COP 17 Heater | Rosemary Ainslie

[Aaron]

take a break

Peter,




Some people unfortunately have allowed themselves to be overtaken by so much technical jargon and "training" they forget to see things for what they are.

By the way, I heard there is a good exercise to deal with this issue: http://www.feelthevibe.com/mindpower...perception.pdf

I'd recommend that anyone that gets disturbed about the claims of this circuit to go read that paper and apply the concepts. Then, come back and let's get to work.

[Hoppy]

Hoppy,

Let's say there is no recovery on the circuit.

The circuit runs for 24 hours and that will produce X amount of heat.

What percentage of power (whatever the that happens to be) that left the battery do you consider to be converted to heat?

Would it be 100% of what left the battery? Would 100% of what left the battery be converted to heat if there is no recovery therefore meaning that everything is wasted?

The temperature of the resistor is not part of the question, it will be whatever temperature it is.

Aaron

All electricity consumed by the circuit will be converted to other forms of energy to do work or to be wasted in heat that has no useful purpose. If energy is recovered then this will not be additional energy gained by the system, only re-directed energy that would have otherwise been dissipated somewhere else in the circuit.

I'll be away for a week, so will resume this interesting discussion on my return.

Hoppy

[Aaron]

application for over 1.0 cop heating element

I think the perfect application for the heating element is a hot water heating element.

The most efficient hot water heater now is a heat pump hot water heater retrofit. If an element takes 3000 watts (like mine), the heat pump retrofit can produce the same hot water for about 600 watts. That is COP 5.0.

The cost is $500~700 USD.

If the inductive heating element concept can be COP 5.0, it will easily make the heat pump hot water heaters obsolete because the cost of production is almost nothing compared to a heat pump. Can still make a good markup and give people a killer deal at the same time. Everybody wins.

The power cord plugs into a standard 110v outlet, you have a little control box that mounts on the wall and that connects to the element that just screws into the mount for the old element.

Solar hot water heaters are COP Infinite - since we provide zero input potential but they also don't produce heat at night time and is reliant on sun. So I think an element is ideal.

Hot water heaters are only on about 2 hours (can be less if you use real insulation/radiant barrier methods in Save on Home Energy) out of the day on average so there is 22 hours that it can heat water for radiant floor heating. Even a COP 5 heat pump retrofit makes the cost of heat this way come out ahead on the financial bottom line and at the cost of hundreds of dollars.

With a COP 5 inductive heating element retrofit, we can get the same heat for 80% cheaper (if retail is $100/unit).

[Aaron]

over 1.0 cop

Aaron

All electricity consumed by the circuit will be converted to other forms of energy to do work or to be wasted in heat that has no useful purpose. If energy is recovered then this will not be additional energy gained by the system, only re-directed energy that would have otherwise been dissipated somewhere else in the circuit.

I'll be away for a week, so will resume this interesting discussion on my return.

Hoppy

Yes, but that didn't answer the question - but I'll look at your answer.

But I do appreciate your honesty in admitting Over 1.0 COP It's about time.

You said that it is all converted to work or wasted. Right, but you metion no useful purpose. Well, whether or not there is a useful purpose for the work done or not is irrelevant because it IS a demonstration of work being done and ANYTHING that adds to entropy of the universe is indeed WORK being demonstrated. In our case, the heat on the element is VERY USEFUL since it is what we want if our goal is to have a heater.

Therefore, if 100% of what leaves the battery over 24 hours is converted to heat, we know that at a certain voltage X amperage leaving the battery, it is all converted to heat. There is nothing complicated about that.

Therefore if 100% is turned into heat and you clearly admit "If energy is recovered then this will not be additional energy gained by the system, only re-directed energy that would have otherwise been dissipated somewhere else in the circuit."

That means that any energy - your definition of if it is gained or re-directed is a matter of perspective and isn't really relevant to the fact - BECAUSE of the fact that if 100% was turned into heat. ANYTHING that is recovered and put back to work is 100%+.

I appreciate your honesty!

Now, I understand that you are saying IF there is recovery - gained or redirected is irrelevant - you are saying if and that doesn't mean necessarily that you believe there can be anything recovered. But do you?

Those spikes can be recovered. If you recover spikes and charge a cap to 1000v @ 2uf, you have 1 joule of potential sitting there. If 100% of what left the battery was turned into heat energy. Where the heck did 1 joule come from? I guarantee you I can perform more work with that 1 joule.

I'm not saying that the inductive resistor will charge a 1000v @ 2uf cap because it won't be able to push that unless that inductive resistors is a monster. But the fact of the matter is that if ANYTHING can be recovered into a capacitor - then that is potential that can be put back to work that is above and beyond the 100% that was ALREADY used up.

EDIT: I say 100% meaning 100% of what we pay for - not including what nature gives us back for free.

