COP 17 Heater | Rosemary Ainslie

[poynt99]

It should also be noted that just because a system is open and receives energy from some outside source, does not mean this is synonymous with the system being COP>1.

If the efficiency of the open system in question is quite low, say for example 20% and the output appears to indicate an efficiency of say 80% (COP=.8:1), then if the system efficiency could be increased to 40% or better, the system would achieve COP>1.

Strange situation, where one could have "overunity in waiting" and not even be aware of it. Guess this just lends more credence to making your circuits as efficient as possible to maximize your chances of seeing OU.

.99

[MileHigh]

Aaron and Allcanadian: I am looking at Aaron's clip right now and it is a pretty good first go at it. I may comment more later but permit me to raise a red flag about a pressing hot issue in this clip:

> Thank you for finally showing the self-oscillation that Rosemary stated was required. I was starting to wonder if all the so-called experts here and were ever going to figure it out.

Here is a clear example where you are misunderstanding the information the scope is giving you. In the clip, the "self-oscillation" is simply the scope loosing it's triggering for a fraction of a second and you are seeing the waveform being displayed free-running with no trigger. How can you make this mistake, it should have been the first thing that entered both of your minds when you saw this!

TK also made the same mistake in one of his clips. The triggering was on the rising-edge ringing in one of his setups. Very occasionally the scope was triggering on the lower-amplitude falling-edge ringing. Once in a while a falling-edge spike was caught by the trigger circuit. This created a composite display that flashed back and forth between the two waveform snapshots and he speculated that it was the random oscillation effect.

> It should have been obvious from the start that there was no way in hell the 555 timer could hit the true resonance of such a small inductance in the inductor/resistor

A stand-alone inductor has no innate resonant frequency associated with it unless you are referring to stray capacitance in the coil and immediate surroundings forming an LC resonater. Also, you must keep in mind that this is a pulse circuit, and by definition, there is no resonance associated with the normal operation of this circuit. All the ringing that you see are standard problems that you see in just about any circuit. The ringing effects are somewhat exaggerated by the fact that you are breadboarding it.

MileHigh

[Aaron]

cop vs efficiency

Second, there is no such thing as greater than 100% efficiency.

Third, COP can be anything, below 1 and above 1.

I agree 100% on these points.

Efficiency is simply the ratio of how much of the paid-for energy we put into a system, to the amount of this energy that makes its way to the output of that system.

COP is the ratio of how much of the paid-for energy we put into a system, to the amount of total energy that makes its way to the output of that system.

So efficiency n and COP can be the same value for conventional systems that can only exhibit COP's of 1 or less. This implies a "closed" system where no outside energy can enter.

For cases where COP >1, n can still not be higher than 100% which implies that energy is entering the system from the "outside", and that the system is "open".

If you have a system that is exhibiting COP>1, it would be impossible to determine what portion of the paid-for input energy and what portion of the external energy is making up the total output energy unless one can "turn off" the overunity mechanism invloved.

In any case, it is a moot point. If you can make an overunity device, who cares what the real efficiency of the device is?

Obviously you want to get the most bang for your buck, so if you can get significantly more power output by making the device more efficient in using the paid-for input energy, of course go for it.

.99

I believe your concept of efficiency may have a major flaw.

Efficiency includes environmental input. So OUR input + Environmental input = TOTAL INPUT - there is no skirting around this fact. ALL input must be accounted for. Total output divided by total input shows the EFFICIENCY. It will always be 100% or less.

A closed system only has our input. An open system has our input plus environmental input. Any system that has the ability to exceed 1.0 COP is an open system and therefore your definition of efficiency is conditional and only applies to closed systems. Efficiency in an open system ALWAYS includes free environmental input as it does in a heat pump (free heat movement, etc...).

In either case, I still agree it is 100% EFFICIENCY or less and cannot exceed this.

If 10 joules of potential was expended from the battery through the resistor that is claimed to burn everything off and I wind up with 1 joule of charge in a capacitor from the recovery. That 1 joule obviously can be put to work to do another 1 joule (which will have its own recovery.) 10% recovery is conservative but that goes to show that 10 joules expended in work with an extra joule left over means 10 put in and 11 out.

No amount of obfuscation will ever change this and only those who don't know the differences will be fooled. Anyone can do the experiment that I have done and prove to themselves there is a LOT of recovery. Bounce a rubber all, it is over 1.0 COP so this concept isn't difficult to comprehend.

