COP 17 Heater | Rosemary Ainslie

[SkyWatcher]

Hi folks, Henieck I want to thank you for such honesty, I fully understand what you mean about human comfort zones, as I see it very clearly to varying degrees in people i know, as well as myself im sure to some degree. You know you should read Peter L. attraction motor thread if you have not already because its almost the same idea and could be a way to help clear that academic conditioning a little more.
peace love light

[henieck]

We need to use our own logic to increase our own understanding of the subject.

[Veggiel]

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.

Just for the people who are interested, here is the video from Human Ape (with Dutch subtitles).

YouTube - Human Ape (2007) [3/6]

[witsend]

henieck, there was a time when it was logical that the earth was flat, that the earth was the centre of the universe, that the illness was the result of individual or collective sin - and on and on. At the turn of the century it was logical that one could not split the atom, that there was only one galaxy the Milky Way and that flight was impossible. Logic is not the point. It is collective assumption that I am addressing. And this changes with time.

But there is one point that is true. Every new perpspective, be it a view into the atom or a view of our earth in relation to the universe, every introduction of a new idea is criticised as being based on some new level of insanity. If I were not accused of being insane then I would very much doubt that I would thereby also be close to the truth.

My own logic does not need the assurance of historical fact. Nor am I insane. And I would thank you not to tell me what I may or may not write. I woud not presume to prescribe your own contributions.

[henieck]

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?

- of course not - that is - the battery only delivers the energy during the "on" part of the cycle.

if it's not coming from the battery where does it come from?

- exactly like you say - it comes from the coil's collapsing magnetic field.

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 far, so good...

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.

http://www.falstad.com/circuit/e-induct.html

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.

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

It has NOT come from the battery - not in terms of classical analysis

But how could it have come from the battery? The battery delivers a monodirectional current flow. It cannot recharge from this cycle.

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 keep losing posts.

- then stop doing that!

[witsend]

Veggiel - thanks for the link. It's exactly the same as I saw. I got the sweet reward wrong. The girl seems to be happy to be rewarded with a sticker. But the point is interesting. It seems that this is both our strength and our weakness.

Many thanks in any event. It's always nice to know that what's written is also read.

Kindest regards
Rosemary

[henieck]

And I would thank you not to tell me what I may or may not write.

- I hope it wasn't an indirect attempt of telling me what I may or may not write...

[Mark]

- I hope it wasn't an indirect attempt of telling me what I may or may not write...

[henieck]

My own logic does not need...

- according to my own logic, which may as well be the wrong one - because I can only judge it using my own logic - which can be false, this is the performance of your circuit in wide perspective:


It has tried to trick me to believe that it used 56 000J while it really used 34 000J to heat up the resistive element which can be heated directly to the same degree without transistor switching losses using just 18 000J

[witsend]

henieck - let's sum up where we agree. The battery only delivers energy during the ON period of the duty cycle. The energy from the spike is produced from collapsing fields in terms of Inductive Laws. And as you say,
- so far, so good...

I now recommend a v^2/r analysis to determine its energy and you object. You say that the battery knew it was delivering to a coil - and it somehow added extra energy. So. My question is where do you measure this energy? So let's change the parameters of the test. We now have a circuit that has no switch. The inductive load resistor is simply placed in series with the supply source. I'm sure you'd agree that we can now apply the v^2/r analysis to establish the wattage. You'll find that this is pretty well consistent with vi being the voltage from the supply source divided by the Ohms value of the resistor. No extra energy. But if you check you will find that there is an extruded magnetic field across that resistor with a measurable and identifiable justification or polarisation. That field is there. It is not changing the amount of current flow from the battery. It is simply an inevitable result of an electromagnetic interaction. Where there's a measurable electric field there is a corresponding and measurable magnetic field. And I think you'll agree that there is no EXTRA energy to apply that magnetic field.

