COP 17 Heater | Rosemary Ainslie

[sprocket]

Sprocket, can you tell me, what Wires you use at your Tube?
Because i play right now with a big Wires too, but it cause much Heat at the Transistor when i connect them directly.
When i connect the heating Element with this resistive Wires, it dont cause heat at the Mosfet.
My Coil has about ~18Awg and 25 Ohm Resistance, the heating Element 50 Ohm resistance.
At one of my first attempts, i did put a 10W Pot in Serie with a Coil, and this did avoide heating the Mosfet up too.

Joit, the 'resistive' wire I use is straight from an old 2 bar-heater - each bar capable of producing about 1KW. The resistance is 15 ohms. Not sure aboout the gauge. When wound on tin-can like in the pics the BEMF is easily over 400V I'm still awaiting my mosfets and playtime...

[Aaron]

coils and heat

Hi Luc,

Not sure if I posted about that.

There is less heat on the really big inductance resistor for same settings on circuit. The really big one is either 96 or 106uH.

However, to my understanding, if there is thicker wire for same winds, etc... there can be more heat for same input. Still have to test this.

The one I have tested the most is 23uH.

I have a 8.65uH (Rosemary's was 8.64uH) but that one is 5 ohms and hers was 10 so I'm using the 23uH 10ohm.

I've tested quite a variety - in parallel, wired Tesla bifilar pancake style, etc... seems to divide the heat across the mass so lower temp but probably "pound for pound" about the same heat per input. Not sure, that requires testing.

Tesla bifilar connection between two identical coils had a stronger transient spike but the temp of each resistor was less than if it was one. That would have to be a whole test as well to see if energy per coil is making more or less heat.

My smallest coil - 10 ohm 50 watt probably 5uH ballpark gets really hot very fast for very little input. So efficient it takes forever to draw down the battery and that wouldn't be practical for the tests.

Anyway, I'll post more when I can.

[gotoluc]

Can you let us know what happens when you use your larger 100mH or so resistor compared to a lower Inductive one. Is there less heat and more charging or the other way around and so on.



Luc

Hi all,

just noticed an error in my post above to Aaron's quoting his largest resistor at 100mh and it should be 100uH.

Luc

[poynt99]

It looks to me Aaron that your 555 timer circuit is outputing some bizarre stuff considering it's just a lil ol' 555 timer.

You appear to have some interesting "frequency modulation" going on in there, and I'd bet that it is the 555 itself rather than the MOSFET achieving any kind of self-oscillation.

There will be some feedback to the gate from the drain, and with these transients they could also be getting into your circuit and 555 chip, wreaking havoc on its stability. Make that capacitor on pin 5 a 1uF and your instability will probably go away. Ensure you have some decent decoupling right at your 555 chip power as well.

If FM is what you want, it would be far better to use a design that was meant to produce FM. You will have far more control and better repeatability.

Get yourself a MC14046 CMOS PLL chip and learn to use the on-board VCO. It's quite easy and it has a good range (about 1MHz). Drive the control input with any wave form you desire and you're off to the races. If you don't want 50% duty on the output (it's default) then run that through a one-shot, or a simple RC (with adjustable R) differentiator (high pass) into a CMOS Schmitt. Look up my cheap oscillator document posted here and at OU and you'll see not only a nice simple oscillator (not the MC14046), but a simple way to vary the pusle width.

How a frequency modulated pulse into these coils would produce OU, I don't know, but I have no reason to believe that it does.

Attached is the "cheap oscillators" doc again in case you're interested.

.99

[Harvey]

Just checked the parts order:

UPS
    *  Track Packages & Freight
    * Quantum View
    * Flex Global View

Tracking Detail    

Your package is on time with a scheduled delivery date of 08/20/2009. 

THIEF RIVER FALLS ,  MN ,  US  	08/13/2009  	3:09 P.M.  	ORIGIN SCAN
US 	08/13/2009 	5:50 P.M. 	BILLING INFORMATION RECEIVED

[Aaron]

charging and comment

Quote from: Harvey on Today at 08:36:51 PMThe simple solution here is to simply put an ammeter in the supply path and run the circuit without oscillation and check the average current draw, then put it in oscillation and see if the current draw drops. If it does, then energy is being put back, if it doesn't then its not.

I have a cold beer in my fridge for anyone that can prove the current reduces instead of increases as the heater goes into oscillation.


Post by TK

You mean like I did last night? The average current indicated on the Simpson in series was about 600 mA just before onset and about 1 or 1.2 amps during, and could go as high as 2 amps. During the "oscillations" my current-viewing shunt, which is made from 4 ea. 1.0 ohm 1/2 Watt precision resistors in parallel, gets noticeably warm and the mosfet and load get quite hot quite quickly. The voltage drop across the shunt looks like a continuous 500 to 600 milliAmps with a bit of ripple on top, so the current is nearly continuous, even though the mosfet is spiking.

