COP 17 Heater | Rosemary Ainslie

[FuzzyTomCat]

Hi Glen,

Do you plan on making a couple resistors that are wound in both directions? Might be interesting to see if that shows any difference on the scope. The one you left with me is wound for South at the end where the positive is.

Hi Aaron,

I was only going to make a resistor like the one I left with you ..... but your suggestion of making one wound in the opposite direction is a "great" idea I'll just have to make two now

Glen

[FuzzyTomCat]

Larger Pic

Larger Pic

It was determined that there is an unknown component in the Radio-Location Bands above 3GHz present in the 'noise' and sufficient to intrude on the data. This signal was present even with the power stage inoperable. The source of this signal is yet to be determined. It may be finding its way into the circuit from the scope ground system.

The test configuration used is presented above and organized in such a way so as to reveal any breakdown in KCL. The operation was Aperiodic. The resistor used was Glen's, documented elsewhere. I was not concerned with the circuit timing or the components used for the timer, as this test was aimed at the aperiodic operation and its effects on the current flow in the circuit. The CSR (current sensing resistors) are all 0.25 Ohm 5%. Therefore I charted a minimum and a maximum value for the current in each leg of the circuit.

The instantaneous voltage at CH1 was used for power calculations for each leg based on the Max current (min tolerance resistance value). The absolute value of that current was used. Thus all of the power values are above zero for all three legs.

The sum of the timer leg and load leg were compared to the B(+) leg and the 'missing' value was charted. The 'missing' instantaneous current ranged from +285mA to -305mA and may be directly related to the unknown signal. However, there is a clear indication of positive current flow through the B(+) leg at that point in time that a negative current flow exists in the load leg. The value of this event appears to be greater than the maximum recorded amplitude of the noise present, but we must realize the the scope used and the samples taken may be inadequate for GHz signals - although it did register that frequency according to Aaron.

Because of the very aperiodic data, I did calculate the average power for each leg to get a better overall picture using the technique mentioned above. The average timer power was 316mW. The average power for the load was 410mW. The average power for the B(+) leg was 3.5W. The instantaneous power is charted above. Note that the timer and load show the bursts while the B(+) is constant.

I did try to look for inductive delays and shifted current, but the data makes this almost impossible.

I would like to revisit this test when the unknown energy component is discovered and dealt with. We cannot overlook the possibility that it may be coming from the battery or 'noisy' sensing resistors, or an interaction between the two.

At first glance, it appears that this circuit is taking power from the B(+) leg and returning it to the B(-) leg by some other path. This path can be RF, thermal or some other form of energy exchange otherwise undocumented as of yet. Or it could be and exchange with another energy pool. It definitely warrants deeper analysis and study.

Hi Harvey,

EXCELLENT WORK !! ..... I'm amazed what these simulator programs can do especially with masters at the helm

I'm really surprised with the RF spectrums listed in the PDF in yor link Radio-Location Bands always wondered why some people wore tin foil hats ..... WOW .....

Glen

[Harvey]

With all the analysis, and the other things I've been trying to do, I only just now realized that I did not properly credit Aaron for doing the actual hands on for the tests Sorry for that Aaron. So a big to Aaron for donating his time and energy and graciously providing a live Skype link for real time viewing of the scope during the tests - and for being patient with my old dinosaur of a computer during the disconnects and upload delays.

We truly are living at a time in technological grasp that affords collaborative works never before possible. I foresee productive accomplishments springing from such remote teamwork in many fields in such quantities that it will soon be difficult to keep up with all the open sourced advancements.

Remote white-boarding, teleconferencing and large scale data sharing have been with us for some time, but even with its availability, few are putting it to good use for product development - primarily due to the security risks of sensitive proprietary technology. This is why open-sourced projects will be pushed into higher quantity and quality successes than privately sheltered projects.

In short, a lot can be accomplished in a short period of time where few secrets are involved.


On a separate note: The differential function of the scope did not seem to provide the same data as was presented individually for the two channels (CH1 - CH2). Also, the scope did not want to allow DC coupling of the differential probes. Any comments from those familiar with this scope and that particular math function are welcome.

Cheers,

[witsend]

Poynt - I'm posting here because I can't get onto OU.com at the moment. Thanks very much indeed for all the hard work on the 'negative before positive' number.

I can't understand how the caps can actually replace the MOSFET function. And I don't know what LO or HI refers to? Anyway - I'll try and get some answers here during the day.

Thanks Poynt - very much. I think this answer can only actually be confirmed by Aaron and Fuzzy. I'm only sorry you didn't try this on the experimental apparatus.

And while I'm on the subject - may I say that I am blown away by your work on this. Really good and really thorough. We miss having you on this thread? Maybe reconsider? I think there are many here who could take advantage of your measurement tips. Fuzzy's already trend setting here.