[Aaron]

how to test?

Therefore, if 100% of what leaves the battery over 24 hours is converted to heat, we know that at a certain voltage X amperage leaving the battery, it is all converted to heat. There is nothing complicated about that.

I'll quote myself - lol - to put it back into perspective.

If a known voltage and current is leaving the battery for 24 hours, it is all converted to heat in the inductive resistor.

If that is accepted that the resistor is 100% efficient in converting the "current" to heat, then taking the temperature of the element isn't even needed.

Why would it be necessary? Doesn't the classical perspective show that everything was converted to heat at a known volt X current over 24 hours?

So, all we have to do is send the recovery to the front, monitor the volt X current and if the draw is the same with or without recovery, and if it takes 25 hours to drop down to the same voltage in the battery, then that is over 1.0 COP as simple as that.

If we have 2 X 12v 20ah batteries and they are charged up to 26v for example... to remove the questionable top part of the battery charge, all we have to do is put a bulb that draws the same watts as the inductive heating circuit until it hits 25.00 volts for example then switch the inductive heating circuit onto the battery disconnecting the bulb... power the circuit (without recovery) for 24 hours and see where the battery is at in 24 hours. Lets say it is 24.5 volts.

Now charge batteries, drain to 25.00 volts with bulb, switch in the heating circuit with recovery and see how many hours it takes to hit the same 24.5. If it takes more than 24 hours, that is over 1.0 COP.

The entire time, was the temperature of the element even relevant since a known wattage is being dissipated in the element at 100%?

Feel free to correct this concept with direct answers.

A known wattage over time is the point and any extra time is free energy.

[jibbguy]

If the "Fluke 199" scopemeter was in battery powered mode (or probably even under wall power as well, depending on how it's charging circuit works, getting it's power supply ground through the on-board battery even when under AC wall power, or not...), then the "Ground Loop" vid is MOOT :

You will only see these weird effects with a scope that uses a Single Ended to Ground input circuit that is hooked up wrong, where the grounding of the circuit is actually going through the instrument's "Signal Low" lead because it was hooked to something off ground, or in the case seen, the only ground path was through either the scope itself or the Wavetek... And the Fluke 199 scopemeter under battery power (and probably "always", depending on its charging circuitry) has an input circuit that is for all intents and purposes "Differential / Isolated": Because there is no real connection to ground.

The noise seen on there was actually because of poor Common Mode Rejection; which goes to hell when current flows through the scope ground lead .

Regarding the first vid and the battery 25 VDC summed on to the waveform; that is working under the assumption that a diferential probe is not reading directly across the heating element, and that the negative ground lead of the scope really is at 0.0V DC potential (as referenced to the power supply of the scope: WALL POWER).. Because if the idea is to put the leads across the resistive element, then the battery voltage SHOULD NOT be seen, only the drop across the resistor... If it is seen, then this is ALSO because of the differences between a "Single Ended to Ground" input circuit verses a true Differential / Isolated one. In fact, if the resistive element is "Floating" (as it appears to be on the schematic) putting the Ground lead on one side and the probe on the other is a "no-no" with a Single Ended scope as it would tie the battery positive to AC wall power Earth Ground through the scope's power supply (then there's the signal generator's ground, also "Single-Ended", to worry about as well for the same reasons). So when the scope input is "Single Ended" (as most non-battery-powered "CRT" units are), the ground lead should always be only set to points reading "0V"... Or it will MAKE them zero volts lol; by tyeing them to wall power-referenced Ground.

Most of the scopes i repaired over the years were smoked from these kinds of mistakes of hooking up the ground lead to an off-ground source, it is very common and can be irritating and expensive to fix as the ground lands anywhere in the scope's circuitry could have been damaged. As a for-instance: NEVER try to read directly across the current driver outputs of a Stepper Motor (at the coils): They are usually floating and bad things will happen. The same is true with generator or motor coils; which are almost always floating off ground. If in question, use a DMM to check first between actual ground and what you want to put the scope ground lead on... DMM's can read off-ground voltages differentially safely only because, again, they are battery powered .

Remember these scope Single-Ended to Ground inputs only have some resistance between them and the power supply ground (...which are generally tied closely to Chassis / Earth ground as well). So when you put the ground lead at a point above "0 V", there is voltage seen across the internal resistance which can cause all kinds of havoc, and even worse, current flow.

[RAMSET]

The comment from Glen that generated those vids

FuzzyTomcat
Quote

I have recommended that the testing is skewed by his own admission and that should be thrown out, you cannot cross reference "AC" and "DC" grounding through ground loops with bonded neutrals connected and have semi conductors operate 100% properly.