It is 3:40 pm now and the voltage on my batteries is 24.57v. 17 hours ago, the resting voltage was 24.40 volts. I'm wondering how many hours or days it will be until it drops down to the resting voltage of the battery before the test was ever started! The resistor will have a hard time dissipating anything until the ambient drops below the resistor temperature.

The resistor is only 2 above ambient at this very moment. Ambient is 84F and the resistor is 86F. It is a hot day in my shop.

If the ambient goes above the max resistor temp (which I don't think it will go over 86F), the heat will move to the resistor and that heat potential will be taken in by the circuit further increasing the amount of potential. The chaotic disordered heat energy will self-order into asymmetrically separated potential charge again adding to circuits available potential. Imagine a heating resistor sucking heat out of the environment for power! lol

A resistor can't dissipate much heat if the outside potential is higher simply pushing back on the resistor adding to it.

Anyway, I don't think Rosemary has been very honest with us with her COP 17 claim. The capability is MUCH more than that and I think her and her team has downplayed the results so as to not stir up any skepticism.

[Aaron]

distraction

It should also be noted that just because a system is open and receives energy from some outside source, does not mean this is synonymous with the system being COP>1.

If the efficiency of the open system in question is quite low, say for example 20% and the output appears to indicate an efficiency of say 80% (COP=.8:1), then if the system efficiency could be increased to 40% or better, the system would achieve COP>1.

Strange situation, where one could have "overunity in waiting" and not even be aware of it. Guess this just lends more credence to making your circuits as efficient as possible to maximize your chances of seeing OU.

.99

Nobody said an open system MUST have over 1.0 COP, but is has the opportunity to be so. The very point of mentioning COP implies that we are discussing open systems. COP isnt discussed in closed systems because it is pointless. EDIT - I originally said open systems but meant closed systems have a max COP ability of COP 1.0 and that is it and that is if the system is at 100% efficiency max.

Your example of increasing the efficiency to increase the cop is not true.

If there is a bad windmill generator design. It can be 1% efficiency at still be COP Infinite because we have to contribute ZERO to it. A refrigerator can be 50% efficient and still be COP 4.0.

You have posted false explanations that are distracting people from understanding the accurate definition that I have given.

[Aaron]

misinformation

TK also made the same mistake in one of his clips. The triggering was on the rising-edge ringing in one of his setups. Very occasionally the scope was triggering on the lower-amplitude falling-edge ringing. Once in a while a falling-edge spike was caught by the trigger circuit. This created a composite display that flashed back and forth between the two waveform snapshots and he speculated that it was the random oscillation effect.

Your red flag is misleading and is not a red flag.

If it is a problem with the scope, there would be no difference in the operation of the circuit. When it goes into the oscillation as shown on the scope, you blatantly ignore the fact that the battery voltage rises at that point.

Again, the self-oscillation shown on the scope is CORROBORATES with measurable changes in the circuit so any claims of scope goofiness is misinformation.

If the issue is with the scope, none of that should happen.

Please don't mislead people with false analysis. No amount of technical jargon about scope function changes the FACT that at those points - 100% of the time the scope shows the oscillation, the batter voltage climbs meaning the effect is there and it is NOT a problem with the scope.

The change in battery draw during the oscillation is not a small difference relative to what is being drawn, it can be 16 times different. One test showed 500mv over the shunt and instantly during self oscillation as shown by the scope, it dropped to as low as 30mv.

[Aaron]

p.s.

p.s. The draw from the battery with the scope DETACHED is the same as the reduced draw when the scope shows the self-oscillation. So the scope isn't even in the picture.

I can watch the draw and know if I am in self oscillation or not WITHOUT THE SCOPE DETACHED.

I can watch the draw and when not in oscillation, I can hook up the scope and see that it corroborates with the draw showing the non oscillation.

I can then watch the draw and when it is obviously in self-oscillation, I can hook up the scope and guess what, it corroborates and shows me the self oscillation.

The scope issue brought up is bogus and not based on any facts whatsoever.

I've never seen so many people scared of the truth in all my life.

Please no more pen jockey ideas or technical explanations as they have no basis in reality. Do the experiments and post them, otherwise, keep your uninformed distracting opinions to yourselves.

