COP 17 Heater | Rosemary Ainslie

[RAMSET]

Rosemary's Circuit with Aarons trigger video

TK posts

YouTube - Electric OU UmpTeen: The Ainslie Circuit with the Qiman Timer

[Jetijs]

Hi all
Today I tried the following circuit:


I used an air cored bifilar coil and a 10 ohm 10w resistor in series with one winding of the coil. The other winding was used for the recovery part. All the recovered energy was sent to the front side capacitor. I adjusted the duty cycle so that it matched the current rise time of the coil. I observed the current on a shunt in series of the power winding. I did not make a print screen of the waveform, but it was something like this:



I also watched the current waveform on a shunt on the recovery side, that looked something like this:



Anyway, I observed about 2x greater currents circulating through the coil than the power supply is giving out. I observed it using two amp meters, one on the power supply side and one just after the capacitor. Also the amp meter that is built in the power supply showed the same. Anyway, I made a test. I measured how much time would it take to heat up the resistor from 30 degree celsius to 60 degree celsius. With no recovery it took 1minute and 40 seconds at 200mA current draw at 24v. With the recovery it took just the same time but at only 120mA current draw at the same input voltage.
Need to do more testing.

[Aaron]

function generator

[quote=Aaron;62019]I do but it is dedicated to a health device in storage. I will get one for these projects anyway because it would be helpful.

But even without one, TK already verified that my original 555 circuit gives:

• true paracitic oscillation
• parasitic oscillations of the classic textbook kind
• parasitic oscillation that are regular

I'm sure you saw TK mention this.

I saw the recommendation posted here to put a 1k resistor from gate to source. Seems like that would simply give the spike a path to ground to make it disappear, but I'll see what it does if I have time to try that. Either you or MH mentioned that.

EDIT: I'm used to voltage terminology for transistors and not current terminology of Mosfets. Was thinking the recommendation was from the drain to ground.

[Aaron]

recharge

They are bigger without the diode. Again they are undulations or oscillations that go both positive and negative, which means the average current from these undulations is zero, and hence the charging effect on the battery is also zero.

Again, this extremely brief impulse appears to be sourced from the MOSFET Gate drive.

.99

If the battery had to expend say 10 parts to pulse the circuit and generate x amount of heat in that pulse and on the off pulse 5 parts went back. The battery only had to give up 5 parts to get 10 parts of work done. In that sense, I can see how the charging effect on the battery is zero. It gave back to the battery what it gave up. This in itself is over 1.0 COP because it required 10 and we got a 5 rebate so net cost is 5. 5 to do 10 worth of work that is COP 2.0.

It can be said then that there wasn't anything added to the battery then so charging effect is zero. That would of course be a matter of perspective and doesn't change what is happening.

But seeing the negative spike on the shunt, very clearly, very sharply, indicates a return to the battery.

When you talk about the gate drive being the source of the impulse, are you talking about the trigger power source from the 555 circuit?

[Aaron]

tk's video

TK posts

YouTube - Electric OU UmpTeen: The Ainslie Circuit with the Qiman Timer

It is nice that he is able to use my ORIGINAL timer circuit to make his mosfet oscillate. But he needs to use one that goes down to 3% if he wants to replicate anything. That circuit has a minimum of 50% duty cycle.

Yes, the oscillation overrides the timer, but use 3%, period, or else he is doing his own thing and not Rosemary's test. I have repeated countless times that circuit was something simply to make the mosfet oscillate to see if it was possible, and of course it was.

And it isn't my circuit, it is Forest Mim's basic astable 555 timer circuit.

The timer circuit I'm using now and have been since the day after the original video I posted, is adjustable down to 1%. Which I have also said plenty of times.

If he doesn't know how to make a 555 circuit that goes to 3%, I am willing to show him how.

Also, with the heat dropping on his test when it goes into oscillation is completely meaningless. For one, let see him calculate heat energy per battery energy expended. If it takes 10 parts battery energy to make 5 parts heat without oscillation (which of course it is much more than that but just to show an example) and in oscillation if it takes 5 parts energy to make 4 units of heat, I think it should be more than obvious that his point of heat drop in that video is completely irrelevant.

