COP 17 Heater | Rosemary Ainslie

[Cloxxki]

Thanks Rosemary. I used to work for the European Patent Office actually. Only as an interim via an agency though, so I still get to pay my income taxes.

Once this proves to work as claimed in the application, I may be of use to get this further out there. It is my (hereby decided) policy though to try and involve an open source inventor, to not use a good thing for something the inventor would consider a bad cause. That's the moral intellectual property or whatever we should call it.
I paid quite a bit to heat my 1930 appartment last winter, it would be nice to get something more efficient going.

[Joit]

I would call that a bad bad Transistor Karma

[gotoluc]

Hi,

I have designed a experimental PCB for the RA circuit. The component values
are as in the papers but people can change the values if they want different duty cycle or oscillator frequency. I will be building this circuit later on (I'm on vacation right now) and will report back when done. I will be having 23 extra
PCB's to give away for free, to anybody that want one. But, you must wait
until after my vacation. My hope is that this will inspire people to actually test
this circuit in their own setting.

The Eagle CAD (from Cadsoft) design files can be downloaded here:

Index of /ufoufoufoufo

Thanks to Rosemary Ainslie for providing the information for free.

Best regards,
Groundloop from Norway.

Groundloop my friend

it is nice to see you at the Energetic Forum and as always your willingness and generosity to help everyone.

I would be grateful in receiving one PC board

For all who don't know Groundloop, he is an exceptional researcher from the OU Forum. Energetic can only gain with his participation.

Luc

[Groundloop]

Rosemary,

Thanks for the positive words. :-)

Luc,

I think it will be smart to send most of the PCB to you since most builders
is from the US anyway. Then you can mail PCB to others. Postal cost for
sending a letter to US from Norway is more than a single PCB costs me.
Do you think that this is OK for you? I will compensate you for your costs
by adding some other electronics in the parcel to you.

It will take some time, though. I will not have the PCB's until last
week of August.

Nice to see you on this forum. :-)

Groundloop.

[henieck]

We've tested on Tektronix which in SA costs upwards of R250 000.00 and got the same results. We also went to the trouble of getting a calibration certificate for all the instruments that we used.

- what a pitty that I don't have such a scope, because I have tested this circuit with 10$ multimeter and overlooked all the free energy

But the actual final proof of the pudding is in comparing the draw down rate in controls. The control - in the test result depleted within the time that the test batteries hardly showed a drop.

[gotoluc]

Rosemary,

Thanks for the positive words. :-)

Luc,

I think it will be smart to send most of the PCB to you since most builders
is from the US anyway. Then you can mail PCB to others. Postal cost for
sending a letter to US from Norway is more than a single PCB costs me.
Do you think that this is OK for you? I will compensate you for your costs
by adding some other electronics in the parcel to you.

It will take some time, though. I will not have the PCB's until last
week of August.

Nice to see you on this forum. :-)

Groundloop.

Yes Groundloop, I would be happy to help out and no need to compensate me since you have done so much for me already

But before you go through the trouble and expense please make sure you have enough requests.

Thank you my friend

Luc

[witsend]

I've realised that I need to explain why I reference the patent at all? It's because I need disclose the extent of the patent. In other words it defines what MAY NOT BE PATENTED EVER. And for those interested in this - I have, on record, written invitation to register the patent at the end of the period of publication. Indeed I was twice invited to register, the one prior to its lapse and the other, notwithstanding the expiry period - after it had lapsed. Both letters are on record. The patent was indeed approved, in every particular, else I would not have been invited to register.

Hope that clarifies things.
Regards,
Rosemary

[witsend]

henieck - I am blown away at the quality of your reporting. And when I think that you're explaining all this in a second language - the jaw drops. Really amazing. But it's a complex report and I'm going to try and deal with this in a separate post. I'm just quoting what I think are the salient features in your report. Yet again, it's very well written and really comprehensive. You are a real challenge to me henieck - because you're clearly a seeker and you are determined to find the answer to our claims of overunity in the spirit which is best. EXPERIMENTAL PROOF.

By varying adjustable resistor I found that the flyback gains the most when I have minimal setting on the variable resistor, so only the value of protective resistor 510Ohms which I had in place from different application was left between timer and transistor.
I take it that you're saying the best gains on a low duty cycle?