This thread is for duplication of the circuit and constructive talk of the results even by people not duplicating. I don't mind "skepticism" but outright misinformation will not be tolerated so please give it up.

[MileHigh]

Aaron: A few more comments about your clip:

The shut resistor is comparable to the resistance of the coil-resistor. I know that this is your fist shot at it so it is understandable. However, it limits the current through the circuit and affects the overall operation. The baddie here is that it is pushing the source pin voltage of the MOSFET way up above ground as the current starts to flow, which will make the "on" signal from the 555 start to drop relative to the MOSFET gate input.

The first thing that is noteworthy is that there are two separate time constants associated with the rising waveform across the coil-resistor when the MOSFET switches on. It may be related to the shunt resistor being too large, I don't know. The big point is that it is not supposed to be there, the circuit clearly shows that. You should try to find out why it is there and explain it.

You are not telling your audience where the scope ground and signal leads are connected also, and that could be relevant. If the scope ground lead is "far away" from the coil-resistor other potentials in the interconnect wires may be affecting the waveform. Ideally you would put the scope probe directly across the big coil-resistor.

Note that the reverse-voltage coming out of the coil-inductor after the MOSFET switches off is about -0.6 volts, just like I stated it would be. You can clearly see this in all of the scope shots. This is a very very important fact that should not be overlooked. When the coil discharges it generats a potential directly related to the effective resistance across the coil. In this case, the diode clamps the output voltage from the coil-resistor inductive discharge to -0.6 volts.

Yes, there is a pretty big looking negative spike at the very beginning of the coil-resistor discharge cycle (the instant the MOSFET switches off). HOWEVER, I already indicated that a lot of this could be associated with the breadboarding. As the circuit builds get better and better with every new iteration you can expact that spike to decrease in energy and amplitude. If you got this build down to a refined printed circuit board layout with eveything done just right, there is a decent chance that that first big spike would be become a tiny tiny whisp, barely noticable in a scope shot.

Since you are not scoping the current across the shunt resistor in your first go at it, at this point in time we don't know if there is any current flow associated with that first big negative spike. In a way, the point is moot anyways, because any curent flow from that spike would not be in the right direction to charge the source battery.

It's hard to tell in the clip, but if you see distinctive ringing associated wth any of the spikes, then they are not necessarily ringing spikes directly from the coil. The interconnect wires themselves can ring because of a whole mess of stuff about impedance mismatching between the source, the impedance of the transmission line associated with the wires themselves, and the load. It all comes into play when you are dealing with square-like waves. If you could match all of the impedances in the "wire transmisson line system" then at least all of the ringing associated with the wires themselves would go away.

Aaron, thanks, a very good first clip overall. We got to see some guts at work!

Also many thanks to TK, who has been working on this project and has done a multitude of clips filled with relevant information.

MileHigh

[poynt99]

Wow Aaron, take a pill and relax man

I think I'll refrain form responding to any more of your questions....It seems your blood pressure is already exceeding unity

.99

[MileHigh]

Aaron: I made comments without getting through all of your clip. I believe you are right, but there is a possibility that both of us are right.

I finally got to the point where you get the self-oscillation going and the battery voltage increases. The battery voltage insreasing is a clear sign that the MOSFET is in self-oscillation. The coil is simply choking the current flow here because of the high frequencies involved.

Can you power-down and check the resistance across your pot when you trigger the self-ocsillation? I have a feeling that the pot is going open-circuit at the end of the turn. If that's the case, the MOSFET input is left floating, and I explained the self-oscillation process for that a day or two ago. If I am correct about the pot going open-circuit, then your observation confirms what I said, which is great for everybody. <EDIT: I am of course referring to the gate resistance, not sure if you were playing with the gate resistance or a 555 trimpot. If it was a 555 trimpot, then it would indicate true self-oscillation>

When you see the self-oscillation, you shoud try to get the scope to trigger on it anyways because it still looks like it lost trigger.

Finally, in certain points of the clip, some of the alleged self-oscillations could simply be the scope loosing trigger. That's exactly what it looks like, something we have all seen thousands of times before. It looks like you are AC coupled, you can see a "jump" in the waveform every now and then, and that could cause you to temporarilly loose trigger. I doulbe-checked and you do indeed loose trigger when the waveform jumps down, and the trigger comes back when the waveform moves back up. Depending on where your trigger threshold is set, you are almost certainly loosing trigger in these "jump down" cases.