The quote that generated those vids by TK

@Hoppy

I am looking for your quote that the circuit goes overunity?
Can you give the post #

Thank you ahead of time

Chet

[witsend]

Jibbguy - I am utterly confused. Re video - In the first instance I have never seen that waveform - with the battery disconnected? Seems very strange. And why still no use of the Fluke?

We've never seen that effect. If TK's found something it's his find alone. Nothing to do with me.

Help me out here someone? Has TK shown that somehow the system is operating without a battery or a cap? Or is there a cap connected in lieue of the battery? In any event. We've got no part of whatever it is that he's discovered? Never seen the like. It's either very exciting - or an error. I have no idea which.

EDIT - either way it's his. Not ours.

And with respect - I don't think the parasitic Hartley effect can be the same thing as groundloop. It may be. I'd need to see the waveform over the shunt first from the Fluke to see what gives. And I'd like to refer to that expert for comment when I do see it.

SECOND EDIT OK - just seen Ramset's post. And Fuzzy's edit!!! Our kitty cat still keeping watch.

[FuzzyTomCat]

FuzzyTomcat
Quote

I have recommended that the testing is skewed by his own admission and that should be thrown out, you cannot cross reference "AC" and "DC" grounding through ground loops with bonded neutrals connected and have semi conductors operate 100% properly.

The quote that generated those vids by TK

Thank you ahead of time

Chet

Thanks Chet,

Your correct that statement you quote of mine came from a statement TK made on his testing in this posting at OU.com -

Claimed OU circuit of Rosemary Ainslie (july 17 01:34:42 AM) edit 02:04:22 AM

OK, I'll tell you. The one on the right is the probe, and the one on the left is the probe's ground lead alligator clip.
It is connected to the terminal where I connect the negative battery terminal and also an Earth ground ( a wire to a cold water pipe under my kitchen sink which I always use in electrostatic experiments--which, by the way, show far far more "free" energy that any mosfet circuit can.

I'm just trying to help everyone with all replications and testing using grounding connections and how important proper grounding is done, not only to get proper results in experimental devices or to save equipment but to possibly "save" you life with experiments you may conduct. The testing of any United States 120 volt outlets used for any experiment should also be checked, resistance should be around .4 ohms or less from neutral to ground (you can test your self with a DMM) and your grounding system should be around 10 ohms which can be done with a megohmmeter by a professional.

Regards,
Glen

[witsend]

Aaron - can't fault the argument - but am not sure how good a light's resistor would be in getting counter electromotive force? It may work. I was thinking more in lines of an LED in series with that inductive load. But - you'll know. I'm afraid my terms of reference are constrained to that little circuit.

I see we're getting down to the basics. Very encouraging.

[Aaron]

bulb

Aaron - can't fault the argument - but am not sure how good a light's resistor would be in getting counter electromotive force? It may work. I was thinking more in lines of an LED in series with that inductive load. But - you'll know. I'm afraid my terms of reference are constrained to that little circuit.

I see we're getting to down to the basics. Very encouraging.

Hi Rosemary,

I'm just talking about using the light bulb to just burn off the top of the charge of the battery since some seem to question it. When the bulb burns that off down to x voltage, there should be no question that after that point, we are using a good solid measurable charge from the battery at that point. When down to x voltage, then switch the heater into the circuit and remove the bulb - then start taking measurements.

[witsend]

Got it. Thanks Aaron.

[Joit]

@witsend Well, anyhow, you came in with the Timer and the Mosfet.
Its only just such a mess to read there through, and i dont, when its not really needed.
Its clear for me, that -some Peoples- never do mistakes and are never wrong.
Therefor i am glad to be just here.

Btw, with the Timer, lol. What is clear now ?
I state to have ~ 10-50% Switch Time at the Mosfet with this Circuit.
Means, this Time is the Mosfet ON and do lead through S and D.
For the low Cycle it works.
When the Frequency is to high, i can lower it with the Pot at the Gate.

If its not clear, then i do make a new Thread.
Still got a new Shot, where you see the Spike equals the ON Time, not the lower Line, what is the Offtime.
Maybe my Scope shows it different then others, or, for the use of the Mosfet it is actually only different explained, what do match better.
Anyhow, i got something like this in Mind.

Otherwise, the Timercircuit is usable.

[witsend]

also off topic - or is it?

Peter and Aaron, have been giggling at those posts re the predispostion to the closed mind.

Had no idea the expressions were a literal result of an attitude. Am thinking of starting a massage parlour. At least I'll make some money and probably do more good than rabbiting on about OU.

[witsend]

Hi Joit. So nice to see you still there. It's our time 2.22 am. I'm in for another one of those nights. I buzz at odd hours. Such a comfort to have the thread at such times.

Of course your timer works. Why wouldn't it? By the way, we've found the source of the 'design' for the switch. We'll be posting in the near future. The pleasure will be that everyone can then blame the designer - not us. Apparently it's always worked.