COP 17 Heater | Rosemary Ainslie

[Harvey]

Hi Alex,

Rosemary took the words right out of my mouth .

I think it was Michael Angelo that said the sculpture was always there, we only need to remove all the bits we don't need. The same goes for any truth obfuscated by various bits.

All tests are valid as the ones that miss the mark do help to identify the things that don't work.

Just a quick note to all: If you wish to post your results but wish to not have it referenced in the paper this is OK.

Cheers,

[Michael John Nunnerley]

new video up

Hi Rose and all

Put a quick video up, link on my thread, all comments on my thread please.

Mike

[FuzzyTomCat]

TEST #8 "Clean Up" and "Mosfet Shunt"

Hi everyone,

Here is a short test after doing some recommended "Device Under Test" (DUT) circuit modifications ....

1) Prototype "Load Resistor" - remove circuit alligator test clips and connect with crimp-on wire ring terminals

2) Mosfet Source Pin - remove 3" wire extension wire for probe connection, probe now connected to Mosfet "source" pin

3) Battery Probe Connection - relocated to the common probe ground terminal connection point, Probe tip now twelve (12) inches from prototype "Load Resistor"

************************************************** ******

Channel 1 - Mosfet source shunt
Channel 2 - Mosfet drain
Channel 3 - 555 Timer pin #3
Channel 4 - 24 VDC "Liquid" Lead Acid Battery Bank

1_40us

"Snapshot with Math Functions"


1_40us_11_06_09.CSV Spread Sheet File

2_40us

2_40us_11_06_09.CSV Spread Sheet File

1_100ns

1_100ns_11_06_09.CSV Spread Sheet File

************************************************** *******

This is a test using only two oscilloscope probes with one probe tip on Channel-1 between the Mosfet and Shunt and Channel-2 between the Shunt and the Battery Negative (B-) terminal.

Both probe grounds Channel-1 and Channel-2 connected to a separate isolated AC ground point "NOT" to the battery negative (B-) terminal

Channel 1 - Mosfet Source to Shunt
Channel 2 - Shunt to Battery Negative
Channel 3 - 555 Timer Pin #3 (no probe connection - reference only)

MOSFET_SHUNT_BAT-N_555

MOSFET_SHUNT_BAT-N_555.CSV Spread Sheet File

All Images and data by a Tektronix TDS 3054C from the Tektronix Corporation


Glen

[witsend]

Hi Alex, Thanks for the results.

Just to firm up on the results - your first test with the air core coil did not recharge the battery during 6 hour run. Nor did the second - which included frequency variations - also a 6 hour run. Nor did the 3rd and 4th test - both six hours? presumably? 7th used a different coil and a different flyback but restricted to 3 hours. 8th test the inductor was placed at the source and this test recorded the battery voltage dropped 0.02 over a 7 hour test period. This principle retested with a bigger transformer also at the source generating considerable counter electromotive force that also did not recharge the battery over a 3 hour period.

Golly. That's a total of 37 hours. Way above and beyond the call of duty. Many many thanks for this.

What interests me is that you only give one record of the battery discharge. Did you record the battery discharge during all the tests? And presumably there was some significant drop here? It would be good to know these values - if you're up for it - failing which don't worry. You really have done so much more than your fair share.

Thank you very, very much Alex.

[witsend]

Fuzzy - thank you very much for the data. It's interesting to see that the effect seems to be enhanced rather than reduced as the circuit parameters are tidied up. That's so comforting.

Here's my thinking and I'd be very glad to be corrected if it's wrong. We've tested the optimised resistor which seems to produce a favourable result also, somehow coupled to that distinctive harmonic. We've not been able to generate favourable results or a replication of that harmonic on a resistor with a narrower diameter. Presumably the significance of the resistor's diameter would then be proven on an even wider diameter?

That would be an interesting test Fuzzy. It may also go some way to testing some of Harvey's hypotheses as to where current flows and how - during the off period of the switched cycle.

May I put on record that there is some conviction expressed by MH and others - that current flow first moves towards the MOSFET during the initial stages of the off period. I wonder if the heating over the MOSFET is the result of this or whether the current flow is, in fact, counter clockwise through the battery? Perhaps, somehow this flow is restricted by the size of the body diode itself. May I propose that you insert a diode across the switch from source to drain to enable an easier flow. The logic being that if this in fact reduces both the voltage measured across the source shunt and reduces the temperature on the MOSFET - that it may then suggest that current flow reverses - notwithstanding the polarity of the voltage on the load resistor. Just a thought - and only if it doesn't complicate your circuit. And - actually - I suppose you and Harvey would have to determine that it is even worth testing at all.

