COP 17 Heater | Rosemary Ainslie

[Aaron]

Quantum Article Schematic | Rosemary Ainslie

Here are my comments on this circuit (not the one I'm using normally)

YouTube - Quantum Magazine 555 Circuit Test on Rosemary Ainslie's COP 17 Heater Circuit

[witsend]

Thanks for the video Aaron. Yet again, it seems that I need to apologise. The published circuit clearly does not cut it and TK's complaints about the design appear to be valid.

So - let me again apologise to TK. Abject apologies about this. It does seem that the circuit design was erroneous and your comments regarding this were valid. I should, indeed, have had the circuit checked before publication.

And apologies to all those who built that circuit. The only thing that I can assure you is that the design is erroneous - not our test results. Hopefully Aaron can tweek the circuit to get the duty cycle function up to par - and yet hold onto that oscillation. It's just so much in line with our own findings here.

Sorry TK. Abject apologies. But run with that 'wrong' switch. It should, at its least, give the required waveform oscillations.

[Aaron]

Quantum circuit scope shot

If anyone knows the most "elegant" modification to this Quantum article circuit to get 3.7% and 2.4kHz RANGE - that would be appreciated.

I don't mean changing it with transistors, etc... the SAME concept but with desired range.

Here are scope shots of the proper oscillation waveform:

NOTE - SHUNT DOES NOT GO TO ZERO VOLTS - JUST SPIKE AND PULSE

[witsend]

Aaron - will be disconnecting our own switch and will post it asap. Hopefully you'll be able to figure it out. Our's is a 5th generation switch

[Harvey]

Regarding Real Names:

We are probably only removed from each other by seven degrees of separation.

The following two links are teasers, and never actually answer their own questions:
Six Degrees of Separation: Fact or Fiction? - ABC News

The Human Chain - ABC News

Microsoft finds there are 7 degrees of separation – Tech Products & Geek News | Geek.com

So if we really wanted to connect, it's probably not that difficult a task.

I found out yesterday that I am removed by only 4 degrees of separation from the President of the United States, and that is a strange feeling.
Perhaps some level of anonymity is prudent. I reflect momentarily on the you-tube personality known as Desertphile, a strong opponent against free energy research. I found that I am only removed by 3 degrees of separation from this individual and that gives pause.

According to TK, I have been misinformed and he has suggested I build the RA circuit and offer my results. He has kindly offered to send a couple of IRFPG50's to assist me in the assembly. I have accepted the offer. I don't think he was bluffing, but if he was I called the bluff. With over 100 pages of various banter on OU and two thirds that and climbing here, I don't have the ambition or time to process all of it. For that reason, I chose to go to the original documents and interface with Rosemary directly here so as to get to the heart of the matter. I think I have a reasonable understanding of the matter, the experiences involved and the viewpoints from both sides. Hopefully I can offer some objective and unbiased input toward the goals that have been set by the parties involved. I certainly have my fair share of mistakes and failures - as Nolan Ryan is reported to have said, "for every strike pitched on the field, I have 99 bad pitches during practice." But, every now and then I happen to get a few things right.

I imagine this was discussed somewhere in prior posts or on other related forums but I thought I would mention it anyway. COP <> OU or FE
We know that heat pumps are rated in COP > 1. They make extra energy available from the thermal reservoirs. They are not over unity any more so than a transistor is over unity. They simply have a high coefficient of performance which happens to exceed one. (See the COP Definition) So, saying that the circuit has a COP > 17 is a bit different than saying the circuit produces more energy than it consumes. For example, if I place a faucet on a fire hydrant and it allows 1 gallon per minute to flow, I could say that the GPM is 1. Now if I get another valve to allow 17.5 gallons per minute, then I can say GPM > 17. If the performance of the valve were set to be GPM against a baseline of 1 GPM, then I could say that the COP was 1 for the first valve and the COP > 17 for the second.

A couple questions I would like answers to:
1. What is the maximum energy we can we store in any inductor using 24V and the minimum pulse width of an IRFPG50.