[witsend]

Negative To Positive

Harvey - I've been giving some thought to your comments on that negative before positive waveform number.

If energy supplied is to the battery and not from the battery - then the question remains. Where did that energy come from? And if it's that easy to take a charge and return it to the source - then why isn't everyone doing this? It's got to help. I get it that you and Poynt are proposing that the energy is simply pushed to a capacitor - stored - and then sent back to the battery - somehow? On Aaron's tests that cap would need to hold not less than 12 watts? Not at all sure that it can.

If the first discharge from the system is from another source then it needs to be checked. If the energy is somehow first delivered by the battery supply and then transferred to the load resistor - then that would explain a net negative voltage across the shunt on the battery negative rail. But it would also indicate that there's enough energy in the resistor to return it to source and continue to do so in an oscillating frequency.

That's my tuppence worth. Is this wrong?

[Harvey]

Harvey - I've been giving some thought to your comments on that negative before positive waveform number.

If energy supplied is to the battery and not from the battery - then the question remains. Where did that energy come from? And if it's that easy to take a charge and return it to the source - then why isn't everyone doing this? It's got to help. I get it that you and Poynt are proposing that the energy is simply pushed to a capacitor - stored - and then sent back to the battery - somehow? On Aaron's tests that cap would need to hold not less than 12 watts? Not at all sure that it can.

If the first discharge from the system is from another source then it needs to be checked. If the energy is somehow first delivered by the battery supply and then transferred to the load resistor - then that would explain a net negative voltage across the shunt on the battery negative rail. But it would also indicate that there's enough energy in the resistor to return it to source and continue to do so in an oscillating frequency.

That's my tuppence worth. Is this wrong?

Without really building the circuit and observing it myself either in reality or in the simulator, I really cannot comment with any authority here. But from my first observations it seems obvious to me that we are not getting the whole picture for any given time slice. The observed ringing is an aftermath of a prior event not being shown. If I go outside and look in a swimming pool and see waves sloshing back and forth I do not immediately assume that they are warning me of a future event - instead, I rationalize that they are the result of a past event. Perhaps a small tremor, or someone exited the pool, or even a wind pushed down on some part of the surface.

However, it is possible to have a forewarning. Certain types of oscillations can move faster than others. For example, in California many schools are equipped with early warning systems to alert teachers and students to an impending earthquake. This is accomplished by taking quake vibrations near an epicenter and sending an electromagnetic wave out ahead of those vibrations - because the electromagnetic wave travels faster, it can give persons the needed seconds to prepare for the impact of the ground shaking wave to follow.

Could the 'negative before positive' be such a type of thing? Probably not - but without all the information regarding other things going on in the circuit a definitive answer cannot be had. As well as Glen and Aaron have shown that particular pulse, they have left out the rest of the circuit's operations, so we are far from closing the issue until the work is properly completed. Personally I don't see anything there to encourage my involvement in the matter. Sorry.



EDIT: Here's an example of an early warning of a coming wave:Tsunami To Reach California 9/29/09
EDIT: Fuzzy and Glen changed to read Glen and Aaron

[Aaron]

caps on timer circuit.

There are effects that are detectable before the even actually happens in the present time:

http://www.energeticforum.com/energetic-science-ministries/599-global-consciousness-project.html

PEAR department from Princeton has proven this over and over but of course we aren't talking about consciousness and its influence over the outcome of random event generators. But, as above so below, I think this rings true in the circuits but probably not at any level that we can detect. Another possibility as the CME possibility is that our intention is influencing the operation of the switching - and this is relevant to my original mention of white noise generators at ou.com. I'm not trying to push that concept but the fact is, we cannot eliminate the influence of any circuit from our awareness or intention.

Just remember that in an oscillation - aperiodic for example, random is not the same as chaos and will not exhibit a pattern. Environmental influence manipulates the rhythm of the circuit. Some people that believe they are experts in the field think that because a random number generator on a computer is not totally random since it is based on a program, it will display a pattern over enough samples. But this is NOT the case with effective white noise generators where each piece of noise can be converted to a 0 or 1. In the aperiodic oscillation, the timing is influenced from OUTSIDE of the circuit itself, gravity, etc... and will not show a pattern - anyone that believes it is has fooled themselves into thinking they actually know what they're looking at.

Rosemary, as far as caps being charged, there are 4 caps on my 555 circuit...3 of them are involved with the timing and 1 is a filter cap to prevent spikes on the 555 circuit itself. The filter cap is 35v 100uf. The max charge of that cap is at battery voltage at 100uf...very small potential. I can completely remove the filter cap from the circuit and it doesn't change the operation of the circuit in any significant way.