EDIT BTW Note that Fuzzy's battery voltage is climbing. WOW

[Groundloop]

Rosemary,

Not quite right. I did test coils BOTH at the LOAD connector and then at
the SHUNT connector. When I tested at the LOAD connector then
the SHUNT connector was short circuit with a wire. When I did test at
the SHUNT connector then the LOAD connector was short circuit with a wire.
(The connectors on my PCB is marked LOAD and SHUNT.)

I did use a ultra fast diode in the tests where the coil was connected to the
LOAD connector. The BYV29 was connected to the mosfet side of
the LOAD connector and to plus on the battery. I did not use any diode
in the tests where I put the coil on the SHUNT connector.

Yes it took many hours. I set up the circuit and let it run over night.
This was the 6 hour tests. The 3 hour tests was done in the weekend.

Best result was with the 10mH transformer like coil. It was connected to
the SHUNT connector. The LOAD connector was short circuit with a wire.

The circuit was adjusted at the start of each test and no adjustment during
the tests. I did not record any o-scope data or frequency / duty data during
the tests. Only a volt meter was used to measure the battery voltage.

Alex.

[witsend]

Poynt - I'm answering you - your post 2486 - on this thread as I'd like to put these points on record.

You state that there is an 'incredible and fundamental flaw' to this approach - with reference to my statement that the quantification of heat dissipated at sundry components other than the load resistor is largely irrelevant. This is perhaps because you are still unfamiliar with the thesis of that paper.

The object of the tests is to determine whether energy delivered by a supply source is dissipated at sundry components connected to the supply in line with classical assumption. Therefore - if the sum of dissipated energies measured on circuit components equals or approximates the energy delivered by the supply then that points to an equivalence in the transfer of energy - in line with classical prediction. However, if there is evidence that the amount of energy delivered is less than the amount of energy dissipated - then that points to a conflict with classical prediction which, in turn, begs the question.

I might add that the thesis referred to proposes that current flow is a primary event. Subject to the availability of circuit components providing a closed circuit path back to the supply, then current will return to the supply and diminish potential difference. During the progress of this flow through the circuit - a secondary electromagnetic imbalance is established in those circuit components. The strength of these secondary fields precisely relates to the rate of current flow that effectively transfers the potential difference from the source to potential difference across those inductive circuit components. The switched cycle applied to the supply then allows a period during which this transferred potential difference can return it's energy back to the circuit. Provided that there is a path to enable this, then the second cycle generates a secondary event where the current flow is returned to those inductive components without diminishing potential difference at the source. And if that path is enabled it is possible to route the secondary current flow back through the battery supply source, thereby recharging the supply.

The amount of energy dissipated at the load will then, theoretically, exceed the amount of energy delivered by the supply in the first instance. Then the sum of the energy dissipated at the load component will need to exceed the sum of the energy delivered by the supply. For this only one comparative measurement is required - provided only that the required excess is measurable. Any other components that may also have a measurable rise in thermal energy - is of interest - but is redundant to the argument.

The fact is that we have not established this thesis on the partial completion of tests that have been recorded thus far. We have only pointed to the possibility that the thesis may have some grounding in the evidence of these 'partially completed' tests. To evaluate the actual energy delivered still requires the need to establish a value over a more significant time period.

I trust this answers your questions.

[Harvey]

Click For Larger

Just a quick note here in reference to Glen's last picture and data dump:
He shows the Channel 3 probe as 555 Timer pin 3 only because this is the channel normally associated with that signal, but in reality that probe was fully disconnected and just laying on the bench as indicated in the graphical schematic representation above.

The purpose of this test was to look for spatial anchoring - that is to say, space-time anchoring of the circuit components. In this case, the procedure was based on the premise that space-time is dragged with the earth at its surface and is therefore congruent with an electrically grounded reference. When we have a completely electrically isolated circuit impinging on space-time with a magnetic oscillation, we would expect a reaction in the circuit commensurate to the action of the perturbations produced. The high impedance probes provide a good insulation against electrical bonding while allowing us to sample in a small way the actions and reactions relative to the probes reference,i.e. earth ground.

The hypotheses being tested related specifically to the possibility of electrical tension present in one part of the circuit reaching through the electrical source (24V Battery Bank) and becoming present at the node connecting the CSR (current sensing resistor) to the B(-) terminal. Here the question arose as to whether the B(-) Terminal was being pulled up electrically or whether the node connecting the CSR to the HEXFET Source Pin was being pushed down electrically, or both.

It was wondered that if the voltage potential present on the drain pin were able to influence the B(+) as we have observed, then perhaps it was able to elevate the B(-) as well - relative to space-time that is. It was supposed, that if this could be the case, and the node connecting the CSR to the HEXFET source was sufficiently anchored to space-time, that the reaction could cause a voltage potential to exist across the CSR without current actually flowing in that instant of time. If this were the case, then we would expect to see the B(-) raise above Earth Ground sufficiently to produce the effect.