Also, what frequency is his oscillations? It is possible the 3% duty cycle on the timer does influence the oscillation frequency of the mosfet. Even if the mosfet oscillates at a different duty cycle and frequency, it is smart to use the same 3% or 3.7%.

You have to compare apples to apples and not just point out any random thing that comes up on the slot machine.

I also noticed a drop in temp on my resistor when in oscillation and the first obvious thing in my mind was how much heat per battery energy expended. In addition to this, there is an art to tuning the whole thing so there is a lot of heat with the oscillation. Everything has its sweet spot(s) as we all know.

I'll do the full test in the near future when I have better equipment and in the meantime, I'm checking the behaviour of different variations of the circuit. The first schematic in this thread was Peter's propsal with the cap. I'm testing that now.

Also, there are multitudes of things that can be done with what is coming out of the diode. Anyone with experience with the SG's, etc... can see obvious appliations.

[Aaron]

great results!

Anyway, I observed about 2x greater currents circulating through the coil than the power supply is giving out. I observed it using two amp meters, one on the power supply side and one just after the capacitor. Also the amp meter that is built in the power supply showed the same. Anyway, I made a test. I measured how much time would it take to heat up the resistor from 30 degree celsius to 60 degree celsius. With no recovery it took 1minute and 40 seconds at 200mA current draw at 24v. With the recovery it took just the same time but at only 120mA current draw at the same input voltage.

Awesome Jetijs! Looking forward to more.

[poynt99]

Purposeful Oscillation of a power MOSFET

I do but it is dedicated to a health device in storage. I will get one for these projects anyway because it would be helpful.

But even without one, TK already verified that my original 555 circuit gives:

• true paracitic oscillation
• parasitic oscillations of the classic textbook kind
• parasitic oscillation that are regular

I'm sure you saw TK mention this.

I saw the recommendation posted here to put a 1k resistor from gate to source. Seems like that would simply give the spike a path to ground to make it disappear, but I'll see what it does if I have time to try that. Either you or MH mentioned that.

Aaron,

The spikes already have a path to ground through the parasitic caps. The 1k resistor to ground was my suggestion in order that the Gate drive be attenuated from the 555 somewhat. You already have a pot in series with the Gate, and in combination with this 1k to ground, the Drive level will be lower, as determined by the value the pot is set to.

Without the 1k to ground, the series pot only slows the Gate drive, it does not provide any overall attenuation. What I am thinking is to get the FET to break into this oscillation, we want to try and drive it with not only a slow input, but one that does not turn it ON all that much, nor OFF all that much. This is why it would also be interesting to try with a FG that has DC offset capability.

So I am proposing to drive the MOSFET straight from the FG, and using some +DC offset, different wave forms, and amplitudes, you might just be able to get it to go. I've never tried this myself, but seeing as it is the complete opposite of how we are taught to drive MOSFET's, it might also give us the effect we're looking for, that is for the darn thing to break into some HF oscillation.

.99

[Aaron]

for the record

For the record, I just want to post TK's #668 post at OU. Not interested in getting into a discussion on this at this time, just that I wanted it posted before there is a chance for any of it to be edited.

Anyone can see I'm posting it here EXACTLY like it is there.

---------------------------------------------------------------------

Re: Claimed OU circuit of Rosemary Ainslie Reply #668 on: Today

• Quote

More raw data from an actual Ainslie experimental run and a DC control run at the same average input power settings.
Of course, my mosfet is not oscillating--it's just being accurately driven at a known 2.4 kHz and a known 3 percent ON with a fast risetime clean pulse.

Note that the load heating profile is similar to the reported heat profile in the Ainslie papers. Ballpark, certainly. In the TKTTCalo, heat is retained well and the equilibrium temp is likely higher than hers for that and other minor reasons. But certainly I am getting heat, as one can see.

And of course, in the DC control condition, using the same average power as was _estimated_ roughly for experimental condition, the load heated a bit faster and got a bit hotter at equilibrium. Energy in and out can be easily calculated from these data, and clearly show a COP under 1.

Errors of course can be many. But they are none of them of sufficient possible magnitude to turn a substantial OU condition into a substantial underunity on.

