The purpose of this thread is to present a very simple way to determine the approximate COP (+/- 20% or so) in circuits that utilize a battery as input and an inductive resistor as load (or any device intended to output thermal energy as its primary COP claim).
The straightforward techique is a valid and quick way to prove one way or the other whether COP claims of say, 2 or more are true or false. It requires only a regular high input impedance volt-meter, a thermometer and a variable bench power supply along with a couple of resistors and a capacitor and an SPDT switch (in addition to the D.U.T. or "Device Under Test" and its battery). The exact same load element (Rload) is used in both setups, DUT and Control. A clock with a second hand may also be required.
The test has been designed to sacrifice unnecessary efforts at absolute accuracy that might be required when testing the validity of small COP claims (well under 2). It has some fairly small but known, predictable error sources. The test has been designed, in general, to err on the side of showing a higher COP than is actually present where errors exist. Thus it gives "the benefit of the doubt" to the claimant.
I, myself, would not normally use a battery to power the D.U.T. but there is often talk that the battery is an integral part of the operating mode and may be at least partially responsible for the high COP expectation, so a battery it is!
I will try to pose the usual expected arguments against the test regimen (be my own Devil's Advocate) and give logical arguments to refute or at least qualify the maximum error a given potential flaw in the setup/process might introduce.
Please bear with me and be patient. I have apparently not mastered text entry on the forum; the text appears to scroll randomly once the box is full, thus making real-time editing nearly impossible. Until I master this problem, I will do my text editing in Word and then paste it in. It may take several days to present it all in several posts.
The first (immediately following) post will simply be the diagrams, with no text. Many will find that to be a fairly complete description in itself. Many will not. Explanatory posts will follow in the next few days.
Here is the test setup.
Preliminary assumptions and caveats:
1. The black box contains anything you like except for ancillary batteries. If it requires, as expedcted, internal bias power to run the internal circuits it is highly recommended that these be generated and taken from the source battery (i.e. that the D.U.T. remains a four terminal device, as shown). If an external separate battery is absolutely required (if the D.U.T. designer cannot include an appropriate high-efficiency switching regulator to condition the battery voltage to an appropriate level for the internal circuitry for reasons of inability or otherwise and the internal drive circuitry draws significant power (more than 5% of the input power)), then a second battery may be used and its power draw may be measured by the same techniques and added to the power measured from the primary battery. This requirement may be waived if it can be shown and proven that the auxilliary power does not show up in the output beyond a couple of percent. It is much preferred, however, that all input power come from the primary battery to avoid this potential error and complication of the tests. Even a lossy resistor/zener regulator will be fine.
2. The variable bench power supply used in the control setup should have the ability to output at least as much power as is measured in the DUT/battery input power test and it should be able to be adjusted in output voltage from at least 1/10 of the battery voltage to well above the battery voltage (this may or may not turn out to be necessary but is a good starting point. The supply should be of low impedance (i.e. a reasonable equivalent to an ideal voltage source with an impedance in the neighborhood of the shunt resistor Rshunt or lower). It is acceptable to use more than one bench supply in series as necessary. The supplies must have sufficient current ratings such that no internal current limiting is enabled. In other words, they are not allowed to quit or go into current-source mode for self-protection.
3. A standard "bulb" thermometer will be glued to the middle of the load resistor or at any location the claimant prefers using thermally-conductive "100% silicone rubber" (you will find that the standard GE products are quite thermally conductive, especially the black stuff GE 50B.03 but most any will do). The thermometer range should cover from room temperature to at least 30 degrees F above room temperature. A medical thermometer may be used if one is prepared to wait a half hour or so between tests to assure that the starting temperature is back to room temp (off the scale). Around the 100F range, the markings should be spaced wide enough to read with reasonable (1 degree) accuracy. It may be placed in an oil bath or inside a shoebox to prevent "wind" and temp gradients but there is probably no need for these measures since the very same load/thermometer is used in both the DUT and Control runs. It should not be moved between tests. It must settle to a standardized constant room temperature prior to beginning any test.
There is much more to come but I'd like to open the thread for comments and/or arguments regarding what has been presented so far at this time. Even if it's just to indicate that there are interested readers. No point in me babbling on if no one is reading or no one cares or anyone feels that the initial conditions are invalid inherently, so please chime in. ;D
If logically insurmountable flaws can already be seen by anyone and cannot be convincingly addressed by further explanation or modification, please state your objection and drop out of the thread. If I cannot give a solid response to allay the objection, I will agree and terminate the thread. Don't want to build upon a flawed foundation! That would not be science!
But please don't jump ahead and speculate on what has yet to be described. Let's keep argument and comment to what has been given so far before we proceed.
Glad to see this thread. Just hope somebody will actually appreciate your suggestions. And use them!
8)
Catlady
Welcome Catlady! O0
One more assumption:
4. The battery used in the DUT test setup should be robust enough such that its voltage remains constant within a couple of percent during each test run. The tests are expected to be fairly short in duration; on the order of a couple of minutes maximum.
My own arguments with myself regarding 3. on the temp measurements:
Depending on how fast the DUT can raise the temp 30F, a higher number may be better here. We will be timing how long it takes to achieve a given temperature rise, not the end temperature. If the thermal mass of the load is small and the heating is too fast, it may be tough to get an accurate time reading from startup to the desired 30F above ambient test termination temperature. If that turns out to be the case, a "lab" thermometer may need to be used, giving a higher range and typically they are nice and long for accurate readings. I've seen cheap "outdoor weather thermometers" running up to 140F that might be useful here.
Alternately, to retain simplicity and the ability to use the original 100F ~ 120F (and thus the medical or cheap outdoor weather thermometer) as a marker, the thermal coupling could be degraded on purpose between the resistor and thermometer bulb by putting the bulb near an end of the load or by using a thick built-up layer of the silicone rubber instead of contact-gluing the bulb right to the resistor body. Since both tests use the same exact load/thermometer setup, this should not introduce significant error.
I would figure that test times at least twenty seconds would be adequate (the longer the better) to get a time mark within 5% (one second) and give time to read the meter. Oh...we'll also need an on/off switch to start and stop the test (not shown).
Here I may have opened a Pandora's box if the claimant states that their black box takes more than a second to "warm up", "find resonance", etc. A long test time will diminish any validity of those arguments but may require a higher end temperature.
Okay...maybe it's worth considering a meat thermometer and/or a big jar of water or a closed box with a fan even. Anything to increase the thermal mass and slow the temperature rise. As long as the total load setup is identical on all tests it shouldn't matter. That means the same single load setup and thermometer in the exact same environment under both tests.
You see, the problem is I'm trying to be extremely general and keep it cheap and simple.
If it takes any significant time for the black box to "come up to speed" so to speak, then this amount of time needs to be known.
If it takes very long, a different approach must be taken because the control circuit (two wires) is ready to rock and roll immediately and will always show a COP very close to unity (1.00) right from the get-go. It will follow and adhere to the "classic thermodynamics" laws and convert all the measured electrical power into heat (but no more). Comparing the time it takes to get a specific temperature rise would give the control test an unfair advantage. If the DUT is also ready to perform at full COP right away after being powered up then none of this is a problem.
A differential test using two seperate loads and run simultaneously with a servo loop on the control setup to force it to temperature-track the DUT load's temperature would be great but is too complex and introduces arguments that the two loads may not be identical or in identical environments.
The other obvious alternative is simple and, if there is concern about slow start-up of the DUT, is probably the right answer:
Let the DUT run as long as it takes for the load to reach thermal equilibrium with its environment and measure the final temperature. This means a bigger battery and a longer test because we want to make sure the battery voltage doesn't change more than a few percent from start to finish. Measure the power and then move the load into the control test setup, let it cool down some (an advantage to this method is that we don't care how long it takes or what the starting temp is) and then twiddle the power supply voltage until the control setup reaches thermal equalibrium at the same temperature. Then measure its power input. This takes time out of the equation (toss the stopwatch) but has one potential disadvantage.
As the load gets hotter and hotter compared to the surrounding air, it also dissipates the heat at a faster rate due to increasing convection. This means the temp rise vs power in the load is not linear and gets flatter as the temp gets higher. A given increase in power will cause less and less temperature increase as the load gets far above ambient temp. This trends toward a more error-prone measurement and may take a much longer time to adjust the control setup to exactly match the DUT's final temp. Someone please jump in here and beat me up on this if I'm wrong, but I don't think so.
So, those are the options and the reasons why it would be most effective and simplest if the "high COP claimer" will admit a DUT which starts right up immediately at full COP. I trust the time measurement to be more accurate at the lower temps involved and the battery voltage drop is less of an issue.
So, rather than arrogantly pontificating a final universal solution here, I am laying out my thought process for all to see and critique, given these few unknowns..
And now it really is time for me to shut up and grow ears for a while before I ramble on to the details.
:-X
Thank you for your simple test measurement technique, and easily understood schematic test diagram.
Seems we are on the same page. I have also posted in this regard.
Tseung thread: post#38, post #46, (latest post #168 completely ignored)
Ainslie thread: post #5, post #7, post #11 and many other related posts.