The test failed to show evidence in support of that hypothesis. Instead, the evidence appears to support the hypothesis that Newtons third law of motion could have an electromagnetic equivalent with respects to electrical and magnetic tension. Simply put, if our circuit impresses a 530V pulse in one direction relative to space-time, then we could expect a reaction to occur that would impress the circuit in the opposite direction. So, if B(-) is neutral to space-time before the pulse and is isolated electrically from earth ground, then we expect B(-) to drop below earth ground when the pulse is being generated. Each node would go in opposite directions relative to space-time. The drain pin goes up and the B(-) pin goes down as they appear to push against each other in the event...relative to space-time that is. So it seems to support the idea that there may be an electromagnetic inertia.

This test was in no way intended to be a definitive in any case and was asked for to satisfy a curiosity posed by the time shift observed in the CSR signal during the field collapse of the load resistor.

Cheers,

[ashtweth]

Bit of progress

Hi All. Just a quick post are into into test 2 now. Here is what i got from Andrew.

Ash

Imageshack - nov12009ainsliereport

Hey all,

I have done some more testing as per Glen's circuit diagram and resistor winding specifications.The photo has all the tagging in it of the specifications. There wasn't any noticeable heat coming from the resistor.

The capacitor in the photo is 4700uF 50V. I have done some research and experimenting with the negative dominant waveform generator (August 26, 2009) - I have changed the variable resistors and the timing capacitors (except for the 0.01uF capacitor on pin 5 of the 555 IC).

The 10K ohm is now 1M ohm, the 2K ohm is now 2 x 100K ohms in series.
The 0.001uF (1nF) capacitors have been replaced with 10pF capacitors.

So far so good. I need to make the right selection for the fixed value resistors (the 110, 100, and 1K ohm) to get the frequency I am after. This won't be hard to determine. That should make for a more efficient 555 timer circuit that won't overheat the 555 timer.

Has anyone looked into an RLC resonant tank circuit as a frequency generator for this sort of application?

Andrew

[FuzzyTomCat]

Hi Ash,

I see you and Andrew are keeping busy with the circuit ....

I noticed there is a 235 ohm resistor and a capacitor tied to the load resistor. I'm not sure if you saw the circuit revision dated the 10-25-09 in POST 3037



If you go by this and the adjustment procedure which I cannot say how important it is for anyone wanting to get results in any gains is by "fine" adjustments to the "gate" potentiometer in the 5 to 7 ohm range monitoring the 24 volt "liquid" lead acid battery bank voltage with a DMM to get the "HIGHEST" battery voltage possible, watching the gate potentiometer backlash and getting the "LOWEST" mV reading from 40 to 80 mV mean on the oscilloscope probe tip between the Mosfet source and the shunt resistor. I realize you don't have a scope at present but when you do please try to use POST 3035 for an example and instructions on what you should see. The components listed in the revised circuit are almost the same values and items as the "Quantum" October 2002 article.

Keep up the good work !!

Glen


************************************************** ******
EDIT - The "Negative Dominate Wave Form" Schematic was not made to generate heat as per Aarons POST 3019

Just to follow up on this so nobody is confused...the negative dominant waveform tests were never intended to produce heat in the resistor. If anything, I have documented a temperature DROP on a few occasions, while showing a negative net draw from the battery.

It was to show that the circuit load and timer can run on the SAME battery while showing that the battery is giving a net negative wattage meaning the battery is actually receiving MORE than it required to output to the circuit to run the 555 and switch the mosfet.

The circuit Glen is running now IS intended to make heat, which is the original goal and is completely different from the "negative dominant" circuit, which I have done and Glen (the only one that I know of) that has replicated it.

[ashtweth]

Hi Glen many thanks a lot for the extra help man, you really do have a an extra special aptitude for this, okay have added all that in the start of the PDF , here is the answer i got from Andrew. Thanks again Glen for answering.

Hey Glen/ALL,

The first paragraph mentioning your circuit diagram and resistor winding specifications, the photo, and no noticeable heat: that was the 2.4KHz 3.7% circuit board.I tried adjusting the gate resistance with that for the highest battery voltage.The 235 ohm resistor / capacitor are to collect the back spikes and burn them up as heat. Should I disconnect them from the resistor?
The negative dominant - that's a different circuit board. Mine produces heat. I'll look into it some more.

Andrew

[FuzzyTomCat]

Hi Glen many thanks a lot for the extra help man, you really do have a an extra special aptitude for this, okay have added all that in the start of the PDF , here is the answer i got from Andrew. Thanks again Glen for answering.

