be accepted. It hearkens to the story of the king's invisible cloak. At some point someone must point out the obvious.'

[poynt99]

.99 another go at this.

Your interpretation of 'stored energy' has nothing to do with inductive laws and the regeneration of current flow during the off period of the switching cycle. New age considers this moment as the inevitable introduction of more energy to a system.

The underlined above is not true when considering the classical view correct? You mention "new age" and apparently that is your reference. We are not using the same reference, so it is not logical to label my view as incorrect. They can not and should not be interchanged.

The new age view is your view perhaps, but I have not seen convincing evidence to prove it.

The question in the paper has everything to do with a redefinition of current flow - argued in terms of the defeat of conservation barriers. Switch a current from a supply source, allow a regeneration of current flow and you will get an evident and measurable gain that exceeds unity.

Again, it is the new age view you are basing this on. It is a theory until you can prove it beyond a doubt, and I don't think you would bet your house on it at this point.

.99 We've been through this. I only want to ask you to please - lets check the evidence before we come to conclusions. For now - please confirm that the test parameters outlined would meet your own requirements for required protocol. We've both got lots to learn. And I'm struggling here. I don't want to lose your interest. Nor will I be bullied into ignoring an essential regeneration cycle from this switching circuit.

I will check MH's protocol and get back to you on it.

.99

[jibbguy]

Fuzzy that's nice info.

What i would add to that is, that instrumentation Op-Amp front ends are designed for low amounts of "Common Mode Rejection" noise, eliminating the noise riding on the third-wire wall ground. You can actually see this noise, in the TK vid about "ground loops": When the Signal Low of the scope's input has current from the circuit flowing through it to ground, the CMR balancing is ruined and then it shows up as the band of 60 Hz noise. When calibrating these front-end amplifiers, there is usually a trim pot for tweaking this to it's lowest possible amount, it is "rejected" by balancing it out differentially, so it drops out. This trimming for best CMR is possible using the instrument's circuitry ONLY in "micro-amp" situations So in really bad cases, it overwhelms the balance circuit's ability. This is when the separate Earth connection to the instrument's chassis helps considerably, as this noise riding on the wall plug's third wire ground is then shunted to Earth and the instrument does not see it.

In fact, the reason most low-voltage leads are "Twisted Pair, Shield and Drain" (two twisted leads for Signal High and Low, and a finely woven steel "shield" around them with straight "drain" wire touching it the whole way through), is to keep this Earth potential all the way out to the signal source... Very important in "noisy" environments when you need to read in the "1mV Full Scale" range; and the ambient noise in the 10's of Volts, lol.

Also, many places in the U.S. such as ALL Hospitals (by Law, or at least by insurance requirements), and most labs and large factories, try to eliminate these problems by having a separate Earth that is definitely tied to either copper water pipes or grounding rods; and also using very good connecting wire (usually tinned copper in fairly thick multiple twisted strands). This wire can be detected as it's insulation is usually bright green with a yellow stripe on it.

This "Positive Earth Connection" ("positive" as in "more certain" lol) can be seen as a green round plug in the wall in every hospital room (the reason it is Law or Insurance requirement, is to help eliminate the possible serious dangers seen of accidentally wiring an AC plug backwards with the "Hot" in place of the "Neutral"). Despite all this, by far the greatest application of Isolation Transformers is in hospitals anyway . This is usually done as sort of a "double-check" for safety, and is again because of the insurance. But other times, the isolation tranny's are used because the power is so darn noisy in that area of the hospital (often because there is an X-Ray machine next door or something). So even these Earth grounds don't always do the trick in extreme noise situations

Imagine trying to read EEG, or ECG (EKG) with "500 uV" typical readings, in a room with thousands of volts flying around It ain't easy.

The more power being used in a location, the more important this "clean" grounding becomes... Because spikes from high-current relays, power SCR's, X-Ray machines with giant fly-backs producing over 500kV of potential, etc. will often run transients through the "wall plug ground" third wire and screw with electronic equipment big-time.

Actually lol, they often do that anyway even with the best grounding scheme possible.... But that is a different story

[Joit]

Timer and Mosfet

Ok, the upper Line from the Scope shows the ON Time.

The Statement about, the lower Line shows the ON Time , because, when a Switch is closed, you dont see a different, is wrong too.
When the Switch is closed, then there is a Potential running through,
that shows the ON Time, and its the High Part.
And also i showed at my Scopeshots.

That Problem here, seems was more to adjust it to a low Cycle at low Frequency, but this can be done with the Pot at the Gate from the Mosfet.
You can turn the Frequency down there.
So. Last Time, The Timercircuit from the Article is usable.
But Aarons anyway showed, that you need to have a higher Frequency to get the oscillation.
I hope that is now childproof too, lol.