Conclusion: No excess energy or efficiency was found in this experimental pilot run. Since the claim in the Ainslie paper is of excess heat energy out, 17 times more than electrical energy in, the issue of battery charging is irrelevant. The energy flowing through the shunt resistor was measured--this is the energy "over the millwheel" -- and this amount of energy was found to be more than was necessary to heat the load to similar temps with similar DC power level. Since the energy "over the millwheel" is the simple sum of any "leaving" and "returning" energy, the actual measurement does the computation automatically and gives the true net energy flow.
Which in this case is more than enough to heat the load resistor, just like DC would.
So, unless my DC power supply is also overunity, or I made some 17 x mistake, or sufficient error has accumulated to do that factor of 17+, there's no OU in this set of runs.
Even though the heating is impressive.

So, now we must see details of Rosemary's actual data -- the spreadsheet, the numbers that went in, the actual calculations. Because at this point, Ainslie load heating at 3 percent can be considered confirmed, if the circuit is properly driven with short risetime clean pulses. Even though the 555 timer circuit in the Quantum article is definitely wrong and incapable of making the short cycle.

To clear up the "oscillation" issue we need to know the exact circuit, Rosemary, that you used to clock your system. I still believe, based on what I have seen, that scope triggering on an unclean mosfet signal is the culprit, and if the mosfet is oscillating it is because of the 555 circuit.

Aaron's circuit from the Mims booklet is not as controllable or stable as the Quantum article's circuit. Too bad that one's output is flipped. It may actually be better for experimenters to use the Quantum circuit with a 2n2222 as an inverter--as has been suggested before--, because at least the F and % are separately controllable in that one, and it operates in the right freq range.

Of course, there are also simple mosfet gate driver chips that will give the right kind of pulse to your mosfet--the H-bridge switches quite well as high as my F34 will go...and with the DP101 it will go even higher than 2 Mhz with clean edges and big inductive spikes. DRSSTC here we come!!

But remember, I have forbidden Aaron to use my findings to guide his research. So he better not build that 555 correctly, or try sharper pulses, or a different mosfet. No no no.

[poynt99]

But seeing the negative spike on the shunt, very clearly, very sharply, indicates a return to the battery.

Yes, but as I indicated in previous posts, that spike is not really a spike, it is a damped high frequency ringdown. A nice sinusoidal ringdown and that means alternating current. What happens if you try to charge a battery with AC

When you talk about the gate drive being the source of the impulse, are you talking about the trigger power source from the 555 circuit?

Yes I am indeed. With the flyback diode in the circuit, there is a path straight to the battery. The question is of course, "can a 9V or 12V battery (used to power the 555 circuit) charge a 24V battery?" It shouldn't, but the spike I see in the simulation seems to do it. Will have to examine that again to be sure.

I think a diagram of the circuit depicting the high frequency model would be helpful, but I'm not sure how many would understand it.

.99

[MileHigh]

Jumping into the fray again...

Well I'm back again... I think there were a few things learnt today so I want to hilight them and make some constructive suggestions. I am just going to let the text flow today so I will apologize ahead of time if I sound abrasive or whatever. I am not good at that sometimes but the intention is good and truly in the spirit of helping advance towards the goal.

First thing, in the TK's recent clip, "Electric OU UmpTeen: The Ainslie Circuit with the Qiman Timer", there are two things that are worth noting above and beyong what TK says in his presentation:

YouTube - Electric OU UmpTeen: The Ainslie Circuit with the Qiman Timer

The first is that you see the a quite clean waveform across the shunt resistor in a lot of the clip. Notice for this particular round of working with the circuit the voltage across the shunt resistor never goes negative, indicating that the battery never gets charged and is always discharging. It is clear as a bell, pun intended.

Aaron, TK or anyone. Why not play with any accepted variation on the circuit; variable duty-cycle pulse waveform, MOSFET oscillaton or no oscillation, change waveform frequency, doide or no diode, etc? See if you can record a shunt resistor waveform that shows a negative pulse, spike, whatever, that shows the source battery is being charged somewhere in the cycle. Forget about the COP, just try to show the source bettery being charged. We can't forget, this is the premise that a lot of people around here are operating on.

