COP 17 Heater | Rosemary Ainslie

[gotoluc]

Thank you Rosemary for posting the most amazing positive response I have ever received of all the video's I have done to date

I will be redoing the experiment in about 4 days but this time using resistors to accurately measure the heat dissipated over time and post a more Scientific video. I just did not have time to do it so I did this simple test using a bulb to get a visual idea only of the energy difference (not a measurement) of pulsing vs straight DC.

Anyone who can see the light (pun intended) should be able to see that the pulsing circuit method is visually demonstrating less energy needed than using straight DC. That is all this test is demonstrating since I have done this test in the past but using my quality digital ammeter and the results were telling me that nothing special was going on in the pulse circuit. So from now on I will never use an ammeter in my work no matter how expensive it is. I will measure heat in compared to heat out.

and to all

Luc

[witsend]

Mark - always there, always covering our back. Many thanks. The one advantage of an 'evil sceptic' to coin one of TinselKoala's phrases, is that it rallies the forces.

This is just such a HUGE battle. I must now try and plough through these threads and see for myself what other evidence is out there. If this, gotoluc's test is knocked, then all will be knocked. Surprisingly, academics are not so closed minded. They just don't own up to it. Perhaps we should get this forum to their attention or to their student's attention. It will then get to their desk, maybe? I'm possibly being a bit optimistic.

In any event - it's at least good to identify the permanently closed minded. I'm just not that good at spotting it - close up or at a distance. Perhaps with time? Sorry to have dominated the thread with my sad attempt at getting henieck to look to the obvious.

[witsend]

gotoluc - nothing to thank me for. The test was fantastic. Elegant and entirely self-explanatory. It's heniecks reaction that may have finally taught me that there are none so blind as those who will not see.

Sad really. But that, happily, is entirely outweighed by your own findings.

I knew about the ammeter distortions from way back. It also held me up for a while. My actual measurement standards were given me by academics. So I knew they were right. The best proof, unfortunately, is with those digital storage scopes. Try and borrow one. Or take your test to a lab where they've got one. You'd be surprised how genuinely interested other engineers are when they're exposed to these kind of experiments.

But well done gotoluc. You've done something wonderful.

[henieck]

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 polarization. That field is there.

- yes indeed it is here, like hell, and it took some energy to develop this field.

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.

- I agree.

And I think you'll agree that there is no EXTRA energy to apply that magnetic field.

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?

- In your coil the energy is being stored in the form of the magnetic field

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?

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.

[Mark]

Thanks Rosemary

I'm a complete novice here and an optimist I must admit. I've been working with Bedini motors but I'm very interested in how to produce cheaper heat.

"Witsend" how appropriate, you must be!

[henieck]

your bulb does not indicate the energy entering the circuit - it just indicates how much of the total energy supplied you dissipate in the bulb before it ever enters the circuit.
This is not true. The energy that is entering the bulb must be equal to the energy dissipated by the bulb. It's a pure resistive load.

[Peter Lindemann]

No Personal Attacks

Henieck,

You are welcome to post in this thread and disagree with everything that is presented on a scientific level. But you are NOT WELCOME to use MY NAME as a SLUR in an attempt to express your disdain for Rosemary's excitement level, as you did in Post #417.

Consider this a warning. Insults from anonymous posters are not tolerated in this Forum. Anymore uncivil behavior from you and I'll refer you to the Moderators.

Peter

[henieck]

Henieck,
But you are NOT WELCOME to use MY NAME

Consider this a warning yourself.

Anymore uncivil behavior from you and I'll refer you to the Moderators.

[witsend]

henieck - You cannot seriously propose that I'd care to try and argue your points any further. You've played your cards - not so carefully I might add.

Edit I've just seen your last post. It constantly amazes me that disagreement must also result in disparagement. It seems that this 'closed mind' of yours is also accompanied by an extraordinary amount of testosterone and a rather overstated, heavy handed attempt at some kind of sarcastic wit.

henieck you have gone to some lengths to mock my own 'bad science' as you call it. But in doing so you've paraded your own. My comfort is therefore that as you've criticised Peter's device - then in a rather twisted way - I take it as a complete endorsement of that device. I now add my recommendation that you no longer be allowed to post on this thread. You have defied Peter's warning to indulge - yet again - another series of implicit and explicit insults.

[witsend]

Everybody - Aaron has advised me that he regards this thread as being mine. This is generous and is actually not the case, but his generosity is deeply appreciated.

But mine or his, here's the thing. The claim to achieve any over unity result is really contentious. That it will generate anger from the both readers and contributors must therefore be inevitable. It is based on deeply held convictions from both sides of the argument. I know this.

