Claimed OU circuit of Rosemary Ainslie

[MileHigh]

TK:

I pretty much agree with you and let me state my version of a quick pass/fail for COP > 1.  (COP > 17 is for stage 2)  Just for the fun of it dammit.

For me the setup would be just the bare coil-resistor hanging vertically by one of the wires, not being in physical contact with anything else, in the controlled conditions of a room, no fans, etc.  The resistor is hollow and thus will give you a nice "smokestack" effect when it is hot.

Run the Ainsley circuit and record the stabilized temp and make your most accurate power consumption measurement possible.

Then the control test - put the same amount of DC power through the vertical smokestack coil-resistor and let the temperature stabilize and see what gives.

If the Universe is still right you should measure a higher temperature for the control test.

This setup will have a much shorter time constant than your calorimeter based test and give you equally accurate results.  The only thing to really watch out for is to make sure the air currents around the coil-resistor are exactly the same for both tests, which should be trivial.

The bottom line is that there can be many variations on the theme here, as long as the person doing the measurements is cognisant of the thermal related issues and does something that makes sense.

In one of Aaron's clips the coil-resistor was sitting on top of his wooden bench.  That would be a no-no because here you have a situation where the coil-resistor is now slowly heating up the bench also, and the thermal capacity shoots through the roof.  Therefore the time constant becomes hours or more.  You don't want your workbench to become part of the thermal equilibrium equation.

MileHigh

P.S.: To quote the Strolling Bones:

And she was hot - as she kissed my mouth
She was hot - as I wiped her brow
She was hot - she pinned me to the ground
She was quick - she knew her way around
She was hot - as she tore my clothes
She was hot - she had no place to go
She was hot - on a cold and rainy night

lol

[TinselKoala]

Current methods of calorimetry used on this circuit are not ideal due to heavy thermal coupling to the atmosphere. The maths to straighten it all out for absolute values are difficult and its much simpler to do better calorimetry.

A hot drink glass vacuum flask filled with distilled water, deep styrofoam plug in the top with holes for load leads and thermocouple. Dip any exposed leads of the load in varnish. Run X joules in with straight DC. Run X joules in with claimed OU circuit. Same water volume and start temp in each case. For best accuracy run times should be equalised by varying (via voltage) the DC input power to match the pulsed RMS power. For even better accuracy two identical calorimeters should be built and ran close to each other.

edit:
TKs aymptotic equilibrium curves of the leaky calorimeter runs above do say underunity if they were conducted at approx the same ambient temps, pressures and relative humidity. But without real calorimetry obtaining absolute heat out figures is difficult and noisy.

Come on, Yucca, of course you are right but the claim is SEVENTEEN times overunity. Not some few percent experimental error caused by a three degree difference in ambient temperature or a damp morning.

The details of my "leaky calorimeter" as well as the hot and cold point calibrations of the thermocouple are published earlier in the thread. But briefly for review, the Ainslie load with diode right up against it is wrapped tight in heatshrink , and immersed in mineral oil in a test tube, with a loose cotton plug at the top. This assembly was degassed by holding it in a pan of boiling water for 15 minutes or so, and also by using DC to heat it up until the bubbles stopped coming out of the load assembly. This test tube is in turn hung inside another glass jar, an olive jar I think, and prevented from contacting the sides or bottom. The air in the jar is trapped.

If the calorimeter is too tight, it takes too damn long for the load to equilibrate.

And finally, if necessary I was prepared to submit the Ainslie circuit to some "friends of ours" who would be glad, I'm sure, to run it in the world's most sophisticated civilian bulk calorimeter, the MOAC. But it's very clear at this point that that is unnecessary and in fact ludicrous.

[TinselKoala]

To be fair, and to give that dead horse yet another blow, I have to point out that the Ainslie OU figures refer to a long-term experimental run, during which the battery is alleged to have delivered less energy (by a factor of 17) than was dissipated in a similar load running at a similar temperature for a similar time driven by DC.

So, even though we might have shown that there isn't any evidence for significant battery recharging or excess heat wrt input power in the short term, longer runs still should be performed, with some kind of reliable measure of battery energy content.

Now, in that context---does Rosemary's method of energy calculation depend on the length of time the experiment is run? To me it appears that it does, but I'm not exactly sure since she won't let us see the actual calculations--she only "describes" them.
If it does depend on the length of the experiment, is that actually a correct possible result, or should the COP be constant over time?
I dunno, and I'd like to hear some opinion on this.

[Yucca]

Come on, Yucca, of course you are right but the claim is SEVENTEEN times overunity. Not some few percent experimental error caused by a three degree difference in ambient temperature or a damp morning.

The details of my "leaky calorimeter" as well as the hot and cold point calibrations of the thermocouple are published earlier in the thread. But briefly for review, the Ainslie load with diode right up against it is wrapped tight in heatshrink , and immersed in mineral oil in a test tube, with a loose cotton plug at the top. This assembly was degassed by holding it in a pan of boiling water for 15 minutes or so, and also by using DC to heat it up until the bubbles stopped coming out of the load assembly. This test tube is in turn hung inside another glass jar, an olive jar I think, and prevented from contacting the sides or bottom. The air in the jar is trapped.

If the calorimeter is too tight, it takes too damn long for the load to equilibrate.

And finally, if necessary I was prepared to submit the Ainslie circuit to some "friends of ours" who would be glad, I'm sure, to run it in the world's most sophisticated civilian bulk calorimeter, the MOAC. But it's very clear at this point that that is unnecessary and in fact ludicrous.

Of course TK, using your calorimeter you wouldn´t miss the elephant in the living room that is COP17. Using constant leakage to find equilibrum temps gives a good relative handle as to whats going on. I suppose it´s not worth dropping it into the mother of all calorimeters unless you see performance close to or above straight DC.

[MileHigh]

TK:

IMHO, it makes more sense to work with power measurements as we have been discussing.  Going the calorimeter route is unnecessarily complicated and watts are just as good as joules or calories in this case.  The calorimeter is just a watt integrator.  It's not really giving you any new information.  It may indeed be more accurate in the long run but like you said, the two goal posts are COP > 1 and COP > 17.  If you don't even hit COP > 1, then it's game over.

As far as I am concerned your leaky calorimeter test is the definitive reference at this point in time and makes it as clear as a bell where we currently stand.

I wonder if the DSO did something interesting today....

MileHigh