There is one huge caveat, you have to be sure that the negative spike is not a ring-down spike. You should know how to do this: Turn up your time base and play with your trigger threshold and rising/falling edge and horizontal and vertical offsets and center the spike on your display, then turn the intensity way up on your scope. If there is ringing, you will see it.

Let's assume that somebody finds a legitimate spike of current going into the battery showing charging. That is not a "victory." You now must look at the overall waveform and make a rough calculation in your head of how much current is going out of the battery vs. how much is going in. You also want to "RMS" calculate it in your head meaning that the high current levels count more than the low current levels.

Then you have to report to the group: I found charging, but it looks like it is about XX% of the discharging. To be legit you have to make this estimate.

On a tangent, I *hate* the battery now. Looking at all the clips it reminds me of how the battery itself exhibits a "battery inductance" where even a charged battery will take a small voltage dip (a mini-croak) even if you demand a small amount of current from it. It only takes milliseconds to recover it's voltage but that is the difference between day and night for this experiment. Therefore, andybody that wants to use a battery (shudder) for the first round of testing should put it parallel with a big fat capacitor, coke-can-sized, 35V electrolytic, and a few smaller caps to decouple the battery croaking and make it go away. Then you have to scope it and make sure the the croaking is reduced at least 100-fold or more. Going back to Rosemary's paper, there is no valid reason to scope the supply voltage period. The supply voltage is *supposed* to be a constant in this test, and not a variable. But I digress...

Here is the second big thing we had confirmed in this clip. Let me quote myself:

>
How does the oscillation affect the coil? The fact is that the coil prevents the current from flowing when you first switch it on. Think of a spring. When you first push on a spring, almost no force is passed onto the far side of the spring because the spring is just starting to compress. Same thing for the coil, no cuurent passes through it. Therefore the high frequency oscillations are "choking" the coil and everytime the MOSFET switches on, only a very small amount of current can pass through the coil and charge it up with energy before the MOSFET switches of. So when the MOSFET is self-resonating at a very high frequency, the cloil is generating high-frequency feeble little discharges. Granted there is a lot of them, but is still is a huge net loss relative to the normal switching mode. You could in theory calculate the RMS value of the little pulses of current coming out of the coil. This very low RMS current is trickling through the diode and going back into the other side of the coil. This will apply for any high-frequency osciilation mode of the MOSFET.
>

This is clearly demonstrated in TK's clip at 4:53. If you didn't catch it go take a look and check it again. Aaron noted it and made the astute observation that you them must rerun the power-in power-out calculations and you might get better numbers. There is another experiment.

Now I am going to air what I think is a legitimate beef. Many of you, Rosemary, Aaron, Jetis, I am sure others have been saying with confidence "Much better results for sure with oscillation!!!" What was clearly implicit was that there was going to be more absolute energy flowing through the system, "better charging current back to the battery", whatever. You were all convinced of this and ignored what I said above.

Look at the cuurent scope trace at 4:53, it bacically flat-lines, and TK has to turn the vertical gain way up on the scope to even see it. From the battery's perspective, the impedance of the circuit went way way up when the MOSFET went into oscillation, because the coil is in series and coils block high frequencies.

I am not gloating here and looking for praise at all, I did nothing special at all in my observation. The real reason I am saying this is because it is time for those of you that just saw that your assumptions where wrong.... It's time for you to step up to the plate and simply acknowledge that what you are seeing in the clip is legit, and you were wrong. Thanks to TK you learned something important. Acknowledging stuff like this elevates your stature, it does not lower it. That b l a n k s i l e n t feeling in the thread shoud be replaced with more debate about the revelations and positive feedback for those that contributed to the research, even if it was not what you wanted to hear. Again, that gives you more "street cred" if you engage in that way.

Again, I apologize ahead of time if I offended anyone.

MileHigh

[MileHigh]

This is a mini part 2 and I will close with few quick thoughts.

I am going to quote TinselKoala:

>
I HAVE GOTTEN LOAD HEATING SIMILAR TO AINSLIE'S
using a known 3 percent ON duty cycle,
AT AVERAGE POWER LEVELS IN LINE WITH AINSLIE'S
reported input power levels in her papers.

Sorry to shout but doesn't this deserve to be said out loud?