Just wonder, why the Experts we got here and at OU.com do seems Not know This.
And .. uuuh, i guess, i bite my Lips bloody again..

EOD

Beside, i asked a Prof too, and got the Confirmation.




Beside this Discussion about the establishment, isnt it more like,
some did come over from OU.com and play Jury?
Thats what i hope, otherwise i would guess, they come from the Mibs.

Seems more like, this Thread isnt that public, as some try to suggest.
But, who knows, maybe its better this Way, when the Ball is played flat.

[Joit]

Caps+Grid or Batteries.

Caps usual store the Power different, and give the Load with Voltage at once away.
Batteries keep the Voltage usual, but gives the Amp away.

I never had the Idea to use this Circuit on the Grid, maybe you have to pay double with her faulty Meters then.
Maybe, it will work, when you can arrange the Caps right, to get the Gain there, but right now, i dont think so.

Btw, do someone see above this 2 Kind of Storages?

[Jetijs]

Hi all.
Today I did some experiments with the heater circuit. What we found out was that it makes a huge difference if you put a air cored copper wire coil in series of the inductive resistor. See for yourself.

This is the scope shot across the resistor with no recovery diode:


And this is the scope shot of the series of coil and resistor also without recovery:


Quite a difference huh?
And this is for the same input power.
This is the scope shot with the recovery diode doing its job. In both cases the image is identical:


After that I tried out the circuit from my attraction motor v2.0. I used a bifilar coil so that I could use one winding to establish a magnetic field and another to capture the spike and put it on the front side capacitor. The power winding had a 10 Ohm resistor in series. The switching was done using a signal generator with adjustable frequency and duty cycle. I used an adjustable power supply for powering the circuit, it can adjust the voltage up to 30V and the current up to 20A. I observed up to 3x greater currents circulating through the resistor than that what the power supply gave out. And all this with a duty cycle of 15%, this is what the lowest setting of my signal generator is and on the scope I can see that this is clearly too much and I am wasting much of the power. Anyway, the resistor did heat up quite nicely up to 160 degree, but I did not have the time to compare if there is a difference in the heating up times depending on weather or not the recovery is used. I monitored the currents in two different spots in the circuit and the weird thing was that if I touched the MOSFET or some other places of the circuit, the input current did not change, but the circulating current did increase up to 40%. So far I blame that on the cheap meters I am using. I will test it more tomorrow. But so far seems pretty great

[Aaron]

net systems and established science

.99, does your username imply that you don't believe in 1.0 or above? Just wondering.

Anyway, you say that we are the ones labeling you as part of the "establishment."

However, your argument is that if we don't accept the norms of ESTABLISHED science, then we open ourselves up.

Therefore, you are are calling yourself a part of the establishment for the fact that you are scrutinizing what we are doing since we don't accept your science.

So this forum has little to do with labeling you and your peers as "establishment" because you are already considering yourself as such before you ever got here seeing that you DO believe in "established" science.

EDIT: For the fact that something is "established" as a reality for the masses does not equate with objective reality. It is only consensus reality, which is subjective.

p.s. Actually if you want to believe in "established" science, it requires that you agree with "overunity". It may help you understand it better by doing some research on non-equilibrium thermodynamic systems (NET Systems):
"non equilibrium thermodynamic systems" - Google Search

[Joit]

The underlined above is not true when considering the classical view correct? You mention "new age" and apparently that is your reference. We are not using the same reference, so it is not logical to label my view as incorrect. They can not and should not be interchanged.

The new age view is your view perhaps, but I have not seen convincing evidence to prove it.



Again, it is the new age view you are basing this on. It is a theory until you can prove it beyond a doubt, and I don't think you would bet your house on it at this point.


I will check MH's protocol and get back to you on it.

.99

Where should we start at?
At the Direction from Current ?

Direction of Current

Or how Energy is stored in a Batterie??

The Energy Story - Chapter 5: Stored Energy and Batteries

"Inside the battery, a reaction between the chemicals takes place. But reaction takes place only if there is a flow of electrons. Batteries can be stored for a long time and still work because the chemical process doesn't start until the electrons flow from the negative to the positive terminals through a circuit.

"


And then go over all the wrong labeled Parts and descriptions, what are used at Electronics,
And still end up in another endless Discussion?

Umm, maybe better not.


Btw Nice Shots Jetijs!

[Aaron]

TK couageously admits my 555 timer causes oscillations - way to go TK!

I was referring more to the "critics" and "detractors" labels that have been inappropriately placed on us.

With TK's conduct in attacking Rosemary's credentials because he can't get the circuit to work right, I'm sure you can see why these labels have been assigned.

He's supposed to be an expert and claimed my mosfet isn't in oscillation becase the scope shows false triggering. He posts videos showing that my circuit can't work because my battery isn't delivering enough juice to power the 555, etc.. He has missed the boat on just about everything so far.