Actually, I can even remove ALL 4 CAPS and the timer circuit still runs, the load still goes negative and the load waveform is still mirrored on top and bottom with periods of remaining a net negative dc on the load.

Is someone suggesting that these caps are are sending their charge back to the battery? Even if they are, there is unconventional occurrences in the circuit still. Yet the circuit still exhibits these properties with ZERO caps on the 555 circuit at all. So what next?

When the magnetic field collapses on the load and has the strong negative spike, that sharp gradient breaks the symmetry of the vacuum and acts as a sink that pulls in more potential with it, more than what was put into the coil to charge it to begin with. Strong gradients show effects that are known to violate thermodynamics. It may be debatable as to why, but it is not debatable as to whether or not it happens, in my opinion.

And the magic is in the material that the resistive load is made of. I deduced that from my early tests and mentioned to Peter that it appears that if the spike is directed only back into the coil - without it going to the battery, it converts the voltage to current.

I had this concept confirmed to me by someone that I consider an expert on the subject - when I brought this up to soemone else, they said it made sense and gave me an interesting explanation as to why this may be.

[witsend]

Harvey - thanks for the input. What I would find of interest is if Aaron could 'replicate' Fuzzy's waveform. But I think he's probably busy enough on his own tests. It'd be nice to get an update here.

But I get it that without replication - it'll be chalked up to an 'anomaly'. That would be a shame.

edit btw - I looked up that Tsunami warning. Impressive that they've got this warning system in place.

[witsend]

Hi Aaron,

There are indeed, those who think that there's periodicity in an aperiodic waveform. Personally I'm looking forward to hearing this argument.

Thanks for the explanation regarding the capacitors at the 555. And I'm intrigued to see that you managed evidence of gain without any caps at all. But did it also then show the 'negative before positive' number?

You mention that there's an explanation of this? Can you elaborate - if you're not too busy testing?

And at the risk of imposing on you - is there a chance that we could see some kind of replication of the 'replicated'. It's getting confusing. But it would be nice. But only if you've the time - obviously.

EDIT - and obviously, only if it doesn't interrupt the 'flow' of your own tests. I realise that all such can be counter productive. You've been exceptionally obliging here. I trust you took note of everyone's gratitude. And may I add mine. Many thanks indeed, Aaron.

[witsend]

More Thanks To Tektronix

Fuzzy - please get hold of Lisa. I've emailed you her telephone number. Lisa has kindly organised something for you for the weekend.

Many thanks Lisa. We are all indebted. I hope we'll do your instruments justice.

Rosie

[Harvey]

Negative Before Positive

Just a quick video showing a classical approach to producing negatives before positives:
Negative Before Positive Simulation

Cheers,

[witsend]

Hi Harvey. Many thanks for this. I need to get back to you though because - quite frankly - I don't know how to argue this.

But many thanks for the trouble taken. Much appreciated.

[Harvey]

Fuzzy - please get hold of Lisa. I've emailed you her telephone number. Lisa has kindly organised something for you for the weekend.

Many thanks Lisa. We are all indebted. I hope we'll do your instruments justice.

Rosie

Yes! Thanx Lisa

[FuzzyTomCat]

Rosemary Ainslie COP>17 Heater Circuit

Hi everyone,

I have a few preliminary photos of the Rosemary Ainslie COP>17 Heater Circuit wave forms I'd like to share

555 ON - Minimum Resistance + - (2K pot)
555 OFF - Maximum Resistance + - (10K pot)
Gate - Minimum Resistance + - (5K pot)

Freq - 7.8 to 8.1 Mhz

Load Resister Temperature - 137 degrees F
Mosfet Temperature - 169 degrees F

Load Resister 10 ohm 100 watt "Memcor" ( 20 to 24 uH ? )
(2) Exide Technologies Battery's "Liquid" Lead Acid / Model # GT-H - TRACTOR 12V - 12Ah - CCA 235
(1) CSB battery "gel" Lead Acid / #GP 1270 F2 - 12V - 7Ah
__________________________________________________ _______________

555 Timer Pin #3 - Channel 2 - 1V (x10) ["No" 24 VDC Battery Bank Connected]



Mosfet shunt - Channel 1 (A1) - 50mV (x10)
555 Timer Pin #3 - Channel 2 - 1V (x10)






The circuit seemed to like these settings ..... but we'll see .....

Glen

[Aaron]

Ainslie circuit without caps on 555 going negative

YouTube - Ainslie circuit without caps on 555 circuit

Some people amateurishly believe the negative effects on this circuit come from caps on the 555 circuit. Even if they do, it is still unconventional and there is still more leaving the circuit than going into it. In any case, this video shows no caps on the 555 circuit at all, and yes it will run, and the negative effects are still there. So, the argument that the effects are coming from the caps are completely erroneous.