So I guess you'll have to save that beer for someone Else. I'm sure Aaron will be claiming it soon.

Why is your mosfet now on a heatsink, Aaron? Did you discover that it gets hot, after all?

Hi Mark,

Even without oscillation, the normal pulsing is still sending spikes to the battery - not just when in oscillation. The post I just did shows the spikes from the coil (normal pulse has about 1000v spike) and oscillation spikes are about 400~500v.

When in oscillation, it is possible for it to cause the normal pulse mode to happen more often and that will increase battery draw compared to slower non-oscillation so I don't think that test will show it. Just depends on oscillation mode and I found yet another one early this morning.

What I can show is that running it on one battery and putting the flyback diode on but taking it to a 2nd battery connected to common ground will charge that battery.

That is valid in my opinion because simply, it is getting the same pulse width of spikes at same frequency but amplitude may vary. But if those same spikes at that pulse width can charge a secondary battery, then those spikes definitely are able to charge a battery or reduce what is leaving a power battery.

HARVEY: "If there is a clear current flow into the battery during the period of the spikes (or shortly thereafter as the case will be), then I think we will have conclusive proof that recharging is taking place during those narrow pulse times. Then all we need to do is add them all up for a period and see what the recharge value is "

So the question is can the narrow pulse time give charging ability, the answer is absolutely yes. I'll show that.

Hooking to secondary battery, again, will be receiving narrow pulse time spikes of same pulse width.

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

I've never seen 500-600mv across the shunt. Sounds like a poorly constructed circuit to me coupled with a lack of understanding of how this circuit is supposed to operate.

Let him replicate the oscillations I showed. He doesn't have the technical expertise, experience or knowledge to do it and the only progress I have seen him make are poor amateurish attempts and copying my work. I forbid him from copying anything else I do.

I have identified almost a dozen unique modes of oscillation from this one mosfet and have only showed a couple. The only oscillation he showed was the scope flatlining - and Milehigh proclaimed that is evidence the whole oscillation thing is a fraud. It is obvious they are intentionally deceiving people in a very willful and wanton manner.

When I showed almost 150C at the load, the shunt was only at a max of about 250mv and the mosfet was at about 50C...double ambient temp - around 120F or something (load at almost 300F)! And by the way, the battery voltage didn't even drop 1/100th of a volt producing almost 150C at the load for the whole video. Let's see him replicate that as well - again, he doesn't have the necessary technical experience to do it - the only progress he'll make is by riding my coattail but he has shown he can't even do that right.

I have repeated quite a few times that the mosfet is simply xC over ambient...quite a bit under the load temp and not hot enough to melt solder like what happens on his circuits. The mosfet is on a heatsink because it simply is better than screwing it straight to a board but has never gotten nearly the temp required to even need a heat sink. I have shown putting my finger on it plenty of times - and still no solder melting from mosfet heat.

The heatsink temp is just a bit more than the mosfet plastic body but again, so hot that the solder melts? That's ridiculous to think that a properly operating circuit will cause that.

Again, 500~600mv across the shunt? Wow, I would give it up if I were him because after this long he hasn't made any progress and with what over 30 years of EE experience hasn't helped him one bit? I think that is a clue that there is another side of physics and electronics that he isn't capable of groking, has no comprehension of and isn't intelligent enough to be scientific about what is happening here.

He never focuses on points, he disrespect my name repeatedly, claims he was a monk, constant character assasination becuase he has no valid argument, his pathetic sarcasm - he can go . Any GUTLESS COWARD can insult others from behind an anonymous username.

I will simply continue to post data based on my findings, which by the way are incredibly promising - one thing after another. Rosemary said we'll either prove or disprove her findings...and no matter what happens, it is still only our attempt at it. I suspect we'll prove it to whatever degree and no matter the end result - seeing what this mosfet can do is ABSOLUTELY PRICELESS.

Some simple tests I already did before are running the circuit and checking the draw from battery and then putting control on resistor to get to same temp at whatever wattage. The control seems to always need more wattage to get resistor to same temp. That is clearly very telling in and of itself - the real test is drawdown compred to control.

I have a notebook already full of potential applications and I won't be able to do a fraction of them in this lifetime - to do them justice anyway. But short term after this project is applying these various oscillation modes with this mosfet to the joule thief type circuits, etc... lighting up CLF's, etc... basically just look at all this incredible work that has happened on Energetic Forum and look at the possible applications just here alone! Amazing!