That is, I feel that I have replicated Ainslie's EXPERIMENTAL results to a fair degree of accuracy at the duty cycle originally claimed, using not the erroneous 555 timer that makes the inverted cycle from the Quantum paper, but rather a fast risetime (5 ns) pulse generator set at 2.4 kHz and 3 percent KNOWN ON duty cycle.
>

TK has recently generated legitimate real-world data about this experiment and it should be acknowledged. This has nothing to do with the "interpersonal issues", he generated legit data. I couldn't find the text but somewhere he says (to paraphrase), "I measured the power-in, and then as a separate test I ran the same DC power through the coil-resistor and got hotter temperatures with the pure DC power test." That is a clear statement that this test he did shows COP < 1. The absolute numbers aren't there for power-in vs. power out, but it clearly shows that for that test, power-in was greater than power out.

Now I have a suggestion. Someone should keep a living document that records the various replicator's test results as time goes on. Every legitimate test can be recorded. This would be an invaluable document. I suggest using a Excel spreadsheet and it can updated and made available somewhere with easy access. Keeping the release date in the file name would be the right way to go. You can then just keep downloading it, a no brainer.

I am going to nominate Rosemary to be the spreadsheet maintainer. Are you up to it Rosemary? TK would have to distill his data down for you.

I can even propose names for the column headers: Date, Replicator, Configuration, Power in, Power-out, COP, URL, Comments. Everybody's cobtributions would start to fill up the spreadsheet and it would become a most interesting document. You really need a central information depository, and every contributor's work would be acknowledged and made available for all to look at. The good and the bad in all of it's glory. This spreadsheet will help prevent the thread from petering out into nothingness and help both sides of the divide arrive at a conclusion. I hope someone picks up the torch!

Quickies....

Jetijs: Your secondary coil on your bifilar cannot charge the cap or the battery. I challenge you to figure out why.

Aaron: Peter Lindemann's circuit at the start of this thread cannot charge the cap when the coil discharges. I challenge you to figure out why.

Finally, I will just repeat my previous comment. Replicators should focus on two steps only. Step 1: Build you MOSFET switch and scrutinize it and test it and when you have it working to your satisfaction, don't touch it anymore. Step 2: Run the 3% duty-cycle test and make electrical-power-in and thermal-power-out measurements. Focus on these two steps and get your valuable data added to the experiment tracking spreadsheet.

One more time, I apologize if I offended anyone.

MileHigh

[witsend]

Hi .99 - I had to go someway back to rescue this post. So much is going on - all over the place. I can't get the secondary quotes into the picture. Some one? Fuzzy - how is this done? Anyway. I'll try without.

regarding 'ringing' and 'spiking' with or without diodes. If your Spice programme gives these a net zero - then it conflicts with observed. Just look at Jet's screen or gotoluc's. There is a sharp inital spike - that and the sum of all voltages into the ringing - before the 'full off' duty cyle - that value corresponds to some fraction less than the the sum of all voltages during the on. This can be seen on a spreadsheet dump. So. That's one difference you could look at? Not sure how to prove which is right?


This again is classical analysis and classical observation. These undulations and spikes are present in SPICE simulations, and when the MOSFET is replaced with and IDEAL switch (i.e. no parasitic capacitance or inductance), the undulations in the battery are eliminated because the current path is now truly cut OFF, unlike the case with an actual or modeled MOSFET switch.
What is an 'ideal switch'? If it is a complete break - like a relay then how could there be a benefit? No returning path for current flow?

Replace the real or modeled diode with an IDEAL diode model (i.e no junction or lead parasitics), and that path is also eliminated, and there will be no current spike sourced from the Gate drive.
Again definition of IDEAL? Sorry .99 - if this exasperates. I just don't know what's meant here. If there were no returning path - there would be no spke.

Ok. I'm going through my zipon current flow - so please bend the mind around that - then find out how to disprove it. That woud be just so excellent.

My circuit. The duty cycle 'on'. Current leaves the battery flows to the load resistor - clockwise. Establishes magnetic field extruded from the resistor. The resistor dissipates energy related to Ohm's Law. The current continues - no obstructions from the Mosfet - passes through the shunt - and completes the journey at the battery negative terminal.