So why, when the current flow is interrupted is there an assumed ability of the system to discover the existence, not of a coil, in this case on the resistor itself, but of a switch? Somehow the system knows that you are going to throw the switch and turn off the energy so it better take up more current. And if it knew this, where did it put that extra current? The voltage over the resistor on both and On and Off period of the cycle is always consistent with Ohm's Law. What I'm really asking is why do you propose that there has been an applied magnetic field at any cost greater than is determined by the measured voltages?

It is a coil during the on and off period. We are simply allowing the benefit of that coil to enable a second cycle generation of electric energy in terms of known inductive laws.

If this is 'ridiculous' as you propose, then you must surely, at its least, show me where the extra energy came to allow for that magnetic field? At all stages the voltage measurement is consistent with Ohm's Law. And this is the measured voltage. If we were using a second coil to add even more inductance - then indeed it can be argued that there has been more energy applied by the source. But we cannot claim this when we are using a standard resistor that is measuring heat dissipation in line with the known laws of physics. That 'extra' energy is only required to refute the possibility of an over unity gain. But by using a resistor to generate it's own inductance refutes any evidence or need for that 'extra' energy.



I have to defy not only my logic but the evidence of my senses to assume that extra energy has been delivered by the battery. The measurements do not show it. So you tell me. Is there any earthly possibility that you don't know of something? If you claim 'extra energy delivered' during the ON period and from the battery, then should you not also be able to measure that extra energy? Do you think, just maybe, that you've been persuaded to believe that there's extra energy delivered - because without it you would defeat the second law of thermodynamics? Do you think, just possibly, that our esteemed academia may have required this 'extra' storage as they did not want to redefine unity as it relates to the electromagnetic interaction?

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.me


henieck - if there's one thing I know about you is that you are both intellectually honest and intellectually courageous. Else I would not still be trying to answer your posts. And I really also appreciate how these points anger you. May I ask you to do that test. Just look at the recharge cycle. Then speculate on that recharge cycle going back to the supply source battery. Then look at the temperature on the load which will not change. Then tell me. Where is there evidence of extra energy coming from that battery to charge the coil on the resistor so that it can 'deal with' the off period in some extraordinary and predictive manner that could only be achieved by some intellectual property in the system itself - which I simply cannot believe. Not under any circumstances.

[witsend]

Henieck, I've just seen your post. Please advise how did you compute those Joules?

[witsend]

Mark - I've been giggling at your little emoticons, is that the term? It's just so funny. And so eloquent.

[Mark]

Its a way to throw in my 2 cents without adding to much gas to the fire!

You know what they say, a picture is worth a thousand words.

[Aaron]

input energy

- 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...

Of course it does but like any open system, you pay a small investment for a high return.

Any investment that gives interest violates thermodynamics. It is an open system that allows for environmental input to be added to our personal input so the output will be more than what we paid for. Over 1.0 COP.

As a note, just because something is an open dissipative system, that doesn't require over 1.0 cop, it just means there is an opportunity to have over 1.0 cop since there is a path for other input to be added free from the universe.

If you put in x amount and recover 90% for example, then you only need to keep putting in 10% to keep it going. You just have to make up for the losses while reaping the benefits of the full input that includes what the universe is giving back to us.

Like a merry go round. You put in x amount of energy and once it is up to speed, you put in less than x to keep it going and while you keep putting in less than x, over time, the COP keeps going up. A short duty cycle is slapping a 300 pound merry go round with your pinky once per rotation.

Anyway, I don't mind having to invest something up front to have more given back to me. Everyone's refrigerator is already doing this at COP 2.5~4.0 or so. 2.5~4 times more work in joules is being done than joules of "electricity" that left the wall.

[henieck]

Like a merry go round. You put in x amount of energy and once it is up to speed, you put in less than x to keep it going and while you keep putting in less than x, over time, the COP keeps going up.

- sounds nice. I am searching for such a relatively easily replicable system. Can you advise something of that sort, or anything that has already showed proven, unusually high COP or over unity?

Everyone's refrigerator is already doing this at COP 2.5~4.0 or so. 2.5~4 times more work in joules is being done than joules of "electricity" that left the wall.

- that is precisely right. The question is if we can tap into the "zipon" field the same way as we do to transfer heat.


Rosemary, My answer is in post 385.