2. What is the longest possible ring period possible for any inductor using 24V and the IRFPG50 and any other necessary passive components.

Cheers,

[Aaron]

Quantum circuit scope shot

Added notes to pics:

[Aaron]

dissipation

So, saying that the circuit has a COP > 17 is a bit different than saying the circuit produces more energy than it consumes.

Exactly!

The cynics claim that over 1.0 COP means over 100% efficient. They simply do not know the difference.

The non-equilibrium open systems are simply able to recycle energy so the dissipation that will happen inevitably anyways simply happens over a longer period of time.

Under 100% efficient but way more work that battery input compliments of how electromagnetic coils work - however that may be.

[witsend]

A couple questions I would like answers to:
1. What is the maximum energy we can we store in any inductor using 24V and the minimum pulse width of an IRFPG50.

2. What is the longest possible ring period possible for any inductor using 24V and the IRFPG50 and any other necessary passive components.

Cheers,

Hi Harvey - still awake? I'm delighted to hear that you'll be replicating. In fact I'm thrilled. I rather trust your evaluation of this.

As to your question? I have no idea on either count. I'll check with my co-author and see if it can be answered. Please do not build that 555 swith until we've got the right design. Hopefully soon. TK's going to have a field day.

And regarding your relatives? I'm South African - so I guess if your president is not directly related to me he's definitely related to my relatives. If I'd acknowledged this some 12 years back I would, at its least, have had to change me address.

Hope you're feeling better.

[Aaron]

ps.

p.s.

If there are any doubts on that oscillation pic - if thinking the off time has been set as low as possible - do the test, it will surprise you! The pics you see are with a 60% duty cycle - cause of the quantum article.

[Harvey]

Aaron,
The 1K resistors set your limits for the operation in conjuction with the .0033uF capacitor. There are two parts, a charge leg and a discharge leg, however the 5.2K adds resistance (thus time) to the charge leg while it is removed from the discharge process. The 555 works by two thirds. This means that when the trigger pin drops below 2/3 the power supply positive rail the output goes high and the discharge pin floats. When the threshold reaches 2/3 above the negative rail, the output goes low and the discharge pin pulls to ground.

The time constant for charging the cap is 1.1RC and there are generally considered 5 time constants to full charge.

The capacitor charges through the outer charge leg (5.2K -> 50KPot -> 1K ->1N4148) and discharges through the inner leg (1N4148 -> 1K -> 50Kpot -> 555 pin7) The 0.047uF serves no useful purpose in the timing, and increases discharge current - it was probably added at an attempt to quell switching noise and it is possible that those two values are swapped (the .0033 and the .047) in the print erroneously, but that would be a much lower pulse frequency.

Charge time and ON time are synonymous while Discharge time and OFF time are synonymous: I have neglected any diode resistance or diode voltage drops in the following calculations.

The system boots to an ON (pin 3 high) condition because the trigger starts out low and the charge leg begins doing its job. With the setting shown, the fastest time the system will reach threshold (from zero trigger) is in 3.33 time constants or 15 microseconds and then it begins discharging. The longest charge time would be 679 microseconds (pot adj full 50K). The discharge period is shorter because it does not have the 5.2K in the circuit, and it only has to drop 1/3 of the way to the negative rail because we only made it up to 2/3 when it switched to OFF (pin 3 low). So the shortest OFF time is about 6 microseconds and the longest would be 302 microseconds. The diodes change these values a bit, but you should be able to set the discharge pot to max 50K, and the charge pot to min 0K and get pretty darn close to 5% duty cycle with only 15 microsecond on time.

Hopefully this gives you a basis to work off of.

[Michael John Nunnerley]

I'm back and happy to vote yes on this.

Thanks Mike

Luc Choquette

Welcome back Luc, hope everything is OK. The post I made was just a bit of pent up frustation, I suppose the safty valve let off a little steam.