Hey Glen/ALL,

The first paragraph mentioning your circuit diagram and resistor winding specifications, the photo, and no noticeable heat: that was the 2.4KHz 3.7% circuit board.I tried adjusting the gate resistance with that for the highest battery voltage.The 235 ohm resistor / capacitor are to collect the back spikes and burn them up as heat. Should I disconnect them from the resistor?
The negative dominant - that's a different circuit board. Mine produces heat. I'll look into it some more.

Andrew

Hi Ash and Andrew,

Great work guys I really think that the added resistance and the capacitor is unneeded and may have unwanted effects to the circuit, with those components they may imped supplying energy back to the battery making the circuit less efficient but with more heat. If everything is operating properly we should see the 24 volt battery bank voltage stabilize or actually increase in voltage which was indicated in the original RA COP>17 Heater Circuit outlined in the "Quantum" article, this I have seen several times during the circuit operation the last time was when I was getting ready for TEST #8 POST 3108 when looking at the images at the Channel-4 green trace the Voltage "RMS" and "Mean" in the right column went up several times if you look at the date and time stamp when the circuit was under operation .... so I'm possibly really close to some impressive readings now. I'm sure your on your way also to getting some good readings .... the one thing I did notice is the RTV if really thick acts like a insulator keeping the heat inside I tried to keep mine as thin as possible which was really hard but being my core is 32mm borosilicate glass tube there is the option of mine to use the inside of the tube for measurements and heating fluids if needed or required.

If your using some alligator clips test wire leads remember the voltage and amperage of the device under testing, ours has high voltage and some amps to the circuit ..... some of the clips look like they are in the mV range and may be inadequate for the this application you might check ..... I've seen about 700 volts on the Mosfet drain pin and 100 volts going back into the battery shown in the last scope shot ( 100ns ) in POST #3108 .... so tight connections are a must in the 24 Volt side of the circuit.

Have Fun !!

Glen

[witsend]

Guys - I've got a schematic that is not strictly on topic except in as far as it consistent with the thesis. I'll need to describe it - hopefully someone with the skills can draw it for easy reference.

Take the lead from an ac supply to a junction of two resistors in parallel. The one has a positively biased diode with the cathode against the resistor. The other has a negativly biased diode with the cathode against the far side of the second resistor - so that current flow from source is moved to one or other resistor during each half of each complete sine wave.

The thinking is this. During the delivery of the above ground current flow the 'stored' field is across the first resistor - and then it's interrupted - and the current is then directed to the second resistor together with the collapsing fields from the first. Repeat in the second cycle - and all within the frequency determined by the supply.

The circuit then returns current to the plug.

Not sure if anyone wants to check this - but it would be an interesting test. And if you use two bar heaters - may be relatively easy to test as well. Just a thought. If it works - Mike - you may not patent it. It's already here - on public record. LOL

[Michael John Nunnerley]

never patent again

Guys - I've got a schematic that is not strictly on topic except in as far as it consistent with the thesis. I'll need to describe it - hopefully someone with the skills can draw it for easy reference.

Take the lead from an ac supply to a junction of two resistors in parallel. The one has a positively biased diode with the cathode against the resistor. The other has a negativly biased diode with the cathode against the far side of the second resistor - so that current flow from source is moved to one or other resistor during each half of each complete sine wave.

The thinking is this. During the delivery of the above ground current flow the 'stored' field is across the first resistor - and then it's interrupted - and the current is then directed to the second resistor together with the collapsing fields from the first. Repeat in the second cycle - and all within the frequency determined by the supply.

The circuit then returns current to the plug.

Not sure if anyone wants to check this - but it would be an interesting test. And if you use two bar heaters - may be relatively easy to test as well. Just a thought. If it works - Mike - you may not patent it. It's already here - on public record. LOL

Hi Rosemary,

I would never patent a thing again, total waste of time and money, the best way is prior art and copy right as a form of defence, that is if you can prove it through registered documents with dates thereof.

My friend has found this out, "mybe not a friend anymore", as I have all papers date stamped and sealed and registered with my Notary for safe gaurd if anyone tries to patent the idea, 100% fullproof.

I do this with all my papers on a weekly basis and cost me next to nothing, they are kept by the Notary in there vaults.

Anyway I am too old now to be looking to make vast amounts of money, be quite happy doing lecture tours and being paid for it, sort of a working holiday so don't worry about me filing patents, apart from this if you filed a patent on OU the government would take control as they have done with many a patent

Mike

[Michael John Nunnerley]

P:S:

Forgot to say, this sounds a little like what I was doing before

Mike