While all the arguing was going on, I built up a crude blocking oscillator and tested its efficiency at 75.0% using the method in post #168 of the Tseung thread. This took less than an hour.
I drew up a two step method outlined in the attachment and had intended to post it early in the Tseung thread, but as the existing described methods were misunderstood by many, I realized the purpose of the thread seemed more about discussion.
Regarding some of your worry about temperature flattening at higher values, I have not found this to be a problem over the range you will expect to see in such low power devices.
I also do not worry about the time factor since with a fixed power input the temperature will stabilize as there is a fixed thermal resistance to the ambient in a semi insulated container.
I tend towards thermocouples as I have a lot of accurate TC instrumentation in my lab. I also can easily fashion tiny low mass thermocouples. Thin film RTD's are also very accurate and can easily be read or used in a simple bridge for differential measurements.
I like your idea of using a single voltmeter and the current shunt as it normalizes error sources.
You sir, are very obviously a person that is skilled in the art of practical real world test methodology, reading your posts here is most refreshing and familiar as I also walk that path.
Right on ION 8)
I've seen many of your posts and count you among the most respectably knowledgable contributors here, right up there with Poynt99 and MileHigh. Keep it up, bro!
Regarding your diagram, I would only make two "devil's advocate" type comments. These are merely predictions of what might be challenges, minor as they might be in reality.
1) There is an opening for argument that you are allowing the use of two heat sources that are physically different in shape, mass and location within the box. Folks might yell and scream that the air temp inside the box may have strata and that those strata might not be all planar but instead rather random based on convection airflow inside the box.
2) Some might object to the fact that you are putting the entire DUT in the box, thus allowing its internal heat (i.e. what are normally considered inefficiencies) to be treated as "good DUT output power". Maybe I'm missing something, but I'm guessing the DUT load must be a resistor (not an LED or a buzzer or something that produces other-than-thermal energy). I don't get why the DUT itself and its load are not shown as seperate entities and why they are both inside the box.
P.S. I love the turtles quotation. Wonder how many here know the source and context of that one. It's a classic!
Quote from: humbugger on 2011.01.15, 18:36:12
Right on ION 8)
I've seen many of your posts and count you among the most respectably knowledgable contributors here, right up there with Poynt99 and MileHigh. Keep it up, bro!
Regarding your diagram, I would only make two "devil's advocate" type comments. These are merely predictions of what might be challenges, minor as they might be in reality.
1) There is an opening for argument that you are allowing the use of two heat sources that are physically different in shape, mass and location within the box. Folks might yell and scream that the air temp inside the box may have strata and that those strata might not be all planar but instead rather random based on convection airflow inside the box.
2) Some might object to the fact that you are putting the entire DUT in the box, thus allowing its internal heat (i.e. what are normally considered inefficiencies) to be treated as "good DUT output power". Maybe I'm missing something, but I'm guessing the DUT load must be a resistor (not an LED or a buzzer or something that produces other-than-thermal energy). I don't get why the DUT itself and its load are not shown as seperate entities and why they are both inside the box.
As I have said before, it is important to know when a test is "reasonable" and this means using common sense. Yes, heat strata could be an issue, but heat rises and I always make my measurements at the top of the container at the same location. Air in the container will circulate and mix to a certain extent. What is reasonable in this regard?
As for point 2, I did separate the DUT and it's load early on and POYNT was dissatisfied with this and suggested a measurement of transistor temperature as an added variable. Then if we were to nit pick, we would have to measure the losses in each component, transformer, resistors etc. To satisfy the objection, I lumped the DUT and it's load and treated it as a single entity. Actually the separate heater shown in the last drawing could be the DUT's load resistor, and fed by bringing out a separate wire when the DUT is not energized as part of step 2, as the resistor is normally isolated by a "catch" diode.
To expand a bit, in thermal methods, we can treat the DUT and the load as heat producing items. Then we need only find if more heat is produced than we are inputting to the system, by comparing to a known equivalent heat producing power input. The system can always be broken down later to find the contribution of the separate elements. As long as COP=around 1 there is no OU.
To be devils advocate I also poked holes in my presented methods in order to pre-emptively hush some of those that would complain of energy lost in RF radiation, audio, and proposed particle creation etc. There is always someone to complain about something....but what is reasonable?
"Reason" is not always present when the feet of the COP>1 claimant are held to the fire. Your explanations are completely reasonable and satisfy me! O0
ION,
I like your last diagram. I think it captures all the minimum requirements. O0
The only potential hitch, or "devil's advocate" point I see is the measurement of the input power. The current is pulsed, and it is an unknown how the power supply will deal with that. RF or HF can feed back through the power supply lines possibly messing with the supply's regulation and metering.
.99
Imagine running a poorly-terminated (high VSWR) 5KW 40MHz RF amp on the bench with no shielding. We used to have to use twisted pairs and big ferrites and super-lowZ caps all over our power supply leads to keep supplies in regulation. One time a big Instec supply actually just blew up and went flaming despite all that! Not to mention DMMs! We always used old-fashioned Simpson 260's but even then had to twist-pair the leads and use ferrite cores and caps on them near the meters. :o (my brain after five solid years prototyping RF generators at close range)
Quote from: poynt99 on 2011.01.15, 19:04:51
ION,
I like your last diagram. I think it captures all the minimum requirements. O0
The only potential hitch, or "devil's advocate" point I see is the measurement of the input power. The current is pulsed, and it is an unknown how the power supply will deal with that. RF or HF can feed back through the power supply lines possibly messing with the supply's regulation and metering.
.99
Proper bypassing of the DUT should prevent any backfeeds of RF without affecting the operation of the DUT.
After all, a good battery has a very low impedance, so a good low ESR electrolytic bypassed further with a quality ceramic or film capacitor should present an equivalent transient low impedance. The power supply will then see only the actual steady state current and voltage being used. A common mode choke might also be helpful.
I have not shown all these things in the drawings as they are assumed in good laboratory practice.
We are dealing specifically with a device that is most likely under one Watt capacity. 5 kW is another matter indeed.
Regarding meters: I've got dozens of DMM's lying around ...all levels of quality....but my Simpson 260's? some quote about cold dead hands rings a bell LOL
But I heard that transverse longitudinal radiant energy zipons are diverted abruptly to far parts of the universe by conventional "good bench practice" bypassing and filtering. ;D
So you feel the same way about your 260 as shooters feel about their guns and silver-stackers about their stash. huh? Me too.
Quote from: humbugger on 2011.01.15, 19:28:03
But I heard that transverse longitudinal radiant energy zipons are diverted abruptly to far parts of the universe by conventional "good bench practice" bypassing and filtering. ;D
Those "zipons" can ruin a good day :o
Quote from: humbugger on 2011.01.15, 19:11:08
Imagine running a poorly-terminated (high VSWR) 5KW 40MHz RF amp on the bench with no shielding. We used to have to use twisted pairs and big ferrites and super-lowZ caps all over our power supply leads to keep supplies in regulation. One time a big Instec supply actually just blew up and went flaming despite all that! Not to mention DMMs! We always used old-fashioned Simpson 260's but even then had to twist-pair the leads and use ferrite cores and caps on them near the meters. :o (my brain after five solid years prototyping RF generators at close range)
At work we have these old 20V, 30A power supplies. Built like a tank (15x 2N3055's) and has current limiting. The story goes, that while powering a Motorola 30W VHF mobile radio, while keying the transmitter, the PSU would lose it's mind and become erratic, and that is even with correct 50 Ohm termination!
The PSU company subsequently came out with a mod to filter out this RF backfeed, and they worked fine after its installation.
On a side note, I
try never to assume anything when it comes to what "unseasoned" electronics hobbyists may know. 8)
.99
Quote from: poynt99 on 2011.01.15, 19:30:59
At work we have these old 20V, 30A power supplies. Built like a tank (15x 2N3055's) and has current limiting. The story goes, that even while powering a Motorola 30W VHF mobile radio, while keying the transmitter, the PSU would lose it's mind and become erratic, and that is with correct 50 Ohm termination!
The PSU company subsequently came out with a mod to filter out this RF backfeed, and they worked fine after its installation.
On a side note, I try never to assume anything when it comes to what "unseasoned" electronics hobbyists may know. 8)
.99
Often stuff that is "built like a tank" has an Achilles Heel.
Regarding your side note, I'm not really interested in teaching sub 101 electronics to unseasoned hobbyists, although there are many here that enjoy that very thing.
I pointed out in one of my rants that if we have unfortunately the very seasoned guys that have been in the industrial trenches designing and testing equipment all their lives thrown in with the unseasoned hobbyists, it is like expecting a successful outcome to a Manhatten style project by a lottery of citizens. What are it's chances for success?
Is this an "overview of electronics" teaching forum or a "research forum" where reasonable expertise is expected and assumed?
Delete if off topic, but the point should be addressed. What level of detail or explanation is required in each post?
That's the trouble with us old farts. We are so used to hunting for the Achilles heels in our own designs that full abandon to wild optimistic enthusiasm is sometimes hard to muster. But what would a forum be without the young and innocent?
I suspect your last question was directed to Poynt99 but my answer would be NONE! It's all voluntary until you start making extraordinary claims, I'd say. It can get pretty frustrating, though, to be run around in circles by wild-eyed new-age jargon-spewing claimants who know nothing about making things that actually perform their specified functions reliably every time.