I think therefore, any argument that is based on some question of science be it measurement or logic, should therefore be enabled, if not encouraged. But, this is only provided always that it is not accompanied by any indulgence in personal insults. The point is this. I and others on the forum do not hide behind an identity. Any comments that can be construed as an attack on the character or ability of those of us who do not hide behind an identity is, therefore potentially actionable. No-one would tolerate that level of insult outside of the forum. Why then should it be tolerated within the forum.

Freedom of speech, while a desirable object, also carries with it the need to temper that expression. I know I am largely speaking to the converted here. But it seems that yet there is a need to remind people. As has been repeatedly said by many contributors - courtesy is always a good guideline. Quite apart from which the lack of this tends to kill the energy that makes these forums 'just such a nice place to be', in the words of Armagdn03.

[TinselKoala]

What a fiasco.

An honest researcher tells you what he's found--again--and because he doesn't agree wit you and in fact his findings contradict yours, you get huffy and insulting and refuse to continue. And then you brag about how open minded you are.

Well, how about this:
BUILD THE CIRCUIT in the Quantum article, using Groundloop's circuit board, breadboards, or point-to-point, I care not. TEST IT with an oscilloscope just as Rosemary wants you to.

You will find that I am correct about the duty cycle problem and she is wrong.

Look, there's no point in arguing about this. I built it and showed what I found. And Rosemary is saying that I am wrong. Well, 4 other independent researchers that I know of, by now, have built the circuit and confirm my findings.

If I am wrong about the duty cycle it would be ridiculously easy to PROVE IT. But, since I have shown what I've shown re the duty cycle, it is now up to someone else, who might be claiming I am wrong, to refute me WITH EVIDENCE. Not more words.

Believers in Rosemary: Build the circuit and PROVE ME WRONG.

[henieck]

I now add my recommendation that you no longer be allowed to post on this thread.

- the truth hurts...

You have defied Peter's warning to indulge - yet again - another series of implicit and explicit insults.

[gotoluc]

Hi everyone,

I made a new video using standard resistors of equal value on the input side and on the recirculated Inductive flyback side pre entry of the coil. I have measured the heat on each but have not wet come up with a better way of measurement that will satisfy all but I am working on it.

New Video: YouTube - Effect of Recirculating BEMF to Coil test 4

In this test it is very very difficult for me to understand how energy could slip though the input 22 Ohm resistor and leave basically no heat and end up in the collapsing field side resistor at higher temperature then the boiling point and also do work pushing up a one pound magnet over 3/8 of an inch off the coil. We cannot consider voltage as having anything to do with the effect since it has no heat Energy. So what is doing this?

Please find the attached scope shot measured across the 22 Ohm input resistor and let me know if you can calculate this.

Luc

[Joit]

Everybody - Aaron has advised me that he regards this thread as being mine. This is generous and is actually not the case, but his generosity is deeply appreciated.

But mine or his, here's the thing. The claim to achieve any over unity result is really contentious. That it will generate anger from the both readers and contributors must therefore be inevitable. It is based on deeply held convictions from both sides of the argument. I know this.

I think therefore, any argument that is based on some question of science be it measurement or logic, should therefore be enabled, if not encouraged. But, this is only provided always that it is not accompanied by any indulgence in personal insults. The point is this. I and others on the forum do not hide behind an identity. Any comments that can be construed as an attack on the character or ability of those of us who do not hide behind an identity is, therefore potentially actionable. No-one would tolerate that level of insult outside of the forum. Why then should it be tolerated within the forum.

Freedom of speech, while a desirable object, also carries with it the need to temper that expression. I know I am largely speaking to the converted here. But it seems that yet there is a need to remind people. As has been repeatedly said by many contributors - courtesy is always a good guideline. Quite apart from which the lack of this tends to kill the energy that makes these forums 'just such a nice place to be', in the words of Armagdn03.

Well, usual its pleasant here and the Regulars are pleasant-natured, there are just some Guys. what pops in sometimes, and cause the Trouble.
They can not say, "I cant.." they only can say " You are wrong...".

And when someone claim OU for something, then its a red rag for them, to proove it, that you are wrong. Maybe they get paid for that. Who knows.
But when i look at H's posts, 1 at another Thread and rest here, then i think, he dont even want have it prooven, and he s only here for the Trouble.
Dont even get a Pic from his device, just shouting, that it dont works.

You only need to think outside the Box, and not inside, as seems most like to do, or only leave.
This way is not or hard to explain with the conventional EE Terms, wich most love so much, even, what really happens at the Magentic Field.

Just to sad, that they destroy with her ...... Behavior the work from all others.

.

[henieck]

But when i look at H's posts, 1 at another Thread and rest here, then i think, he dont even want have it prooven, and he s only here for the Trouble.

They can not say, "I cant.." they only can say " You are wrong...".

- to be correct I should have said: I cant make my coil not to make magnetic field using electric energy when I put some current through it". Now I am politically correct, I hope.

debunker and trouble seeker henieck...