The duty cycle 'off'. No further path for potential difference to discharge from the battery. We still have potential difference at the load resistor from extruded magnetic fields. They need to discharge, exactly as the battery needed to discharge. It finds a path. The path now is anti-clockwise. It moves through the battery via the flyback diode - then through the shunt - then through the intrisic body diode in the MOSFET - then back to the load.

Result is when it moves through the battery it recharges. When it returns to the load it adds heat.

In other words - no complicated 'current wants to move in the same direction' no extraordinary 'hole's in sundry diodes to induce spare capacitance - no complicated strange idiosyncratic behaviour of electric energy transfer. Just straight forward inductive laws. BUT nor is there a need for the 'flow of electrons'. Just the transfer of zipons - magnetic particles - responding to the polarity of PD. With respect. No counting or needing or adding, electrons or protons or any of the complicated nonsense that anyway defies Pauli's exclusion principles. It also all occurs at a pace that exceeds the measured rate relating to the transfer of those electrons in the first instance. Just recharge by changing the polarity of those same little particles.

The only thing that needs to change is the computation of the returning energy. But when you do that. Then, .99 you will always exceed unity. EDIT And I might add, there is no need to excuse the fact that current will always move in relation to applied voltage. For some reason classical electrodynamics requires current flow to behave differently on a 'switched circuit'. Extraordinary.

EDIT In other words when you add inductance and a path for the flow of this and the time for this to regenerate current then you will get what gotoluc describes as reticulated current flow.

[Aaron]

@milehigh

Hi MH,

The negative spike on the shunt is there. Maybe you missed the big graphic I posted showing it (negative spikes). TK probably has it to and is hiding it by having the camera too far away and zoomed out too much. Have him show the shunt on the scope up close and personal. It isn't really that clear at all. Again, why do I get the negative spikes but he can't? Very fishy.

The full line on a spike is often times dimmer than the rest but it can be seen and the brightest part of the spike is the peak.

"On a tangent, I *hate* the battery now. Looking at all the clips it reminds me of how the battery itself exhibits a "battery inductance" where even a charged battery will take a small voltage dip (a mini-croak) even if you demand a small amount of current from it."

That is true when you look at the waves on the surface of the ocean but down deep it is pretty solid. You can verify this by applying a load, waiting for that dip...then apply another load, you see less of a drop because you're then at where the battery really is at.

But you're right, a smoothing cap will steady the results.

"Let's assume that somebody finds a legitimate spike of current going into the battery showing charging. That is not a "victory." You now must look at the overall waveform and make a rough calculation in your head of how much current is going out of the battery vs. how much is going in. You also want to "RMS" calculate it in your head meaning that the high current levels count more than the low current levels."

No matter what the output of battery vs input back to battery is, any input back to the battery reduced the net amount that was required from the battery. If x amount is REQUIRED to power the load, but some came back, that instantly defeats what the REQUIREMENT was to begin with.

But the difference does have to be known as you say.

From multiple mistakes made over the history of all his demos and claims, there isn't any credibility left.

His supposedly went into oscillation and he showed a few degrees temperature drop.

[Joit]

What happens if you try to charge a battery with AC

.99

Charging with Ac dont works, because it is the typical Effect of put something in, take something out and the Results are equal.

I will try once about putting a Resistor how you suggest, but i dont think, its a good idea to supress the Spike,
because it is a compressed Form what gives the Gain.
This is the flyback effect, what takes the 1 $ back.

[poynt99]

An important point regarding my latest posts

It should be noted that my findings of spikes (or damped ringdowns) with and without the flyback diode were with a VERY low resistance Gate drive of 0.2 Ohms. This is how a MOSFET would normally be driven as a switch.

With 1k Ohm in series with the Gate (which is ballpark of what everyone is using I assume), all the spikes/ringdown into the battery disappear. Why? Because this resistance is now in series with any parasitic capacitance I mentioned before, and this kills the effect.

With 100 Ohms in series and no flyback diode, there is still some ringing current present in the battery. 100 Ohms and WITH the flyback diode (as TK had), again the AC current in the battery ceases, so in theory no charging takes place.

.99

PS. Hey, 99 posts! Maybe I should quit here