I agree, but have often found myself spending too much time in explanations to the point of frustration.
On another note, here are pics of the styrofoam containers that I use to house load resistors and DUT. The simple blocking oscillator fits easily. I use them upside down so the tapered long end is at the top.
Quote from: ION on 2011.01.15, 19:41:45
Often stuff that is "built like a tank" has an Achilles Heel.
It's relatively simple, but uses a fairly sophisticated Motorola regulation IC.
Quote
Regarding your side note, I'm not really interested in teaching sub 101 electronics to unseasoned hobbyists, although there are many here that enjoy that very thing.
I suspect that Lawrence and the Professor fall into this category, as do many of the members here I believe. I suppose it comes down to how far the offer to help these folks extends. You offered a solution for measurement to Lawrence and the Professor. Clearly they are not aware of many of the factors and subtleties involved regarding any measurement method, except perhaps basic DMM measurements. Do we offer them a somewhat high level solution, then abandon them when they ask for further clarification and help?
I suppose we all have our own approaches. I've always tried to carry through with support until all their questions are answered and they are flying on their own. IMHO, if we don't, our offerings may have been made in vain. But each to his own in this matter.
Quote
Is this an "overview of electronics" teaching forum or a "research forum" where reasonable credentials are entry requirements?
To date there are no real credentials for entry to OUR. We felt that all should be welcome, but all will be moderated. Most of the folks that join these forums are hobbyists at best, therefore learning will always be part of the forum content. In fact, none of us stop learning here, and that is one of this site's assets I feel. There are several threads being discussed at several different "levels", and the beauty of that is there can be something of interest for everyone.
.99
POYNT
I had earlier edited that post to read "reasonable expertise is expected and assumed" as credentials often are not the measure.
It was not picked up in your reply.
QuoteI suppose we all have our own approaches. I've always tried to carry through with support until all their questions are answered and they are flying on their own. IMHO, if we don't, our offerings may have been made in vain. But each to his own in this matter.
Actually, I have not found this to be the case. Despite all of the many meaningful measurement explanations you gave on the Ainslie thread, the result was more and more disagreement and argument to no conclusion. I see the same trend developing in the Tseung thread.
There is a saying in the I CHING that in order to teach you must have a willing student. In the prior cases mentioned you don't have students, rather people convinced they are right before any realistic measurements have been made, and will argue against all your good intentioned help vehemently.
Just observing trends here. We can always hope though.
Indeed, Rose Ainslie is a special case, and stealing a phrase from our good friend TK, I can scarcely believe that I am still trying to teach her the finer points of challenging scope measurements. :D
Last night I almost lost my mind when after arguing with her for an hour or so about how a current probe will give the same, but better results than a CSR measurement, I finally got out of her the fact that she assumed the current probe would have to be connected to a separate oscilloscope from the one taking the voltage samples, and hence her "objection" to the current probe approach!
:-[
I have hopes that the testing of Lawrence's device will have a much better and quicker outcome, and this will pave the way for more objectivity regarding testing of these devices in the future.
Have some faith Maestro :)
.99
As far as Free Energy Forums go, not only do I see no reason why several levels of discussion can not co-exist here in harmony, but so far on this site, I have seen more civilized, interesting, educational, inspiring, professional, cooperative, and respectful interactions than anywhere else on the web.
.99
"Indeed, Rose Ainslie is a special case, and stealing a phrase from our good friend TK, I can scarcely believe that I am still trying to teach her the finer points of challenging scope measurements."
Perfect point to ease back into the the topic of this thread. The whole idea here is to convince Rosemary et al that learning all the nuances of precise scope setups and complex math should not be a prerequisite to testing a claimed COP 17 device.
Anyone have comments, questions or arguments regarding what I've put forth here so far?
(It feels a bit awkward hinting to a Major Top-Dog Moderator and the forum Admin that they may be wandering off-topic slightly...especially when the comments are so excellent regarding the general state of things on the forum.) ;)
Quote from: ION on 2011.01.15, 20:25:26
POYNT
I had earlier edited that post to read "reasonable expertise is expected and assumed" as credentials often are not the measure.
It was not picked up in your reply.
It's ok, as I did not take the word "credentials" in the literal sense anyway. I knew what you were getting at, and I responded accordingly.
.99
humbugger,
I fully support any method that cuts to the chase and is easy to implement. Yours and ION's suggestions fit the bill.
Be clear that I am not espousing the oscilloscope method as the only one acceptable for determining if a device is COP>1. It is one that can be precise if done correctly and with the correct probes. Many folks are eager to use their scopes to determine COP, but sadly with these type of devices, it is beyond the means of most to properly do so. But we are trying. ;)
Carry on, I see no problems guys. :)
.99
Sorry if I derailed the thread, perhaps those comments of mine belong in the "rant room", as it is more a cry of frustration.
You can understand the frustration, when folks like Tseung can "lift" the humble blocking oscillator from anothers website, claim it as their own invention, exalt it to lofty overunity device, and tie up so much time, then present no viable evidence that it is so, as many hold their breath for the professors blessing.
I have to wonder what the fuss is about and re-examine the definition of insanity.
Didn't mean to have it spill into this thread. I'll save the rest for the Rant Room.
Here is the temperature profile of my styrofoam test chamber. I used a cheap indoor outdoor thermometer from Radio Shack, since it is a budget test absolute accuracy is not required, repeatability is. The unit reads out in tenths of a degree. I used F for greater resolution.
Temperature shown is rise over ambient. I used a 100 Ohm five Watt resistor 1%. Appropriate DC voltage was applied to produce the required power.
Looks fairly linear over the tested range. The temperature should be repeated several times with values recorded at each interval of power on the way up to max and back down, this done a few times to get good averaged data.
When the DUT and its load is put in the box, I will have no difficulty interpolating total power ie. that consumed by the DUT plus that delivered to the load. Each can also be tested separately.
Ion,
You replicated this and found 75% efficiency?
Ion:
Nice to see that graph! You and Humbugger have posted some great ideas for thermal testing procedures and setups and as you know I am a fan of the thermal method myself. The plot is a nice straight line which is exactly what it is supposed to be.
How long did you have to wait for the temperature to stabilize in your particular setup? That's a critical thing for all experimenters to take note of. Depending on the configuration, it might take one minute, five minutes, 15 minutes, etc.
Once you take a series of data points like you did you can plot the straight line graph that gives you temperature vs. power. Your example clearly illustrates how easy this is to do.
Then you put the DUT into your thermal box like you stated and wait for the temperature to stabilize. Then you take your stabilized temperature and compare it to your graph and you get the power output of the DUT. It's so easy it's like taking candy from a baby.
The JT testing we have discussing is an excellent candidate for this procedure. I made allusions to this in my recent postings but it helps tremendously to see the real thing "in action" like you clearly demonstrated.
MileHigh
Quote from: Grumpy on 2011.01.16, 02:19:18
Ion,
You replicated this and found 75% efficiency?
No G, I tested at 75% efficiency the elementary blocking oscillator shown in the drawing "BO3 Test" of post 168 here:
http://www.overunityresearch.com/index.php?topic=538.150
I have not tested the Tseung version of the blocking oscillator as this has non-linear loading (LED's) and is extremely low power. When the signal is so far in the noise, it is easy to get bad data and interpret it as OU.
This should probably be tested using a very sensitive thermal method or DSO.
The device also has no practical application in it's current form that I can think of.
I have little faith in the Tseung knock-off as circuits like this are crudely thrown together with no attention to careful design or optimization. They are seen all over the web named "Joule Thief".
From MH
QuoteThe JT testing we have discussing is an excellent candidate for this procedure. I made allusions to this in my recent postings but it helps tremendously to see the real thing "in action" like you clearly demonstrated.
Thanks for the comments but it seems the Tseung device is so low power, I would have to use an expanded scale from 0 to 1 Watt max. I used about 15 minutes between readings, but greater accuracy could be had as I stated earlier by taking readings on the way up and on the way down, then averaging.
Quote from: ION on 2011.01.16, 03:14:00
Thanks for the comments but it seems the Tseung device is so low power, I would have to use an expanded scale from 0 to 1 Watt max. I used about 15 minutes between readings, but greater accuracy could be had as I stated earlier by taking readings on the way up and on the way down, then averaging.
Yes indeed the Tseung device is really low in power. Let's suppose we don't put the entire DUT inside a thermal chamber of some sort, but are going to test just the LED and the two resistors. This is perfectly valid since that's the claim and how it is likely going to be tested with the DSO.
So you take those three components and scrunch them together and gob them with thermal paste then wrap everything with some tape to make something about the size of the tip of your finger. Then you put a thermocouple in contact with the surface of the tape and tape that in place. Then put the assembly into a a small box like a jeweler's box for holding a ring. You also have cotton batting in the box so the thermal mass is in the center of the box surrounded by the cotton batting. You place the box on top of a piece of Styrofoam and make sure that the ambient air currents are always the same. You end up with a small box with to wires exiting for the load terminals and the two wires for the thermocouple. That should be a stable and workable configuration that produces a decent temperature differential.