Anyway, until the skeptics have the INTELLECTUAL HONESTY to realize that non-equilibrium thermodynamics explain this circuit phenomena and all other open circuit systems, they'll be forever stuck in the dark as they have so darkly demonstrated.

TK hasn't got the sense to know the difference between a transient spike and a railroad spike. This is probably the last time I'll entertain any more of his comments. He is free to wallow in his own ignorance as well as his followers in his peanut gallery surrounding his three ring circus. I'm done with their kind and I don't even read the posts in his blasphemous thread they claim is science.

[Aaron]

coil spikes

I'll post more today but here are a few facts that have been established that completely annihilate the claims of those that claim their conventional understanding applies to this circuit (I'll have to add it to my long list that I posted later) but...

It was claimed that the spike would simply DISAPPEAR when the circuit is built better (better construction). This was agreed upon by more than one expert - originally claimed by Milehigh and his peers agreed with him.

1. If the spike is referring to the shunt spike that is supposed to recharge the battery - the "shunt resistor" doesn't make an inductive spike that charges anything, it just sees what happens.
2. Therefore, the spike must be from the inductive resistor. On a 23uH coil, the oscillation spikes are about -440v and the normal pulse that precedes every oscillation burst has it's own spike at OVER -800v - I can't even see the bottom of it. I estimate about 1000v or more.
3. Thank goodness for the repetitive ability of the mosfet to take it (which in itself according to the experts we'll never even come close to it). Another thing proven wrong.

If anyone thinks these spikes will disappear by tidying up the timer circuit from a breadboard to a solder board - it is probably better not to admit it.

This pic is directly across the 23uH coil - as puny as that inductance is, the experts agree there can't be any useful spike coming from it. We see what it did to the battery - I agree with Harvey that recharge ability needs to be shown but nevertheless, experts did indeed claim there was no significant spike, it would disappear, etc... and that it does NOT get back to the battery it does get to the battery showing the entire premise for their argument is well, a puff of smoke.

Intensity is turned way up so that you won't miss all those spikes Ground is set at 1st line down from the top. You can clearly see the normal pulse with its monstrous spike and the oscillations with spikes about 1/2 the voltage of the normal pulse.



Setting ground at very top line so bottom of screen is 800 VOLTS!

100v divisions so that is 800 v at the bottom of the screen. Most oscillation spikes are 400~500v negative and the normal pulse is off screen.



Zoom in on 1 event of normal pulse followed by burst of oscillations.



This is the normal pulse inductive spike..off screen so over 800v.



Widened out spike - obviously over 800v and more like 1000 volts or more!

So tidying up my timer breadboard onto a soldered circuit will make the spikes disappear and there will be nothing left to significantly do any battery charging, etc... (according to milehigh)

I could solder pin 3 from the timer straight to the gate of the mosfet and these spikes aren't going ANYWHERE!

[Mark]

Quote from: Harvey on Today at 08:36:51 PMThe simple solution here is to simply put an ammeter in the supply path and run the circuit without oscillation and check the average current draw, then put it in oscillation and see if the current draw drops. If it does, then energy is being put back, if it doesn't then its not.

I have a cold beer in my fridge for anyone that can prove the current reduces instead of increases as the heater goes into oscillation.


Post by TK

You mean like I did last night? The average current indicated on the Simpson in series was about 600 mA just before onset and about 1 or 1.2 amps during, and could go as high as 2 amps. During the "oscillations" my current-viewing shunt, which is made from 4 ea. 1.0 ohm 1/2 Watt precision resistors in parallel, gets noticeably warm and the mosfet and load get quite hot quite quickly. The voltage drop across the shunt looks like a continuous 500 to 600 milliAmps with a bit of ripple on top, so the current is nearly continuous, even though the mosfet is spiking.

So I guess you'll have to save that beer for someone Else. I'm sure Aaron will be claiming it soon.

Why is your mosfet now on a heatsink, Aaron? Did you discover that it gets hot, after all?

[jibbguy]

Poynt99, I should state that you were not one of the ones making the false personal accusations that i mentioned above, nor do i think you indulged in the "new age" denigration nonsense that tried to paint all the Members here as somehow inferior. You appear to be sincere in your opinions.

But in the end, that is all it is: An opinion. What you guys never seem to understand is, why others don't automatically trust your opinions as Gospel, as much as you do yourself

When you see lots of stuff that doesn't fit the "official explanations" in life; you lose the ability to automatically trust in them. That is when mainstream science is exposed to be more of a political policy, than an objective reality.

Throughout History, every single "rock-solid" scientific "truth" through the Ages up until today has utterly failed, and been proved wrong, to be replaced by the next "truth"... It's happened thousands of times.

Why is it so "impossible" for this to happen again?