Seeing that he is an "expert" and based on the above, do you see why it appears to be so overwhelmingly blatant that it must be misinformation? If it isn't misinformation, then he is not an expert.

Maybe the whole thing was off to a bad start, I don't know, but batting zero so many times in a row causes suspicion as to his motives.

For the first time, he admits my 555 circuit can cause the mosfet to oscillate.

Here is his post, which you probably saw at ou.com but he is still wrong in looking at my scope. I could zoom in and see the spikes clearly AFTER the video was made but the bottom line is that the mosfet was in oscillation as claimed, period.

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

posted by TK at ou.com

I have _at last_ been able to get some true parasitic oscillations out of my "Aaron's Rod" circuit. Now that I've got the right resistor in the positive rail...

So I've made a couple new vids, they are processing and uploading now. I'm able to show that I do get parasitic oscillations of the classic textbook kind, and I still believe that Aaron's scope is missing triggering to produce the bands that he is seeing.

The parasitic oscillations are regular, albeit quite complex. Since the voltage on the battery monitor goes up, this means that the mosfet is not allowing as much power through during these oscillations.

Or, it means that power is being fed back to the battery, and the battery monitor is just showing the sum of the forward and reversed power.

Or the crack into the seventh dimension is leaking again.

Note that the Aaron's circuit is widely different than Ainslie's and is being operated at a much higher frequency. I still have not been able to get my Ainslie build to misbehave. I guess I'll have to (cringe) hook up this breadboarded timer to clock it and see what happens.

But at least I know for sure what happens in the Ainslie circuit with a good solid 3 percent pulse when there's NO OU.

So any OU will have to beat that baseline.

I'll post the links here when they are done uploading.

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

Power was absolutely sent to my front battery. There is zero denying this. I had a 10 ohm shunt meaning hardly any current was pulsing thru the inducitve resistor - only enough to get a few degrees above ambient. But my battery rose 0.25 volts (from 24.40 to 24.65) above resting voltage before starting the test.

It was real charge because THAT charge powered a resistive load for almost 24 hours before finally dropping to the initial resting voltage. Meaning that nobody can claim it is a phantom charge or "fluffy" voltage. This means that my system was already over 1.0 as all the power from the battery that ran the circuit for 24 hours came from the circuit!

With a shunt at 0.05, which I have now, it isn't just a voltage potential pump (the inductive resistor), there is real current now.

[Aaron]

new age physics

You mention "new age" and apparently that is your reference.

The new age view IS the non-equilibrium thermodynamics that still to date probably 99.9999% of classically trained people are completely unaware of it.

A friend that has a degree in physics from a local university told me he never even heard of the distinction of open systems in all his years at the university.

So when getting out of school, it is no doubt that the classic viewpoint will be the one that is used to define ALL systems regardless.

Thankfully, he is a very intellectually honest person and sees that the classical thermodynamics has no application to open systems. He sees the classic laws as valid only for closed systems and thinks that this distinction should be taught in school. If it is not, it prevents the mainstream "establishment" from recognizing it. I don't believe it is by mistake that this is kept from students. It upsets the corporate profiteering applecart too much. Conspiracy? That would be irrelevant. It is simply business as usual and anything that threatens a consumable resource to be paid for time and time again is the only thing acceptable to wall street.

Why would they jeopardize their own residual income stream? They wouldn't and their funding influences what the curriculum will be in the schools they lend support to. That isn't a conspiracy, it is a fact of life.

[Aaron]

Tesla pancake bifilar wired inductive resistor test?

Great finding Jetijs.

My first test with the SG oscillator with resistor in between coil and collector was interesting but with 3 wires at 3000 turns with welding rod core, it was VERY slow. I ran it at about 1kHz.

Serious spikes of course. Need to try with smaller coil with air core.

Do you or does anyone else have 2 identical inductive resistors? I want to try this when I get some.

Put them exactly side by side. Power + goes into one and the bottom of that resistor wires to the top of the other and the bottom of that ones to the mosfet. Tesla bifilar pancake wiring. I wonder what that would look like on a scope. The 2 windings are wound on the same core but might be interesting.

[Aaron]

negative spike on shunt

Here is what I found late last night, which is interesting. Can anyone else verify this?

.99, your simulation showed return to the battery was more without the diode? That was without oscillation in the mosfet right?

There may be something to that.

What I found was that when the mosfet was NOT in oscillation and was truly triggered by the 555 signal, the negative spike on the shunt was larger without the diode. That seems to corroborate with your simulation finding.

HOWEVER, with the diode there WITH oscillation in the mosfet, the negative spike on the shunt was BIGGER.

In both cases, the negative spike recharge is there with or without the diode.

So without oscillation, bigger spike on the shunt without diode.

With oscillation, bigger spike on the shunt with diode.