I am not sure what you mean by taking readings on the way up and then down and averaging. The temperature vs. time curve would be a standard exponential curve that approaches it's asymptote after five time constants. So I was alluding to making your final temperature reading after you are confident that about five time constants have passed.
MileHigh
From MH
QuoteI am not sure what you mean by taking readings on the way up and then down and averaging. The temperature vs. time curve would be a standard exponential curve that approaches it's asymptote after five time constants. So I was alluding to making your final temperature reading after you are confident that about five time constants have passed.
Let me see if I can explain this. When characterizing the styrofoam test chamber with internal power resistor and stepped power input, wait x time constants, record data of point on asymptote, then go to next power level.
When the highest (in this case 5 watt point) is recorded, reverse the procedure going back down each power step and record the data after x time constants. The real value of temperature lies between the mirror image asymptotes, which is easily found by averaging.
This is not necessary, but if you desire to speed up the characterization, you can wait fewer time constants and still get acceptable results with the up/down method.
It's just a dithering method to get the actual value.
For best accuracy the DUT on the other hand should be left to soak for very many time constants before taking the final reading of temperature.
Your suggestions of how to test at yet lower power levels are well taken.
Humbugger:
I am starting to read your thread from the beginning and I noticed this comment:
QuoteDepending on how fast the DUT can raise the temp 30F, a higher number may be better here. We will be timing how long it takes to achieve a given temperature rise, not the end temperature.
Using relative temperature rises of a fixed amount won't work here. You can't ignore the fact that the temperature rise vs time is not linear so the slope of the curve is always changing. So DUTs that run at lower power levels will take longer to create a 30F increase in temperature than DUTs that run at higher power levels. The safest bet is to wait five thermal time constants. Also, note that if the thermal test setup is already at a higher temperature than ambient at the start of the experiment, it's still going to take five time constants to be very very close to thermal equilibrium.
Another obvious point is that if the power output of the DUT is low, it may not be able to generate a 30F temperature rise.
I am not 100% sure that I am understanding exactly what you are saying, so I could be spouting a whole bunch of hot air. I suppose my real point again is to measure a final temp when you are very certain that you are at thermal equilibrium. I tend to be very conservative when it comes to things like this so at least that would be my strategy.
Here is the curve for reference (look at the top curve only where you can say temperature is on the vertical axis and time is on the horizontal axis:
(http://www.electronics-tutorials.ws/rc/rc2.gif)
Note also that the temperature vs. time curve is "approximately" an exponential curve. The thermal resistance is not necessarily a pure constant as the temperature reading of the DUT increases. However, we don't need to worry about this at all.
On the "fun" side of things, anybody know what the curve that describes the changing slope of an exponential curve looks like? It's a sort-of trick question.
Another comment:
QuoteAs the load gets hotter and hotter compared to the surrounding air, it also dissipates the heat at a faster rate due to increasing convection. This means the temp rise vs power in the load is not linear and gets flatter as the temp gets higher. A given increase in power will cause less and less temperature increase as the load gets far above ambient temp. This trends toward a more error-prone measurement and may take a much longer time to adjust the control setup to exactly match the DUT's final temp. Someone please jump in here and beat me up on this if I'm wrong, but I don't think so.
You are correct and alluded to this also when I stated in the previous posting that the thermal resistance may change as the temperature gets higher because the air convection may (or may not) have a non-linearizing effect here. (I'm not really sure) However, all this means is that the thermal equilibrium temperature vs. power graph (like Ion posted) may not be a perfectly straight line. So if you get the equilibrium temperature from the DUT you can still read off the equivalent power from the graph. There are no real error effects here.
MileHigh
I am going to respond to Ion's quick test that he did with a blocking oscillator a.k.a. Joule Thief in his lab. Note that he tested the pulsing output of the JT transformer and did not wrap an extra energy pick-up winding around the toroid as in the Lawrence Tseung configuration.
If you go back to his original posting you can see the block diagram. He is using a large capacitor on the input, to convert the pulsing current load of the JT into smooth DC current that can be easily measured by a multimeter. On the output of the JT he takes the pulsing current output of transformer's secondary winding and also converts that into smooth DC current so the output current and voltage across a load resistor can also be easily measured by multimeters. The logic here is simple: He is measuring the average energy output from the discharging secondary transformer winding in the JT.
QuoteWhile all the arguing was going on, I built up a crude blocking oscillator and tested its efficiency at 75.0% using the method in post #168 of the Tseung thread. This took less than an hour.
I drew up a two step method outlined in the attachment and had intended to post it early in the Tseung thread, but as the existing described methods were misunderstood by many, I realized the purpose of the thread seemed more about discussion.
This should be a very sobering moment for anybody that thinks a JT circuit in whatever configuration is a potential over unity device. The numbers don't lie.
MileHigh
Well, I finally caught up on this rather interesting thread. The Simpson 260 is just a tad before my time. From the comments through I can see how it's equivalent for a disco DJ (vinyl era) would be the Technics SL-1200. Never was a turntable so perfect! It must have been a pure accident of design! lol
An interesting comment about myself is that although I have spent many an hour on the bench it was doing digital design and debugging and the barest wisp of analog. I have never investigated any over unity or free energy concepts in real life. However, I still have a brain! And of course I did do hundreds of lab experiments covering all of the basic building blocks that are discussed around here on a daily basis. It is very easy for me to extend my "reach" into the mechanical domain also. I can look at a YouTube clip (a rare occurrence nowadays) and pretty much figure out exactly what is going on most of the time. I have pretty good analytical skills with respect to this subject matter in general. I am very good at qualifying what's going on on the bench and what's going on between the stool and the bench. I am also very adept at qualifying the "business" side of things.
MileHigh
The actual numbers from the BO3 Test (attached) are as follows:
Input: 10.0 Volts @ .075 Amps =0.75 Watts input
Output: 7.5 Volts / 100.0 Ohms=0.5625 Watts output
Efficiency = Output / Input=0.5625 Watts / 0.75 Watts=0.75 x 100 = 75%
Joule Thief people will scream and yell that I am killing the operation of the circuit by adding the catch diode and capacitor on the output.
This test was meant to show that a simple blocking oscillator as a DC to DC converter with no optimization can yield 75% at the high input voltage of 10 Volts.
Efficiency will be less for the same circuit adjusted to operate at a lower voltage e.g. 1 Volt because semiconductor and copper losses will begin to predominate.
There are many things that can be done to improve the lowly blocking oscillator, such as optimizing base drive current requirements, anti saturation techniques for faster switching etc. I won't get into that here.
Unfortunately, I see very few if any in the JT crowd putting on their thinking caps and trying to really understand this single transistor oscillator, most are cut and try jockeys.
When I re- measure my test chamber for expanded scale between 0 to 1 Amps, maybe I'll throw the Tseung JT into the box and nail the coffin on this one.
Quote from: ION on 2011.01.15, 22:16:16
Sorry if I derailed the thread, perhaps those comments of mine belong in the "rant room", as it is more a cry of frustration.
You can understand the frustration, when folks like Tseung can "lift" the humble blocking oscillator from anothers website, claim it as their own invention, exalt it to lofty overunity device, and tie up so much time, then present no viable evidence that it is so, as many hold their breath for the professors blessing.
I have to wonder what the fuss is about and re-examine the definition of insanity.
Didn't mean to have it spill into this thread. I'll save the rest for the Rant Room.
Don't worry about derailing "my" thread. Your interest and contributions far outweigh any minute distraction your voicing of frustrations adds. I completely empathize.
Quote from: ION on 2011.01.15, 23:15:40
Here is the temperature profile of my styrofoam test chamber. I used a cheap indoor outdoor thermometer from Radio Shack, since it is a budget test absolute accuracy is not required, repeatability is. The unit reads out in tenths of a degree. I used F for greater resolution.
Temperature shown is rise over ambient. I used a 100 Ohm five Watt resistor 1%. Appropriate DC voltage was applied to produce the required power.
Looks fairly linear over the tested range. The temperature should be repeated several times with values recorded at each interval of power on the way up to max and back down, this done a few times to get good averaged data.
Looks exactly as I would expect for a closed and insulated small chamber. One point I didn't probably make clear regarding my approach is that I'm tending toward open-air benchtop testing of the temperature. That is why I expect that my curves would not be linear, with diminishing temp rise per watt as the air convection stirred up by a large delta between the load and ambient increases the rate of heat tranfer to the air.
humbugger
The open air approach is certainly a good one with one caveat: it becomes difficult to capture all the heat output of the various components.
It is great when measuring a load resistor, provided the physical orientation is the same for each test so that convection currents remain the same.
As there has not been a real idea of what folks want to measure, it is sometimes difficult to make a choice of which method is best.
Each has it's place.
Quote from: MileHigh on 2011.01.16, 05:33:16
Using relative temperature rises of a fixed amount won't work here. You can't ignore the fact that the temperature rise vs time is not linear so the slope of the curve is always changing. So DUTs that run at lower power levels will take longer to create a 30F increase in temperature than DUTs that run at higher power levels. The safest bet is to wait five thermal time constants. Also, note that if the thermal test setup is already at a higher temperature than ambient at the start of the experiment, it's still going to take five time constants to be very very close to thermal equilibrium.