[CosmicFarmer]

2000 replies

I am here to celebrate the 2000'th reply! Hooray!

Keep up the good work.

[poynt99]

Yep, you beat us, you win. And you've got all the solid evidence to back it up too. Well done folks, it's all over but the cryin'.

We'll all be keeping a close watch on CNN for the big announcement



.99

[jibbguy]

Hehehe... What the self-appointed "Supreme Judges of Technology" on the other forum are feeling now, is technically called:

"FLOP Sweat"

(sorry couldn't resist that one lol )

It is very clear now that the attackers on that other forum who accused Aaron and Rosemary of everything under the sun including deliberate falsehood, have been proved utterly WRONG...

It is now also clear that these people certainly deserved what they got here, and proved it a dozen times over since with their poisonous insinuations.

For the most part, despite all their hard work they utterly failed to stop proper study of this effect. But if you good folks out there were one of the few dissuaded by all their B-S ; know that now is the time to go ahead and build it and test this oscillation effect for yourselves... It could have a hundred possible real-world applications... And the race will now be on to find the most marketable ones

Since Rosemary "didn't bother" to get the Patent registered (only "Applied For", so it was in the Public Record... As was her STATED PATH from the beginning); the governments, energy cartels, and corporations (...and their paid shills), won't be "shelving" this one like they have a hundred others... And they can't stop it from being studied now. A nice big WIN for the Open Source "good guys"

Thanks to the hard work of Aaron and others here (and of course Rosemary herself, for having the courage to come forward and face the personal attacks)!

Let's Review (..the effectiveness of that thread on the other forum, lol):

1) "Stifle & Denigrate" Attempt on the circuit, general effect, and Author:

Result: FAIL.

2) Attempt at the "Self-Limiting" of Open Source by convincing people to end these critically important studies by themselves (... Their last real hope of stopping Open Source, by convincing us to stop on our own):

Result: FAIL.

3) Attempt to utterly confuse the issues and brow-beat and bluster with a constant barrage of "Techno-Jargon B-S", often self-conflicting and proved wrong time after time, only to be replaced with the next red herring by the self-proclaimed "experts" :

Result: FAIL.

4) Attempt to denigrate all Members at Energetics Forum, with repeated negative-connotation comments like "New Age", "Religion", "Mysticism" and worse: Accusations of deliberate falsehood against Aaron and Rosemary from these eh, "people" who cower behind their internet identities:

Result: FAIL.

Someone mentioned there recently, that there was over 110 pages in that thread, and asked what was the outcome? ... Results above.

Our "enemy" or rival certainly isn't Stefan or the good folks who go to the O-U forum: It is those who use the promise of Free Speech there and other places against us; to try and destroy the Open Source Energy movement and stop proper study of these technologies any way they can get away with. Their presence is inevitable i guess... But they are self-identifying by their actions: And like "ghosts", they can't do any us real harm if we don't believe in them.
____________

@ Aaron ... NOTE: If you get the time before returning the scope to those great folks at Tek, please be sure to expand the time base a bit on the oscillations during the most power-efficient events, and then store maximum-length sample runs to PC disk (as well as a run or two of "non-efficient" events perhaps, as a contrast). An "FFT" (Freq vs Amplitude) and other calcs done on these runs should be interesting and may eventually turn out to help others' reproduce the same results later... And the raw sample data will act as long-lasting Proofs (especially if they attempt that absurd "false triggering" gambit again, lol)... The data runs can be emailed and analyzed by others' as well at any time; such as mainstream academics that could get involved as "Technology Verifiers" in the future.

If they didn't supply a PC interface cable (as is often the case), perhaps i can help there somehow: They are generally fairly easy to modify from another cable (by swapping pins or wires at the connectors) and the pin-outs should be documented in the Manual.

THANKS for ALL your great work!! And Congrats

[Michael John Nunnerley]

Most excellent research and development Aaron

May this be an example to all researchers of the kind of flexibility and creativity needed to find what we have been missing.

Top notch

Also, a big thanks for all the videos to which is also a real added bonus

Can you let us know what happens when you use your larger 100mH or so resistor compared to a lower Inductive one. Is there less heat and more charging or the other way around and so on.



Luc

@Aaron

I can only reiterate what Luc has said

Mike

[Joit]

Sprocket, can you tell me, what Wires you use at your Tube?
Because i play right now with a big Wires too, but it cause much Heat at the Transistor when i connect them directly.
When i connect the heating Element with this resistive Wires, it dont cause heat at the Mosfet.
My Coil has about ~18Awg and 25 Ohm Resistance, the heating Element 50 Ohm resistance.
At one of my first attempts, i did put a 10W Pot in Serie with a Coil, and this did avoide heating the Mosfet up too.

[Joit]