**UN-CENSORED" Rosemary Ainslie COP>17 Circuit ??

[exnihiloest]

The circuit is simple yes, but performing proper measurements and obtaining reliable data to work with is not so straight forward, and that is the essence of the problem.

Further adding to the problem, is what constitutes a valid replication? This has never been adequately clarified to my satisfaction
...

When a COP is given >17, there is no problem to lead proper measurements because the effect is well over the measurement accuracy.
It is extremely easy to measure with rough means, the change of temperature of the resistance with time and to do the same using dc of equal mean value and then to compare and see a big difference as announced. Even 2 instead of 17 should present obvious experimental evidence with approximate measurement devices.

"A valid replication" (or duplication, for me it is the same) can't be exactly defined, because it will never be exactly the same as the original experiment. So we must accept a replication as valid when the key points are "reasonably" respected, according to the original description from the author and to the code of practice in the involved domain, engineering rules...

[poynt99]

Harvey,

I agree with most of what you are saying, but I have a different point of view regarding actual COP values apparently obtained.

In my view, it is much more important to determine if a circuit achieves COP>1, or if it does not. The claim of 17:1 is a target or expected value, but if I tested a close or exact replication of a circuit and achieved 7:1 rather than 17:1, I would still consider that to be a partial success. The very fact that COP>1 was apparently achieved at all indicates that no.1 it may be possible with this circuit (pending further analysis), and no.2 that my version may "do better" with some tweaking.

So again, this comes down to the measurement process. If I achieved an apparent COP of 7 (or any COP>1), my greatest concern would be if my measurements are accurate. At this point the focus of the exercise would be to determine just that.

@ exnihiloest:

Yes, resistor profiles were indeed run by Glen using a DC source. In test #13 this is the data that was compared to the measured input power to obtain their COP calculation. That is good solid data. The problem I identified long ago however, was the input power measurement.

Regarding the "valid replication" question, my concern here is determining what degree of component variation is allowed while still rendering the results as valid. By that I mean, can these results be directly compared to the results obtained from the original circuit and tests? By "component variation", I mean specifically: the MOSFET model, the inductive resistor, the power supply.

Assume that I test this circuit and my component variation includes a similar wire-wound power resistor with the same resistance, and a lab power supply (this has still not been vetted as valid or not) rather than a battery. Assume also that the wave forms I obtain are almost identical to the originals, and that my COP measurements are also along the lines of the original.

My question is this: Would my circuit and test results constitute a "valid replication"?

.99

[truthbeknown]

So, what "BAD ADVICE" do think GADH is being given off of the Mosfet Heating Thread over at EF.com? What advice would YOU be giving him?

WHY is he not coming to YOU with his many questions? Yes, this begs an answer. Why Rosemary WHY?
Oh yeah, you won't answer this. Just like YOU couldn't answer his questions. LOL...many times...


J.

Rosemary has stated that Harvey and Glen are giving Gad BAD ADVICE on the thread at EF.com. She has not responded as to what advice she would be giving Gad in answering his questions.

J.

[Harvey]

Hi .99,

One way to determine if your device is a functional replication is to black box the process. Fortunately, the original was very simplistic so the function is very simplistic:

1. Electric Energy in
2. Black Box provides 1700% increase in energy
3. Thermal Energy out = 17 x Electrical Energy in.

With this simple model, if your 'replica' can be inserted as the Black Box, then it qualifies as a valid replica.

How do we know that 1700% is the bar? One way is to look at the thread title of every thread created to evaluate the original tests - they all include the text "COP > 17".

Granted, the term "COP" is used very loosely in this regard and is inaccurate from a scientific viewpoint. But the term is so widely used among OU enthusiasts to represent gain in an electrical system it's use is implied simply by the forums where the threads exist, namely Over Unity and Energetic Forum, both of which are well known to represent a large number of experimenters researching alternative energy, free energy and over unity. In the strictly technical sense, COP applies to two thermal reservoirs and represents the Coefficient of input energy required to move energy from one reservoir to the other. At best, the Ainslie circuit is treating a magnetic field as one of the thermal reservoirs and the ambient room as the other.