I agree that the stopwatch-based method testing the time it takes for each setup to cause the load temperature to rise from ambient to some arbirary setpoint (above ambient but well below equalibrium) is not a good approach in general for OU claims...but I come to that conclusion for a completely different reason.
The method assumes that the black box immediately begins performing at its nominal claimed COP as soon as it is energized. I don't want to hear arguments based on the idea that some unknown amount of warm-up time is required before a given DUT comes "up to speed".
Given a DUT that starts immediately at full COP performance, I don't see how using the rate of change of temperature well below thermal equilibrium (the steepest portion of the curve) would not correlate directly to power in the load. If the DUT draws 10W from the battery and moves the load from 70F to 120F in ten seconds, for instance, and the control test ends up requiring 20W into the same load to get the same rate of rise, then the DUT has a COP of 2. Is this not correct?
I think you'd agree that if thermal equilibrium takes half an hour to achieve (extreme case) and we are measurring how much it rises in the first ten seconds, for instance (extreme case again) we'd be operating in a pretty-darn-near linear portion of the curve.
From humbugger:
QuoteGiven a DUT that starts immediately at full COP performance, I don't see how using the rate of change of temperature well below thermal equilibrium would not correlate directly to power in the load. If the DUT draws 10W from the battery and moves the load from 70F to 120F in ten seconds, for instance, and the control test ends up requiring 20W into the same load to get the same rate of rise, then the DUT has a COP of 2. Is this not correct?
Yes with one caveat: I would guess the thermal masses (components) will change the rate of rise depending on whether they are emitting heat or absorbing heat.
e.g a small resistor will cause a sudden rate of heat rise only to be absorbed later by the more massive transformer core.
So I guess it depends on whether you are testing all the components in a box or just the load resistor.
Any thoughts?
Quote from: ION on 2011.01.16, 15:09:29
humbugger
The open air approach is certainly a good one with one caveat: it becomes difficult to capture all the heat output of the various components.
It is great when measuring a load resistor, provided the physical orientation is the same for each test so that convection currents remain the same.
As there has not been a real idea of what folks want to measure, it is sometimes difficult to make a choice of which method is best.
Each has it's place.
Yep, there are good arguments for putting the DUT and its LOAD in a chamber to measure the total heat produced, but I prefer to use a common load (chambered or not) and keep the DUT outside. Then just compare how well the DUT heats the load for its given input power against how well a DC source and pair of fat wires heats the same load at an equal power.
I am focusing on claims that state "I have a magic box that heats a load using less power than just heating the same load with straight AC or DC power".
Given your correct comments regarding allowing the big load resistor to be in free air on the bench and ensuring identical airflow conditions, I just had to draw up this little cartoon. Hope to hear the laughter over the roar of those two huge fans ;D
We are in agreement, as this is what I posted early on. I only changed to total testing of DUT plus load resistor as there was some initial resistance to not including the measurement of power dissipated in the DUT itself.
I pointed out then, that this can always be arrived at as the difference between Pout and Pin., but there were further objections.
RE: the cartoon....good one!
Humbugger:
QuoteGiven a DUT that starts immediately at full COP performance, I don't see how using the rate of change of temperature well below thermal equilibrium would not correlate directly to power in the load. If the DUT draws 10W from the battery and moves the load from 70F to 120F in ten seconds, for instance, and the control test ends up requiring 20W into the same load to get the same rate of rise, then the DUT has a COP of 2. Is this not correct?
Yes I agree with you here. The one caveat is that you have to start from the same initial temperature for both trial runs and you assume that you don't also have to warm up other components in the setup as Ion stated. Personally I am less comfortable in recording the initial rate of change of temperature as compared to waiting five time constants to achieve thermal equilibrium. I suppose it really depends on the the time constants you are dealing with and such.
My feeling at this point is that this whole thermal analysis topic has been given quite a bit of coverage from multiple perspectives. The burden of choosing an appropriate thermal analysis method and documenting, recording, and presenting the data should fall on the claimant, and not the contributors to the forum. If you do a good job then your audience shouldn't be picking apart what you have presented.
MileHigh
Quote from: MileHigh on 2011.01.16, 19:24:16
...The one caveat is that you have to start from the same initial temperature for both trial runs and you assume that you don't also have to warm up other components in the setup as Ion stated....
That's two caveats! Both of these seem very small to me because (re the second concern) I am assuming and stating so that there is only the load resistor heat being measured and in identical environment both times (DUT and Control). Regarding the first concern, making sure the start temperature is the same on both tests seems to me to be very easy.
As I said before, my real reason to adopt the terminal equilibrium method is to proactively remove any potential excuse that the DUT takes a while to "come up to full COP".
Quote from: MileHigh on 2011.01.16, 19:24:16
My feeling at this point is that this whole thermal analysis topic has been given quite a bit of coverage from multiple perspectives. The burden of choosing an appropriate thermal analysis method and documenting, recording, and presenting the data should fall on the claimant, and not the contributors to the forum. If you do a good job then your audience shouldn't be picking apart what you have presented.
I couldn't agree more, but that's why people with wild claims are here at these forums instead of successfully publishing scholarly papers...and building reliable products embodying their "inventions". They seem to be here and all over every forum because they think they have something special, but are unable or unwilling to describe it precisely or lay forth a decent test regime or even give enough specifics clearly for an adequate replication.
In Rosemary's case, she has not been able to get a foot in any academic door with her various papers, it seems. In nearly a decade of trying. I am guessing she is here to see what the arguments might be, since the academics won't even listen. And to learn, of course. We hope, anyway.
Quote from: humbugger on 2011.01.16, 18:31:56
Yep, there are good arguments for putting the DUT and its LOAD in a chamber to measure the total heat produced, but I prefer to use a common load (chambered or not) and keep the DUT outside. Then just compare how well the DUT heats the load for its given input power against how well a DC source and pair of fat wires heats the same load at an equal power.
I am focusing on claims that state "I have a magic box that heats a load using less power than just heating the same load with straight AC or DC power".
Given your correct comments regarding allowing the big load resistor to be in free air on the bench and ensuring identical airflow conditions, I just had to draw up this little cartoon. Hope to hear the laughter over the roar of those two huge fans ;D
Presumptions aside, what's being overlooked?
humbugger, ION.
I fully understand where you are coming from. However, with our black box testing, are we retaining a completely objective and unbiased approach when we presume beforehand that the device can not be OU? By excluding the DUT itself from the total Pout measurement and presuming that its dissipation can be computed as the difference between Pin and Pout (resistor alone), I would say we are not being objective and unbiased.
A case in point:
Out test apparatus consists of a power supply, an enclosed DUT, and an open separate load resistor. In step 1. we measure an input power from the supply to the DUT (which is driving the load resistor), and a final temperature rise in the load resistor. In step 2. we connect the power supply directly to the load resistor and adjust the voltage to obtain an identical temperature rise as with the DUT. We measure the final power from the supply in step 2. and perform the division of power supply watts in each case to obtain COP. For this example, let's say that the power supply was 10W in step 1. and 8W in step 2. Then the COP = 0.8.
However, while performing step 1. we noticed that the DUT enclosure was glowing red hot and radiating an enormous amount of heat.
Now, however unlikely we feel this scenario is to occur, our
feelings are irrelevant, and it's my opinion that we have to keep OU open as a possibility if we are to remain totally unbiased in our testing process. Obviously in this case, there is poor power transfer to the load resistor (which is irrelevant), but clearly the DUT itself in this scenario is exhibiting a COP>>1.
If we consciously choose to ignore the DUT dissipation, we are choosing to
potentially skew the resulting COP calculation and discovery of an OU device.
This is why I was happy to see ION's new diagram where the DUT was included in the test results. Keep in mind that it is the
DUT that is under test, not the load resistor. We are only looking at one form of output energy from the DUT; that being electrical. What about the other
major form of output energy likely to be present in the DUT.....that being heat?
.99
Excellent! Thank you all contributors so far. The discussions about thermal analysis are getting tiresome but have been very useful in finalizing my little test procedure proposal here. To summarize:
1. Only the load resistor shall be measured in terms of temperature. The very same load resistor in the very same position in the very same environment shall be used for both the DUT runup and the Control runup. Any fans on the bench power supply shall not be aimed at the load resistor. :D
2. The procedure/setup for each test (DUT and Control) will be identical in terms of measuring the output. The DUT setup goes first. Once the load is heated by the DUT to a point where the temperature stops climbing (and before it starts dropping due to battery rundown) that temperature will be recorded and the input electrical power will be recorded at that point in time as well.
3. The first Control test will be to adjust the DC power supply to the exact same level of power as was recorded when the DUT load test reached terminal temperature or thermal equilibrium. The load resistor is then allowed time to reach thermal equilibrium under DC power. If the DC power raises the load temperature higher than the same amount of power supplied to the DUT when it reached thermal equilibrium, the DUT COP is less than 1.00 and there is no reason to keep running the DC-powered load or record its final temperature.
4. If the thermal equilibrium temperature of the DC-powered load terminates at a lower temperature than the DUT load did, with identical input powers, then the DUT is indeed OU. In this case, a second Control test will be done to estimate the DUT COP.