Is there consensus that when current flows through the diode that the battery is not delivering that energy? The assumption is that the energy through the diode does not come from the battery as the battery is not able to discharge during the OFF period of the duty cycle. In effect the current flow (electrons ) must, therefore, be coming from the inductance in the resistor? This is an important point. I'll get back to it.

I'm not sure of the cap measurement but - again - I'll get back to it. The actual frequency is - again - something I'll get back to. And I get it that you tested the battery under mult re-charge conditions to establish the actual watt hour rating at plus/minus 5 hours.


Only quoting this again because it's just so descriptive. And reference to rise in temperature - is interesting. But there is a real relevance to the fact that the transistor did not get hot.


Again - I'm simply quoting this because it's so articulate and heartfelt. We do have a positive answer here henieck. And, unless I die first, I'm going to try and explain it.


OK. This will be my starting point. I'll answer all these points, or try to answer all these points in the next post.


Not Rosemary? I think I may be able to explain this? Will you at least let me try?

[witsend]

henieck - I think the problem of what makes 'current flow' goes to the heart of this problem. But at this stage - all I am asking is this. Does your battery discharge energy during that period of the duty cycle when the switch is closed? In other words the 'spike' - is it a result of more energy coming from the battery? (Sorry I posted instead of preview. This looks edited - but it isn't.)

IF it's coming from the battery then your point is valid. But, by the same token - if it's not coming from the battery where does it come from? So really to answer this we need to go back to basics. According to Inductive Laws - we're taught. Changing electric fields induce magnetic fields. Changing magnetic fields induce electric fields. That's not open to question. We know this. Then the ON cycle from the battery enables current to flow through the circuit. During that flow, which is instantaneously evident throughout the circuit - that same flow establishes a voltage across the load resistor. And, as Donovan pointed out, the rate of flow is determined by the level of voltage measured across the load resistor. The two are directly proportional and measurable in terms of know classical measurement. So measure that voltage - square that value and then divide it by the Ohms value of the resistor - v^2/r - to determine the actual wattage delivered by the battery during this ON period. Again. We now have the actual measure of the energy delivered by the battery.

During the OFF cycle - when the switch is open - the battery is effectively disconnected from the circuit. It allows no further flow of current from the battery. NO MORE ENERGY. Whatever now happens on the circuit is not the result of more energy from the battery. And in the final analysis we are trying to evaluate the amount of energy that is coming from the battery. So - we all know there's an immediate spike - as you rightly pointed out - followed by some ringing until the duty cycle either defaults to zero or moves into the next cycle - depending on the frequency of that duty cycle. So what actually happens to cause that spike?

My take - which is strictly in terms of Inductive Laws is this. The potential difference from the battery supply source is disconnected. The current flow from the battery is 'stopped' - instantaneously. The voltage across the load collapses. The voltage is simply a measure of the magnetic fields that were first extruded as a result of that current flow. These fields collapse to zero. The measure of that collapse is equal to the applied voltage during the previous ON cycle and also a reasonably exact measure of the energy first applied by the battery. These collapsing fields are simply magnetic fields changing in time. A changing magnetic field induces an electric field. Now the inductor becomes a supplier of energy. In effect the resistor becomes its own energy source.

It, these changing magnetic fields, induce a reverse voltage across the resistor equal to the product of the voltage over time that was first applied by the battery. The time to manifest that voltage is reduced. So it gains in voltage what it loses in time to manifest that voltage. Hence the level of voltage which is far greater than the level of voltage applied during the ON time. But the actual energy delivered is some small fraction less than the ON time. The ringing that follows this event - is the continual and gradual discharge of that energy in ever smaller increments until ALL the energy delivered during the ON time is dissipated or discharged during this OFF time.

SO. If your ammeter is showing a doubling of the current then your actual question should be - where does that 'doubled' current come from? It has NOT come from the battery - not in terms of classical analysis and not in terms of my definition of current flow. And the next question is - where does it go? If it results in a 'doubled' discharge of amperage from the battery - then there is no gain. But how could it have come from the battery? The battery delivers a monodirectional current flow. It cannot recharge from this cycle. But configure a simple test and you WILL see a recharge cycle.

Here's the test. Yet again, apologies for the repetition. Find a second battery. Attach the negative rail ONLY to this second battery. Put the diode to the positive terminal of that second battery. And watch the battery recharge. At the same time watch the temperature over the load resistor. That wont change. And the battery will recharge.