While COP is applied to thermal system within the industry and science using energy units, Efficiency is applied to electrical systems using power units. If the Efficiency > 1, then the system is an Over Unity system. But a COP > 7 heat exchanger is not an Over Unity system. When a scientists sees a COP >1 she or he does worry about the the first law of thermodynamics  being broken. But when they see an Efficiency > 1 value then they know the law has been broken.

Serious inventors who wish to be published or taken seriously by academia should note these differences and ensure their systems are appropriately labeled. If you are using the term COP then you need to be able to identify the reservoirs involved and the mechanism used to migrate energy from one reservoir to the other.

Regarding the DC baseline, I agree that Glen did a great job on that as shown in the attached excel spreadsheet in one of my prior posts. However, because the circuit develops an AC current in the load resistor, we are no longer using DC to heat the resistor and therefore the energy profile becomes unusable. The resistor must be profiled against the frequency and power that exists during operation to be accurate.

Compare your resistor heat output for DC vs AC for the same voltage and current and see how different they are. Especially at the operating frequencies of this circuit. If the differences are negligible for the bandwidth you intend to operate in, then you can use the DC baseline. Otherwise, you may be able to plot a curve of the difference and use that factor for the instantaneous calculations done on the data. But of course, you would need to identify the precise frequency at the moment of data collection to know which part of the curve to apply.

One of the most serious errors in allowing AC to creep into a DC analysis is the fact that your current is being applied in both directions as an additive factor on the thermal output, but is incorrectly being subtracted on the CSR value. This gives the illusion of more out than in. The reason it fails is because the battery voltage is not properly inverted in the calculations. This is an easy mistake to make even by the most proficient in the field. When current changes direction, that is prime time to stop and think about why and what must be done with the calculations at that instant.

If we reduce the Mosfet Heating Circuit to a hydro model what would we have? The battery becomes a reservoir with a pump, the inductor becomes a water powered flywheel and the Mosfet becomes a shut off valve with a back flow relief valve. Also between the flywheel and the shutoff valve we have a stand pipe 900 feet in the air attached right there at the valve. So, we turn on the valve, and fluid flows as the pump makes it flow, and the flywheel spins up to high velocity. Then we slam the valve shut as fast as we can and as the flywheel momentum keeps turning, it pumps water into the stand pipe all the way up to 900 volts, um I mean feet (that's the BEMF) Then all that water comes flushing back down the pipe and runs through the flywheel the opposite direction and tries to force it's way back through the pump head on and because the back flow valve (diode in the Mosfet) allows flow in the other direction, after all the water has dropped in the stand pipe, the flywheel is turning in the opposite direction and keeps pumping more through that back flow valve. Then eventually, after a few small cycles back and forth the flywheel stops moving and we can do the process again.

How do we evaluate the work being done? Is it possible that we can remove water from the waste side and put it into the pump reservoir using this method? Remember, that back flow valve only works one way, and the flywheel oscillates several times, filling the stand pipe a little less each time, and sucking water from the waste side a little less each time. Can we ever get more water to go back than we took out?

Well that is the basic process involved. But now we have to add a new apparatus, a condenser. As the flywheel turns, it causes this condenser to get cold, and water from the air condenses on the cold surface and gets added to the water in the stand pipe. This is the concept of Rosemary's device. It is thought to precipitate electrical current from an extant magnetic field and add that to the existing current being manipulated. And her claim, is that she is getting 17 times more energy in the process.

Now all we need is proof.

Harvey

[doozy2]

@Harvey

I only registered because I am sick of reading all this crap from you.  From where I sit the only person who sticks to any ressemblance of honesty is Poynt99.

To start of.f  A duplication is a duplication.  A replication is a replication.  You idiot.  You can duplicate with the same artifact - you cannot duplicate wtih a different artifact.

I have been following Rosemarys work for a few years.  I put it to you that she has never needed or expected more than CoP>1.  you are lying about this and about every thing that you write. 

It is very clear to us all that you are lying cheating stealing faslifing denying.  just stfu and go away.  Or may be you could do some thing to show us that you can even replicate.   

what an insult to my intelligence - to read your rubbish crap.  This topic is stupid.  And I am credentialed. You halfwit idiot cheat.

It is enough of this BS.  There is now proof of CoP>1.  We should be celabrating.