So we both may be right, the glass is more than half full.

Just a final comment about your clip: The cap charging example returns to the battery ground, forming a full circuit path, a loop that allows the caps to charge. Territory that was prevoiously discussed, it does not show any charging can go back to the source battery in the real circuit because the MOSFET switch is off and breaks the loop.

MileHigh

[Joit]

Aaron A very admirable Video.
I think, i need to go shopping again.

[Aaron]

amateur

@Aaron
Thank you for finally showing the self-oscillation that Rosemary stated was required. I was starting to wonder if all the so-called experts here and were ever going to figure it out. It should have been obvious from the start that there was no way in hell the 555 timer could hit the true resonance of such a small inductance in the inductor/resistor, not in a million years. It also should have been just as obvious that the 555 timer rise/fall times are way to slow to produce efficient conversion, they must be at the minimum rise/fall duration of the mosfet, the circuit disrupter. Excellent video
Regards
AC

Thank you, I have to make a few very strong points:

1. I am no expert in electronics and this is only about the 5th 555 timer circuit I've done in my life. I got the circuit from the Forest Mims radio shack book. Really for kids and beginners and that circuit works just fine. I'll make one soon that gives me as low as 1% duty cycle. Curious why the experts can't even make the 555 timer operate the circuit properly.

2. This is the first time in my life I have ever used a mosfet!

If the gate isn't connected properly, the mosfet can conduct fully at 100% duty cycle. It will heat up the resistor, shunt resistor and the mosfet and will drop the battery fast. This is the simple POSSIBLE explanation for TK's replication showing a lot of heat at high duty cycle, which triggered the whole 97% duty cycle fiasco.

It takes an amateur like me in electronics while the "experts" can't even get it to run correctly. They don't know how to corroberate what the scope shows with what the circuit is actually doing. They can't get the mosfest to go into oscillation. They can't recover output from an inductive resistor.

I did this all with about $30 in parts and an hour of work or less.

Anyway, the first, second and third laws of thermodynamics are completely wrong and the only thing that the debunkers have proven is that mass hypnosis works on them.

[witsend]

Aaron - was glued to the computer all day - then fell asleep a the critical moment!!! Have just watched the video. What a pleasure. That self-oscillation - AT LAST. There's something wrong with my Fluke. I'm going to get it fixed and will then post it to you. You need some good power measurements now. And I would love you to use it. It'll be in more capable hands than my own.

WOW. I am really buzzing. Well done.

And what a relief to see that oscillation. That's always amazing and for those that replicate this test that's the point that benefit is inevitable.

Anyway - am just so chuffed. Many thanks for the trouble in doing that video. And from here on - enjoy the trip. It only gets better.

[Aaron]

@milehigh

Aaron: A few more comments about your clip:

The shut resistor is comparable to the resistance of the coil-resistor. I know that this is your fist shot at it so it is understandable. However, it limits the current through the circuit and affects the overall operation. The baddie here is that it is pushing the source pin voltage of the MOSFET way up above ground as the current starts to flow, which will make the "on" signal from the 555 start to drop relative to the MOSFET gate input.

The first thing that is noteworthy is that there are two separate time constants associated with the rising waveform across the coil-resistor when the MOSFET switches on. It may be related to the shunt resistor being too large, I don't know. The big point is that it is not supposed to be there, the circuit clearly shows that. You should try to find out why it is there and explain it.

You are not telling your audience where the scope ground and signal leads are connected also, and that could be relevant. If the scope ground lead is "far away" from the coil-resistor other potentials in the interconnect wires may be affecting the waveform. Ideally you would put the scope probe directly across the big coil-resistor.

Note that the reverse-voltage coming out of the coil-inductor after the MOSFET switches off is about -0.6 volts, just like I stated it would be. You can clearly see this in all of the scope shots. This is a very very important fact that should not be overlooked. When the coil discharges it generats a potential directly related to the effective resistance across the coil. In this case, the diode clamps the output voltage from the coil-resistor inductive discharge to -0.6 volts.