The experiment that has been running at my neck of the woods is just an idea I had and probably at the end of the day it will show that when an item such as a heating element has a rating of 1.5kw and connected as recommended, it is very inefficient in the use of that energy. Interesting we are probably all using 40% more energy than we nead to, just to have the same result!

More results will come when my partner in crime returns from his hols:

OH, perhaps TK should shave off his mostach

Mike

[Harvey]

Hi Rosemary,

Looks like I did an all-nighter - yep, was feeling better - probably not a good idea - will sleep in.

Looking forward to getting confirmation on oscillator circuit values - what's there is close, but it's not quite right.

I may sim that just to see if I've got something upside down in my head.

I have to admit, Poynt99's simulations look pretty good - I wonder if he could whip one up that maximizes the resonant ring amplitude and duration after the FET switches off.

On the degrees of separation, I was referring to the contact chain rather than relatives. Of course I believe we are all relatives traceable back to Noah and I think there was a DNA research done on the continental connections - saw it on Discover or something once.

The questions are probably for me to answer unless we have some guru types that can snap that out real quick. I always have to drag out my formulas and tables - just can't remember like I did 30 years ago...now what was I going to say?...

Well I'm off,

Cheers

[Joit]

I got some different Shots too, anyhow i can adjust the Quantum Timer better,
to a long on time or shorter on Time, both Sides.
For the lower Frequency, i need to change the Gateresistance.

I did rebuild now the second Timercircuit too, but had not have the time, to compare it directly better.
I need a seperate Source for both, anyhow seems they did synchronize at one Source, even when i powered them over 2 seperate Diodes, and do shots for the Ontime of the Mosfet.

Just did put it to a transformer, and strange thing is, they affect the Load/ Coil different at an large Overview.
Just thinking, if the optimum is'nt a large wound Coil.
I will try to make some Picture later

[poynt99]

Well,

If the fact that TK and I (and a few others) were correct all along regarding the duty cycle issue for the Quantum circuit doesn't bolster our credibility with you folks here (the recent subject of discussion), then I don't know what would.

Certainly this recent revelation is worth a hell of a lot more to you than knowing mine or TK's name If not, then well, I have nothing further to say.

But alas, the admin wants me outta here anyway. I was thinking of taking him up his offer to correct the 555 circuit for you all, but then you've got Harvey.

So, I'll post some things on my thread here (some last rebuttals to some complaints Aaron has about "us") and we'll see where we go from there I guess.

.99

[witsend]

Golly Harvey - it seems I've way underestimated your abilities here. EDIT Apologies. I see you've already suggested the problem on our 555. My 'help' in preparing the paper was not the same as the builder of those 555's and I have no idea how any such is constructed. It's just way more than I ever wanted to know. Actually regret this now.

But there's something unique in the properties of this. TK complained that he built it to spec and found that it defaulted to 90% on. Aaron can adjust it to 60% ON at the smallest duty cycle. But his actually resonates at 100% on - albeit that the switch is still switching at 60%.

Our own resonance waveform pattern is also effectively permanently on. We get a clear 3% periodic waveform but with multiple oscillations inbetween. This automatically compounds the frequency. And the waveform only defaults to zero with momentary ringing - replaced by a near perfect but slightly varied copies of the two primary waveforms between each switching cycle. So that ringing is the only moment that it actually gets to zero and it really is momentary. The multiple oscillations between the 'duty cycle' waveforms was identified as a parasitic Hartley effect by an acknowledged boffin at one of your leading universities. He was also going to do the tests. He has never communicated the outcome of those tests notwithstanding my applications. I would have thought he'd be more than ready to deny anything significant here if, indeed, that's what his experiments found.

Whatever the cause of this, the results are extraordinary as it relates to the performance of the battery and to the energy dissipated at the load. And I'm reasonably certain we were nowhere near optimising this.

Regaring the degrees separation. I see this now. I took the trouble to read the links. It is indeed interesting. And I guess it's better that everyone stay in their comfort zones when it comes to disclosure of their names. I still find it remarkably brave when people do disclose this. Maybe not sensible. But wow.