I think I've covered it all and will post. Hopefully it'll stick. I keep losing posts.

[witsend]

henieck's conclusion.

In the final conclusion - the circuit, thanks to the diode, circulates the same energy twice.
How can this be? It first heats the resistor and then heats it again. Or does it simply go back to the battery to recharge this? Or neither? And how can energy conform to any conservation law at all if it is first dissipated and then recycled? Aren't you arguing our point here?

Ammeter shows almost double value of what really is dissipated as heat.
That doubled value? Again, does that come from the battery? And the fact is that even you saw an increase in the temperature over the resistor. Nor could you contradict an evident rise in battery voltage - albeit intermittent. I would not expect a four fold or any increase in the heat dissipated unless you had that resonating frequency. But I would expect an over unity result.


Please explain why this is an erroneous impression. If, indeed, the energy dissipated exceeded the watt hour rating of your battery then I would have concluded that there's a gain.


Again henieck. If the energy that was previously lost in the transistor is now being transferred to the load resistor - would than not suggest that the extra energy was there - but simply overlooked?

My own conclusion is that you're actually measuring a gain. But before I can show you this I need to ascertain something. Is there some classical reference that precludes energy coming from the inductor or the inductive components of a resistor. To the best of my knowledge there is not?

Your ammeter is not able to show a reverse current flow. It only gives a product of all the current in the system. You need to establish how much energy first came from the battery and how much then came from the resistor. The sum of the two relates to the actual battery draw down rate as the energy from the resistor is returned to the battery.

[henieck]

disinformation spreaders indeed

@ debunkers and disinformation spreaders

The extra work on the off cycle here is really common sense and I'm amazed at what an issue it is for anyone to accept this. For anyone that doesn't buy it, go pull the fuses out of all your surge protectors and put in a hard wire, turn your home power off and on at the breaker box a few times and see if there is any usable work in what the magnetic fields give up AFTER the power is turned off.

It takes WORK to fry an appliance or anything else plugged into the wall from a surge which happens AFTER the power is turned off.

- that is right, but it doesn't mean that to make manifest this surge didn't cost anything energetically. It takes WORK to produce this phenomenon...

[witsend]

henieck, as a final point - you've got the apparatus at hand. Just measure the applied voltage from the battery across the load resistor. You will see that it conforms in all aspects to Ohms Law. There is no extra energy applied by the battery to store those fields that then collapse.

I think that's enough to go on with. But I see that - at its root - I'll have to convince you that current flow may be better explained by my little zipons.

I think the only barrier that you have at seeing the gain is psychological. Your report indeed appears to show that gain. EDIT Glad to see your on line. I hope you'll address some of these points.

[henieck]

henieck - I am blown away at the quality of your reporting. And when I think that you're explaining all this in a second language - the jaw drops.

You are a real challenge to me henieck - because you're clearly a seeker and you are determined to find the answer to our claims of overunity in the spirit which is best. EXPERIMENTAL PROOF.

By varying adjustable resistor I found that the flyback gains the most when I have minimal setting on the variable resistor, so only the value of protective resistor 510Ohms which I had in place from different application was left between timer and transistor.
I take it that you're saying the best gains on a low duty cycle?

Is there consensus that when current flows through the diode that the battery is not delivering that energy?

[/I][/B]
Again - I'm simply quoting this because it's so articulate and heartfelt. We do have a positive answer here henieck. And, unless I die first, I'm going to try and explain it.

[witsend]

Apologies for so many consecutive posts but I would very much like to share something that I saw on one of the Discovery programmes aimed at learning more about the human 'mind'. The example was a little girl who was able to get a sweet out of a black box by series of complicated manouvres shown to her by the experimenter. So was a chimpanzee. Both learned the required series of steps. Then the blind was taken off the box and both could see a short cut to the 'steps' needed to get to the sweets. The chimp dispensed with the ritualised extra steps. The little girl did not. She faithfully performed all the steps albeit that ALL were not required. The conclusion was that something in the wiring of all of us requires an excessive respect for prior learning. Clearly the girl was more intelligent. But, notwithstanding the benefit of this IQ, she did not exploit the obvious.

