Claimed OU circuit of Rosemary Ainslie

[MileHigh]

Rosemary:

And for the record - no-one, so far, has evaluated the energy expended in RF - nor even referenced it.  Why?

That's because the RF power emanated is probably on the order of microwatts or less.  The energy pie from the battery is sliced into heat and RF, and the RF slice is paper-thin.

The reason for this is that only the very very high frequency components in the circuit waveforms are able to get transformed into RF radiation.  You model the circuit as a microwave antenna.  At this level the lengths of the wires and the overall layout of the circuit comes into play.  We also know from Fourier transform analysis that the amplitudes of the very very high frequency components in the waveforms are minuscule.

That will take it way over COP>1.

You are being somewhat optimistic there!  lol  The battery power becomes heat power and a minuscule amount of RF power when it drives the "load" which is your circuit.  The energy in the inductive spike comes from the battery, and nowhere else.  That's the simplified energy audit.

Hefty losses in the wiring?  The wires dissipate very little power.  All that power becomes heat, as accounted for in the simplified energy audit.

Spice suggests maximum efficiency at a projected best of 86%

I am not sure what efficiency you are talking about here.  Is it the amount of heat burned off in the inductive resistor vs. the total heat being burned off?

I say that the circuit is 99.9999% efficient at producing heat.   

MileHigh

[MileHigh]

Aaron:

Great job on the thermal profiling.  You should post a picture of the setup you had when you ran the tests, that would be sweet.

If you can post the precise measured value of the resistor also, that would do it.

Perhaps one last thing.  There is the issue of the ambient temperature in the room vs. the ambient temperature of the body of the inductive resistor itself.  I am going to assume that you had a thermocouple on the inductive resistor from the start, so everything should be fine.

MileHigh

[Rosemary Ainslie]

MileHigh - how does one measure RF?  And if it's only the 'very high frequencies' I assure you that most applied to our test produced interference on the radio enough to entirely drown out reception.

And yes the circuit is 'lossy' as I've heard it expressed.  It is surely the fact that crocodile clips - multiple junctions for measurements - wires longer than required - shunt resistors all over the place - all contribute to the losses in the tranfer of energy and in wasteage of heat dissipated needlessly over sundry extraneous component parts.

And Poynt ran an experiment on spice that indicated the expected effeciency of the circuit would be at about 86%.  MileHigh why are you 'nit picking'? The fact is that we run our Quantum circuit on an an efficiency factor at either side of 1.  In fact, on the only duplicated test it was in excess of 1.  I'm inclined to think that this is significant provided it can be replicated.  Unfortunately it's not a strong argument - is all.

[MileHigh]

Rosemary:

Measuring RF is beyond the scope of this experiment.  Every piece of electronics equipment is tested to ensure that it does not emit too much RF energy.  They do it in large rooms with antennas and frequency spectrum analyzers and RF meters and stuff like that.

So you say the setup can drown out radios.  So what?  You have to put your scientific hat on and ask yourself the following questions:  How much RF energy does it take to drown out a radio that's one meter away from the circuit?  Another question to ask yourself:  If I am 10 kilometers away from the radio station transmission tower, and I know their broadcast power, how much RF energy per square meter is hitting me?  You can't make wild guesses based on observed phenomena without some kind of handle on the numbers.

If your new thoughts are to investigate COP allegedly just above or below unity, then you will be back in nit-pick territory.  Hence my question to Aaron about the precise value of the 10-ohm resistor.  Without that value, assume the data has a +/-5% fudge factor.  With that measurement, and the accuracy spec for the multimeter, you might be working with a +/-1% fudge factor.

MileHigh

[Rosemary Ainslie]

MileHigh - This is exhausting me.  I joined this forum because I wanted to enjoy the real pleasure of actually answering the points made here.  In the past you guys enjoyed the uninterrupted and uncontested pleasure of a long range missile attack without the danger of a return fire.

You made the point that losses on the experimental apparatus were insignificant.  I suggested they were signficant.  The point was not referenced.  You made the point that I must not tie my hopes to 'small values'.  I replied I do not tie my hopes to small values.  Now this is also not referenced.  Instead you are re-iterating - to the point of absurdity - the need not to 'tie one's hope to small values'.  What do you propose?  We ignore all further tests because of your conviction that there is no point to it?  Must I ignore Aaron's sine wave number?  Must I just give up because the evidence is not as I'd expected or managed in prior testing?  And do you seriously suggest that I have no handle on the 'error margins' of the measuring equipment? 

And where are you?  Since I've been a member of this forum I actually found your contributions fun.  They're now getting pedantic and boring - with respect.

I intend to take the data from these tests wherever they take me.  If there is anything that challenges conventional efficiency margins I will use it - with or without your sanction.  And it is not for your benefit but for my own.  If the challenge in the evidence is not strong - then my argument will not be strong.  If the evidence is strong - then my argument will be stronger.  But my interest here is to evaluate the evidence.  It is certainly not to convince you of that evidence.  The more so as your convictions here are on record coupled with your evident inability to digest my answers.