5. To get a number for the COP, the DC power supply will be adjusted upward until the load reaches the same terminal (thermal equilibrium) temperature as did the DUT load. This power level will then be compared ratiometrically to that consumed by the DUT to obtain the DUT COP.
Poynt...
I would agree with your eloquently-stated argument except for one major detail:
If the claimant comes forth and states specifically "My box/circuit/DUT will cause a certain kind of load to produce more thermal energy than by using the same amount of real input power fed directly into the specified load from "conventional sources", then my test procedure is the one to use. At least until we actually notice the balck box glowing red hot with only 9 watts input with 7 in the load, at which time we might advise the claimant to reword the claim. Unless the DUT is so small that 2W dissipation was likely to make it glow red hot, that is.
So far, in all the claims and schemes I've seen, the DUT exhibits the levels of internal heating that would be expected using "conventional analysis" in "conventional circuitry". Until it is apparently anomalistic :) or until the claimant states as such, I think we can ignore the normal, expected amounts of heat created by the DUT's circuit components. If your propsed test procedure were to be applied in all cases despite normal-looking losses in the DUT circuits, I think it would unnecessarily complicate initial testing to no particular gain in knowledge.
Sorry, I was writing while you were posting your last post so it looked like i was ignoring you.
If, like Bedini et al, the claimant will never say exactly which output (thermal, torque, battery charging energy, etc.) represents a COP>1 or that only when all things are added together will the COP compute to overunity, then your procedure would be correct.
Maybe this is why Bedini and company keep building bigger and bigger ferris wheels...to make it more impractical to put the whole shebang in a thermally-insulated box withe DeProny brake glowing red hot on the shaft, a gigantic array of incadescent bulbs or heaters across all the batteries being charged, etc. :D
You see, if it takes 12 years for the DUT test to reach thermal equilibrium, those guys will sell a lot of ferris wheels and battery swappers in the mean time! :'(
Keep in mind that this thread is in the context of a DUT claimed to heat somewhat inductive load resistors far better than "normal power" directly applied. For things like the JT, it may well be that total-inclusion testing is not only convenient and easy (no more arduous than testing only the load) but possibly superior to boot.
Of course, despite the best-laid plans of the wisest of you, there will always arise the ultimate shouted objection:
"YEAH, BUT RADIANT LONGITUDINAL ENERGY DOESN'T TURN INTO HEAT, SO YOU CAN'T MEASURE IT THAT WAY!"
>:(
Fortunately for the purposes of this thread, wiggling zipons definitely do create heat, and as Tim Currey (of Rocky Horror fame) would say "IN ABUNDANCE".
About all I have left to say on my original topic is that if anyone wants more information on the test setup, like why each resistor and capacitor is there and what values they should be, etc. please feel free to ask away. Otherwise, I'd like to invite Rosemary Ainslee specifically to comment on why the test described here would not be appropriate to test the COP of her circuit. It's a lot easier than the way she and many others seem to be headed.
Don't even get me started on "cold" electricity! lol
For convenience to the readers and future commentors, I have put the test procedure and diagram together here in one post:
1. Only the load resistor shall be measured in terms of temperature. The very same load resistor in the very same position in the very same environment shall be used for both the DUT runup and the Control runup. Any fans on the bench power supply shall not be aimed at the load resistor.
2. The procedure/setup for each test (DUT and Control) will be identical in terms of measuring the output. The DUT setup goes first. Once the load is heated by the DUT to a point where the temperature stops climbing (and before it starts dropping due to battery rundown) that temperature will be recorded and the input electrical power will be recorded at that point in time as well.
3. The first Control test will be to adjust the DC power supply to the exact same level of power as was recorded when the DUT load test reached terminal temperature or thermal equilibrium. The load resistor is then allowed time to reach thermal equilibrium under DC power. If the DC power raises the load temperature higher than the same amount of power supplied to the DUT when its load reached thermal equilibrium, the DUT COP is less than 1.00 and there is no reason to keep running the DC-powered load or record its final temperature.
4. If thermal equilibrium of the DC-powered load occurs at a lower temperature than the DUT load did, with identical input powers, then the DUT is indeed OU. In this case, a second Control test will be done to estimate the DUT COP.
5. To get a number for the COP, the DC power supply will be adjusted upward until the load reaches the same terminal (thermal equilibrium) temperature as did the DUT load. This power level will then be compared ratiometrically to that consumed by the DUT to obtain the DUT COP.
Upon re-reading the above, one item of clarification may be useful:
"3. The first Control test will be to adjust the DC power supply to the exact same level of power as was recorded when the DUT load test reached terminal temperature or thermal equilibrium"
This means you must adjust the DC power supply voltage such that the product of VI is the same as the product of VI as measured at the DUT test termination time. The voltages and currents themselves will probably not be the same, so you have to hunt and peck a bit until the multiplied products are the same. One great way to make this real easy is to know the DC resistance of the load (never mind any inductance). Since all resistors change with temperature, and we don't necessarily know how muich always, a trick is to measure the load resistor with your DMM immediately after the DUT test is terminated and the resistor is disconnected but still hot. Clip one wire off and quickly measure the load resistance before it cools down much. Then you can use Ohm's law to get a good close "first stab at it" by setting the DC voltage to the square root of the product PR (two knowns).
Tweak from that starting point as necessary, which will depend on how accurate your DMM was when you measured the hot resistor and how radical the tempco of the resistor is (tempco=temperature coefficient i.e. the thermal stability of the resisor). The tweaking rule is simple: Keep going until you match the power level very closely. Don't worry about the load temperature. You have all day now since you aren't draining a battery. It doesn't matter if you give it too much power and accidentally get the load hotter than the DUT load got. When you get the power right, then you can wait for the temperature to settle.
Remember, we are not trying to distinguish between COPs of 1.00 and 1.002 here, so get the power within a percent or two if possible and see what happens!
humbugger
You've nailed it and explained it in more detail and with greater patience than I normally have when I post.
Regarding the anomalous red hot DUT, I also agree that this case is unique and posted to that effect early on.
This does not bias testing against energy gains in the DUT itself, as we can always re-arrange the test setup to shift the focus to the DUT as required.
The vast majority will be designed to output usable power to the load resistor, not as self contained heaters, and as you stated if the claimant has built a DUT that has anomalous heat gain in itself, and that is his claim, we can test strictly for that.
On another note, I re-ran the BO3 Test using a 1.0 Volt source instead of 10 Volts and readjusted the bias for a clean waveform as in the earlier test.
Results as follows:
Input Voltage 1.0 Volts Input Current 31.3 mA =31.3 mW
Output Voltage= 1.18 Volts / 100 Ohms = 13.9 mW
Efficiency = Pout/Pin = 13.9 / 31.3 = 0.444 x100 =44.4%
The earlier test at 10.0 Volts input yielded 75%
As I predicted blocking oscillators generally run with higher efficiency at higher input voltage.
Quote from: ION on 2011.01.17, 03:34:03
...
As I predicted [bipolar transistor] blocking oscillators generally run
with higher efficiency at higher input voltage.
As a comparison, it would be interesting to see how well the new
technology low voltage MOSFETs perform.
In order to drive them adequately it may be necessary to utilize
a low voltage pulse generator circuit. Or one of the low voltage
boost controller chips with integral switches.
A minimum voltage approaching 3 Volts may be necessary as well.
Quote from: humbugger on 2011.01.16, 22:17:30
For convenience to the readers and future commentors, I have put the test procedure and diagram together here in one post:
1. Only the load resistor shall be measured in terms of temperature. The very same load resistor in the very same position in the very same environment shall be used for both the DUT runup and the Control runup. Any fans on the bench power supply shall not be aimed at the load resistor.
2. The procedure/setup for each test (DUT and Control) will be identical in terms of measuring the output. The DUT setup goes first. Once the load is heated by the DUT to a point where the temperature stops climbing (and before it starts dropping due to battery rundown) that temperature will be recorded and the input electrical power will be recorded at that point in time as well.
3. The first Control test will be to adjust the DC power supply to the exact same level of power as was recorded when the DUT load test reached terminal temperature or thermal equilibrium. The load resistor is then allowed time to reach thermal equilibrium under DC power. If the DC power raises the load temperature higher than the same amount of power supplied to the DUT when its load reached thermal equilibrium, the DUT COP is less than 1.00 and there is no reason to keep running the DC-powered load or record its final temperature.
4. If thermal equilibrium of the DC-powered load occurs at a lower temperature than the DUT load did, with identical input powers, then the DUT is indeed OU. In this case, a second Control test will be done to estimate the DUT COP.
5. To get a number for the COP, the DC power supply will be adjusted upward until the load reaches the same terminal (thermal equilibrium) temperature as did the DUT load. This power level will then be compared ratiometrically to that consumed by the DUT to obtain the DUT COP.
Hello Humbugger. What a PLEASURE ARE YOUR POSTS. Yes, What you propose is EXACTLY what we do. Well done.