Yes, there is a pretty big looking negative spike at the very beginning of the coil-resistor discharge cycle (the instant the MOSFET switches off). HOWEVER, I already indicated that a lot of this could be associated with the breadboarding. As the circuit builds get better and better with every new iteration you can expact that spike to decrease in energy and amplitude. If you got this build down to a refined printed circuit board layout with eveything done just right, there is a decent chance that that first big spike would be become a tiny tiny whisp, barely noticable in a scope shot.

Since you are not scoping the current across the shunt resistor in your first go at it, at this point in time we don't know if there is any current flow associated with that first big negative spike. In a way, the point is moot anyways, because any curent flow from that spike would not be in the right direction to charge the source battery.

It's hard to tell in the clip, but if you see distinctive ringing associated wth any of the spikes, then they are not necessarily ringing spikes directly from the coil. The interconnect wires themselves can ring because of a whole mess of stuff about impedance mismatching between the source, the impedance of the transmission line associated with the wires themselves, and the load. It all comes into play when you are dealing with square-like waves. If you could match all of the impedances in the "wire transmisson line system" then at least all of the ringing associated with the wires themselves would go away.

Aaron, thanks, a very good first clip overall. We got to see some guts at work!

Also many thanks to TK, who has been working on this project and has done a multitude of clips filled with relevant information.

MileHigh

One of my first revisions is to put a 1/4 ohm 2 watt resistor for the shunt resistor. 10ohm resistor is the lowest I have and I don't want to parallel 40 of them. Should have something soon, but after this video, I think others with more circuit experience than me will start to do the replication.

I think the on time on the resistor being "2 different time constants" is simply catch up time for the back emf to kick in. Being a hollow core coil and one layer of turns, I'm assuming. I know the back emf rolls backwards over the winding to butt heads with the north field I think the resistive element of the inductor limits the currents ability to generate that magnetic field fast enough. Just guessing. But I'm sure with decreased shunt resistor resistance, is may be a bit quicker if there is a linear relationship.

Scope probe ground is at the ground end directly on the resistor and the probe end is directly at the top of the resistor when the cathode of the diode is also connected.

The big spike will continue to be there regardless of the way the circuit is built. I could be wrong but time will tell. And if the breadbording I'm doing now gives me the big spike, I'll take it.

The battery voltage charged above resting voltage. No matter what the actual ability of that charge is, that potential came back from the circuit. Whether it came back from the diode or directly from the coil doesn't matter to me for results and the results show that the voltage increased in the battery. A difference of potential increasing in a battery means that the circuit added potential to the battery.

Debating the load powering cabaility of it is another issue but the fact remains that potential is delivered to the battery from the circuit.

I acknowledge the possibility the ringing is not from the coil and expect the ringing to be reduced if I use lower impedance batteries like my 20ah ones instead of my 7ah ones that I am using now. But it sure looks nice I think the battery could be the issue because I have evidence that the battery is seeing that output and is providing a resistance to that pressure.

[Aaron]

efficiency

Wow Aaron, take a pill and relax man

I think I'll refrain form responding to any more of your questions....It seems your blood pressure is already exceeding unity

.99

99, you appear to be proficient in EE and related. However, when you question the circuit and concept contained it as it relates to operating COP and Efficiency (I agree who cares about efficiency if cop is over 1.0), I find it most interesting that your very definition of efficiency doesn't include environmental input, which is required. This, to me, is a red flag and is very questionable.

[MileHigh]

Thanks all

Aaron and everyone: It was fun discussing the circuit and the clips. I don't know if I will have much more to say unless people start crunching some power-in power-out numbers from real tests.

For Rosemary: No need to take a swipe at the "classical" types. Your comments impugning their abilities and understanding are way off base and they are not worth rebutting. I hope that some of what you learned will be beneficial to you. You dropped a hint about wanting to replace the diode across the coil-resistor with a LED because it makes sense to you to see it flashing and it likely would never have occured to you unless you were here on this forum to learn and I did not state it. The bottom line is results. Somebody has to run the setup and make make some credible power measurements, that is a fact that we can all agree on. Good luck!

MileHigh

Woops, I am so tired that I think that I was reading Aaron more than Rosemary with respect to the less-than-nice comments. Look, we all sometimes get heated, we are only human. So I apologize to you Rosemary and at the same time I thank you and Aaron for the project and the interest it is generating. It will be interesting to watch what happens. That's an olive branch extended. Good luck to all working on this!