It is relevant in this context. We have all relied on our giants in physics to forge the path, so to speak to our understanding in physics. In this, I'm including all of them - from the early Greek classicists to our modern classicists - right up to those giants in quantum physics who effectively 'opened' the actual atom itself to general view. It's an extraordinary history. And it has all concluded and been parcelled into the Laws of the Conservation of Energy. It's an extraordinary feat. It's an achievement that is probably the ultimate pride of the human intellect. It has effectively launched us into our new technological age. And this new age, this new era of discovery, is itself gaining ground on newer and newer dimensions of understanding and application and at pace. Progress is now evident on an exponential and unprecedented basis - so much so that actually leaves the most of all gagging - just trying to keep up.

But, like that little girl, learning seems to be a process that is 'hard wired' into us. It is almost as if we 'give up' the need to apply our own logical faculties to a question, and simply rely on those experts who have gone before us. This does not, in any way, mean to imply that we cannot follow that logic that has been forged by those giants. But it is my experience that the actual 'steps of logic' required to find those conclusions - are best understood by experts and those experts are usually academics. Therefore the essence of all that knowledge is encapsulted in our universities and academies throughout the world. And these experts - who have mastered the tedious logic required to advance this learning, fully respect and value that knowledge and, with good reason. They effectively protect it against pollutant counter claims - which is how they view any claims that exceed or confront their Conservation Laws.

But this is both the strength and the weakness of science. Science is based on experimental evidence. And Theory must give way to fact. So. If there is evidence of any experiment that flies in the face of those conservation laws - on any rigorous or moral basis, it is probably required that such should be studied. But herein lies the rub. If he finds something that contradicts his logic - then that logic is wrong. And his entire life has been spent in applying that logic. Therefore he is predisposed to ignoring that evidence in favour of his logic. Like the little girl - he must conclude that the evidence of his senses is at fault. Or the presentation of the evidence is at fault. And in no way can his own reasoning, the foundations of logic be at fault. They remain impeachable.

For the first time in a long time, and rather fortunately, that underlying logic has been called to question and it is now being openly addressed. There appears to be a need for a new force to explain certain evidence in the spin of galaxies that retains their momentum in defiance of their mass. There are also, confusingly, other paradoxes that variously relate to the wave/particle duality and to the evidence of superluminal communication. This has been proven in the adjustment of paired photons through space - and within the space of no evident time at all. These things are counter-intuitive or to put it as it is, they are illogical. They do not conform to the old school. And they seem to require what is identified, oxymoronically - as dark energy and it's constituent particle - dark matter. A force that is only identified by default on matter that cannot be seen.

And this force has been identified for I do not know how many years now, by geniuses such as Tesla and even Bedini. I am not sure how many such people are out there - but it has even been required within the sanctuaries of those academic campuses themselves. This was discovered through the exotic mathematics of our newly emergent string theorists. All point to the existence of an unseen particle that is required to be neutral, and is probably a magnetic dipole. This is also my conclusion. I find that within the constraints of prior learning, which fortunately in my case has not been classical, this is the explanation - the thing - the particle - that 'best fits'. But I also see it as the basis of all the known and evident forces. A sort of full circle. It is the very thing that generates the very forces that are defined by our Laws of Conservation. And its relevance to this thread, and whether right or wrong, the model that I developed also proposes that this is the same force that generates our electric current flow.

The simple point of this essay is to propose that current flow may not be the flow of electrons as has been proposed by classicists. If it is not, and if current flow is, in fact, determined by the flow of these magnetic dipoles as suggested, then the proposal is also that it is more fundamental than the nuclear force itself and therefore only requires the conservation of charge. This is the object of the test. And if the test is replicated then it proves the existence of this particle. And if it proves the existence of the particle then we have some means to better use, if not defeat, the forces themselves. Certainly, at its least, it will defeat our Conservation Laws. And this is a good thing provided it also results in the cleaner promotion of all our energy uses. But to get to an understanding of it we should follow the example, not of the little girl, but of the Chimp. We need to use our own logic to increase our own understanding of the subject.

[henieck]

henieck, as a final point - you've got the apparatus at hand. Just measure the applied voltage from the battery across the load resistor. You will see that it conforms in all aspects to Ohms Law.

- yes, indeed. That seems to be correct.

There is no extra energy applied by the battery to store those fields that then collapse.

I'll have to convince you that current flow may be better explained by my little zipons.

I think the only barrier that you have at seeing the gain is psychological.