Kindest regards,
Rosie
ADDED And while our resistor doesn't 'glow' - you sure as hell can't touch it. We're not talking subtle evidence - or even subtle wattages. The problem is ONLY that Poynty won't accept our results without the use of a differential probe. He only allows this with Lawrence's set up. I'm sure he's got his reasons. He just doesn't make them clear. LOL If I didn't know better I'd be inclined to assume that he's simply putting recognition of our own test results out of reach
Here is a question, possibly a dumb one, regarding the suggested use of current probes based on single-turn primary transformer principals (as they all are) in the context of measuring DUT input power.
Here are some example snippet quotes from various threads from a search of the term "current probe". They appear to be in the context of measuring the input current to a pulsing or oscillating DUT.
Quote from: poynt99 on 2010.02.07, 15:18:39
In doing some simulations, I believe I've discovered Steorn's fatal flaw in their measurement of the input power/energy. In the video part 2 (http://www.steorn.com/iframe-vid29.html) Sean denotes what is being measured, and he mentions: 1) Input Current, 2) Input Voltage, and 3) Output pickup coil current.
The Input Current is being measured with a current probe (this is proper technique), and other than a possible positioning change, this is most likely ok.
Quote from: poynt99 on 2011.01.15, 20:36:39
Indeed, Rose Ainslie is a special case, and stealing a phrase from our good friend TK, I can scarcely believe that I am still trying to teach her the finer points of challenging scope measurements. :D
Last night I almost lost my mind when after arguing with her for an hour or so about how a current probe will give the same, but better results than a CSR measurement, I finally got out of her the fact that she assumed the current probe would have to be connected to a separate oscilloscope from the one taking the voltage samples, and hence her "objection" to the current probe approach!
The last one is from earlier in this thread.
My dumb question is this: How can you recommend the use of a current probe which ignores the DC component of the input current? An input current on a pulsed or blocking oscillator circuit generally contains an AC component riding atop a DC component. Say you have a square wave of AC current of ten amps rms amplitude. If it's riding a DC current of 100A but you read the current using a transformer-based probe, you will only see the ten amp component and never the 100A DC part.
Great for measuring RF currents in AC-coupled circuits that are always symmetrical about zero amps and for looking at the ripple component only on switching supplies, etc, but I don't see the application in measuring input currents in circuits that draw DC current as well as AC current. Help me out here.
Quote from: humbugger on 2011.01.17, 05:37:38
Here is a question, possibly a dumb one, regarding the suggested use of current probes based on single-turn primary transformer principals (as they all are) in the context of measuring DUT input power.
Here are some example snippet quotes from various threads from a search of the term "current probe". They appear to be in the context of measuring the input current to a pulsing or oscillating DUT.
The last one is from earlier in this thread.
My dumb question is this: How can you recommend the use of a current probe which ignores the DC component of the input current? An input current on a pulsed or blocking oscillator circuit generally contains an AC component riding atop a DC component. Say you have a square wave of AC current of ten amps rms amplitude. If it's riding a DC current of 100A but you read the current using a transformer-based probe, you will only see the ten amp component and never the 100A DC part.
Great for measuring RF currents in AC-coupled circuits that are always symmetrical about zero amps and for looking at the ripple component only on switching supplies, etc, but I don't see the application in measuring input currents in circuits that draw DC current as well as AC current. Help me out here.
Humbugger - we use very sophisticated DSO's and the essential recommendation is that we do not 'mix and match' as results would not necessarily be endorsed by those DSO manufacturers. I was advised by both suppliers that they DO NOT HAVE THOSE CURRENT PROBES AVAILABLE. I can't comment on whether or not they're manufactured. However. What I do know is that we've used a current probe - very expensive number - that indeed flattened out the curve to something entirely different to that shown by the voltage across the shunts. Since the probe never actually got into direct contact with the wire - clamp type - it was assumed to be unable to establish the actual voltage. And this was based on the assumption that it could not operate at the required frequencies.
I personally do not see why a current probe is even required. Essentially it will not perform better than a voltage analysis of current - in any event.
Rosemary
Hello dear Rosemary! It is very nice to finally correspond with you on this. We may argue some if our correspondence continues but I think it can be both friendly and productive, perhaps. So here's my first argument: ;)
I don't think you can quite put all the blame on Poynt here, I've been observing all the stuff regarding your circuit and read all threads on all forims. It sure doesn't look like the method I describe is where the general test regime has gone. True, you did seem to start out in a basically similar way in the original published article. That is using thermal output measurements and a shunt to look at the current, sort of. But your shunt was more or less in the output circuit, you did not use RC filter hardware integrator method to average the current and DC input voltage, etc.
It seems that these days your circuit is being evaluated using more and more expensive complex scope-based math-intensive techniques. If this does not have your blessing, at least tacitly, you could use this thread as a good set of arguments for keeping it straightforward and simple. Especially when your colleagues at the university do their testing.
I see good reasons to use a nice scope to "tune up" your circuit and find its "sweet spot" before testing (I would use an old-fashioned wideband analog scope to avoid being confused by sampling artifacts and aliasing for this purpose) but no good reason to even have a scope on the bench during COP testing.
Anyhoo...it is great to see you surviving all of the controversy and bickering and infighting and banning that has gone on. You are a real trooper indeed. O0
Quote from: humbugger on 2011.01.17, 05:37:38
My dumb question is this: How can you recommend the use of a current probe which ignores the DC component of the input current? An input current on a pulsed or blocking oscillator circuit generally contains an AC component riding atop a DC component. Say you have a square wave of AC current of ten amps rms amplitude. If it's riding a DC current of 100A but you read the current using a transformer-based probe, you will only see the ten amp component and never the 100A DC part.
Great for measuring RF currents in AC-coupled circuits that are always symmetrical about zero amps and for looking at the ripple component only on switching supplies, etc, but I don't see the application in measuring input currents in circuits that draw DC current as well as AC current. Help me out here.
The current probe does measure DC current also. I believe that it is based on a sophisticated Hall-effect sensor that senses the cylindrical magnetic flux around the wire. So it senses the absolute magnitude of the magnetic field and does not rely on a form of inductive coupling which could only sense changes in magnetic flux.
Rosemary:
QuoteAnd while our resistor doesn't 'glow' - you sure as hell can't touch it. We're not talking subtle evidence - or even subtle wattages. The problem is ONLY that Poynty won't accept our results without the use of a differential probe. He only allows this with Lawrence's set up. I'm sure he's got his reasons. He just doesn't make them clear. LOL If I didn't know better I'd be inclined to assume that he's simply putting recognition of our own test results out of reach
The most likely reason is that your setup has signals with much higher bandwidth than Lawrence's Joule Thief setup. The bandwidth is too high for ordinary scope probes but that's not the case for Lawrence's setup.
MileHigh
Quote from: humbugger on 2011.01.17, 05:55:04
Hello dear Rosemary! It is very nice to finally correspond with you on this. We may argue some if our correspondence continues but I think it can be both friendly and productive, perhaps. So here's my first argument: ;)
I don't think you can quite put all the blame on Poynt here, I've been observing all the stuff regarding your circuit and read all threads on all forims. It sure doesn't look like the method I describe is where the general test regime has gone. True, you did seem to start out in a basically similar way in the original published article. That is using thermal output measurements and a shunt to look at the current, sort of. But your shunt was more or less in the output circuit, you did not use RC filter hardware integrator method to average the current and DC input voltage, etc.
It seems that these days your circuit is being evaluated using more and more expensive complex scope-based math-intensive techniques. If this does not have your blessing, at least tacitly, you could use this thread as a good set of arguments for jkeeping it straightforward and simple. Especially when your colleagues at the university do their testing.
I see good reasons to use a nice scope to "tune up" your circuit and find its "sweet spot" before testing but no good reason to even have a scope on the bench during COP testing.
Anyhoo...it is great to see you surviving all of the controversy and bickering and infighting and banning that has gone on. You are a real trooper indeed. O0
Not sure of what you mean by that RC filter number. Presumably you want us to use a capacitor. It's absolutely not DOABLE. But nor am I prepared to explain why. But it doesn't matter Humbugger. I've long determined that these forums are not trying to evaluate anything at all. Notwithstanding the apparent intentions they're more anxious to discount than disprove. And it's a waste of time. We're exploring other channels. Much more to the point. I think these forums are pretty well discredited anyway as a means to advance this technology.
I think that by any reasonable standards - then right now our experimental evidence is unequivocal. That's good enough for me.
Rosemary
For the record. I do not answer or even read MileHigh's posts.
FOR THE RECORD.
The frequencies required for our tests are all both the same as OR BELOW the frequencies used by Lawrence's set up. Our dissipated wattages are significantly higher. Notwithstanding which our energy from the supply source is MUCH MUCH LOWER. And our measurements are done to a FAR GREATER LEVEL OF ACCURACY precisely because of this. So. Go figger. Personally I'm inclined to suspect that our own experimental evidence is unequivocal. It's bothersome. One might be inclined to suspect that Poynty does not want DUE RECORD on hs forum. I know that STefan doesn't.
Rosemary
For the record Rosemary:
QuoteI think that by any reasonable standards - then right now our experimental evidence is unequivocal.
My pet theory is that when you hook up your DSO to try to make the measurements for how much power the battery is providing to the circuit you run into some problems. The signals the DSO is recording across your current sensing resistor and the related small spikes you are seeing on your battery voltage recording are probably too high in bandwidth for your probes to pick up all of the information in the signals. Also, there may be a skew of a few tens or hundreds of nanoseconds between the two probe signals and at those very high frequencies you cannot afford that.
The net result from these two sources of error is that the DSO data dump from the two channels and subsequent analysis makes it
appear like there is no power or almost no power being consumed from the battery yet the inductive resistor remains too hot to touch and is obviously dissipating power.
You unfortunately are clinging to this false data and will not budge from it. All you can do is say that the "instrument cannot be wrong."
The solution to this is to substitute the battery for a large capacitor/low pass filter configuration where you can make accurate power consumption measurements the good old fashioned analog way. A capacitor is a far superior integrator as compared to any DSO.
So you refuse double-check your measurements with an alternate procedure and cling to the farcical notion that your system sometimes demonstrates "COP infinity" when the whole thing can be explained away by measurement error.
That's my theory and I'm sticking to it.
MileHigh
Quote from: MileHigh on 2011.01.17, 06:00:58
The current probe does measure DC current also. I believe that it is based on a sophisticated Hall-effect sensor that senses the cylindrical magnetic flux around the wire. So it senses the absolute magnitude of the magnetic field and does not rely on a form of inductive coupling which could only sense changes in magnetic flux.
Rosemary:
The most likely reason is that your setup has signals with much higher bandwidth than Lawrence's Joule Thief setup. The bandwidth is too high for ordinary scope probes but that's not the case for Lawrence's setup.
MileHigh
MH:
So I guess it was a dumb question. I must have missed the posts where this Hall Effect current probe was identified specifically. I've never seen one. The Tektronix and Agilent wideband current probes I'm familiar with have all been strictly AC and based on current transformer technology.
Could you point out a post where this rather special wideband Hall Effect probe was specified? Who makes? What are the HF limits, model number and cost. I might like to get one if they are reasonable.
Humby
Humbugger - let me see if I can explain this better. You see. The assumption is made that current is somehow sourced from the supply and then used and reused around the circuit. Some of it dissipates as heat - some of it can be routed back to recharge the battery supply. Always the thing that is being taken from and returned to the supply are electrons that somehow materialise or are already in that material - depending on which school of thought anyone belongs to. Mainstream provide for both.
Now. My own thesis proposes that the current flow has a material property in and of itself. What is passing through the circuit is the flow of this material. When it flows to the battery it is returned to the battery in tact. When it flows from the copper wire then, depending on the material - it will return to that material - in tact. BUT. When it comes from the resistor - then things change. There's a radical change in the type of current flow. In the first instance it results in a disturbance of the bound state of that material. Some of the fields can indeed remain as a field and then flow as current. But a remaining half of that material simply cannot 'flow' anywhere at all. The disturbance is a consequence of the valence condition of that resistive material. It loosens an atomic bonding and simultaneously gets hot and big and slow. It expands the material of the resistor. And it renders the resistive material HOT to the touch. It's now in a usable form. What we do is apply a switching condition that prevents those fields from ever flowing anywhere at all. You see this? The resulting resonating frequency can induce a condition that does not allow that 'return'. Those two halves of one field cannot get together in that resistive material. Now. You want me to put a capacitor in series with that supply. The capacitor is certainly going to change that resonating frequency. Then we've lost that benefit of resonance. What is needed is an intimate relationship between the supply and the work station to sustain that oscillation.
Our shunt resistor is placed in the direct path of the current flow. It can be on the negative or the positive rail or both. The voltage readings are identical. It is directly measuring both the input and the output of each on and off cycle. We IGNORE the voltage readings across the load. They don't matter. We only need to establish the wattage as it relates to its rate of temperature rise. That is an ABSOLUTE value of wattage dissipated. The two values NEVER agree. The output from the resistor is INVARIABLY GREATER than the output from the power supply in the first instance.
If there are stray inductances that are not measurable by our DSO's, bearing in mind that not only does their bandwidth more than acommodate our frequencies - but there are one million samples taken of multiple or single waveforms - then NOTHING will ever prove this point. We also have a situation where the battery outperforms a control battery with tests run concurrently. We ALSO have NEVER recharged our batteries. But you see this? That evidence will not be considered conclusive until the tests are run for 1 week. Then someone will required 1 month. Then someone will require 1 year. And then someone will require it first be run for infinity if we are going to argue infinite COP. And all such comments are valid. The acid test is quite simply in the measurements. And right now you are asking me to take the measurements off a system that will obviate the benefits of resonance.
Like I said. There is nothing in these forums that will ever satisfy anyone. Sad but true.
Rosemary
Rosemary, Oh Rosemary...
Maybe it's just me. Maybe I don't read or parse well enough. But it seems to me that you are a lady full of rather abrupt and stark contradictions. In the past three posts of yours, I see these pairs of seemingly "at-odds" statements:
Quote from: aetherevarising on 2011.01.17, 05:31:13
Hello Humbugger. What a PLEASURE ARE YOUR POSTS. Yes, What you propose [ed: which includes no scopes at all] is EXACTLY what we do. Well done.
Versus:
Quote from: aetherevarising on 2011.01.17, 05:47:03
Humbugger - we use very sophisticated DSO's...
Then, on the personal side, you post this:
Quote from: aetherevarising on 2011.01.17, 06:09:24
For the record. I do not answer or even read MileHigh's posts.
Immediately followed by this, which sure seems to show that you both read and responded to MH's preceeding post.
Quote from: aetherevarising on 2011.01.17, 06:24:29
FOR THE RECORD.
The frequencies required for our tests are all both the same as OR BELOW the frequencies used by Lawrence's set up. Our dissipated wattages are significantly higher. Notwithstanding which our energy from the supply source is MUCH MUCH LOWER. And our measurements are done to a FAR GREATER LEVEL OF ACCURACY precisely because of this. So. Go figger. Personally I'm inclined to suspect that our own experimental evidence is unequivocal. It's bothersome. One might be inclined to suspect that Poynty does not want DUE RECORD on hs forum. I know that STefan doesn't.
Rosemary
Even within this single post, the sentence "Personally I'm inclined to suspect that our own experimental evidence is unequivocal" seems conflicted to me in the sense that "inclined to suspect" seems out of place with "unequivocal". Okay...this one is nit-picking.
But this group of three contiguous sentences in one post is really confusing and seems outrageously contradictory to me:
Quote from: aetherevarising on 2011.01.17, 05:47:03
...I was advised by both suppliers that they DO NOT HAVE THOSE CURRENT PROBES AVAILABLE. I can't comment on whether or not they're manufactured. However. What I do know is that we've used a current probe - very expensive number...
This kind of confusion-inducing contradiction makes it hard for me to take anything you say too seriously sometimes. I hope you understand that my goal is not to belittle you, discount you or start a fight. I'm just trying to actually communicate and, for me, this stuff makes it frustrating.
Bryan
Quote from: humbugger on 2011.01.17, 07:09:37
Could you point out a post where this rather special wideband Hall Effect probe was specified? Who makes? What are the HF limits, model number and cost. I might like to get one if they are reasonable.
Humby
I believe that the higher the bandwidth the more expensive the probe, and they are all expensive. The high-end stuff is a few thousand dollars.
Poynt is the right person for real-word info like model numbers and pricing. I suppose you can try looking around on the Aligent and Tektronix web sites also. Ebay may be a good route to get one at a fair price.
That's all I can give you. Personally I have never used one.
MileHigh
Quote from: poynt99 on 2011.01.15, 20:36:39
Indeed, Rose Ainslie is a special case, and stealing a phrase from our good friend TK, I can scarcely believe that I am still trying to teach her the finer points of challenging scope measurements. :D
This from a man who suggests that a mean average is sufficient and one does not need integrated analysis of power.
Quote from: poynt99 on 2011.01.15, 20:36:39
Last night I almost lost my mind when after arguing with her for an hour or so about how a current probe will give the same, but better results than a CSR measurement, I finally got out of her the fact that she assumed the current probe would have to be connected to a separate oscilloscope from the one taking the voltage samples, and hence her "objection" to the current probe approach!
:-[
I'm afraid that my objection holds. I CANNOT USE A CURRENT PROBE THAT IS OF A DIFFERENT MAKE AS THE RESULTS WILL NOT BE AUTHORISED BY THE DSO MANUFACTURERS.
Quote from: poynt99 on 2011.01.15, 20:36:39I have hopes that the testing of Lawrence's device will have a much better and quicker outcome, and this will pave the way for more objectivity regarding testing of these devices in the future.
Have some faith Maestro :)
The joke will be this. That measurment will be at a faster frequency than our own - will be forever rendered dubious as a result of the low 'noise' values of the wattages that are being measured - with instruments that are not as accurate as are required - at a wattage dissipated that cannot be evidenced as heat in any reasonable control - and then it will be APPROVED? Where our own test is diametrically able to evidence this so much more conclusively? Where is the capacitor to measure discharge of energy from the battery supply? Where is the requirement for the differential probe? Where is the requirement for higher than 'noise' level voltages? Required by you for our tests and not required for Lawrence's tests. And this preferred? You don't think that your own endorsement here may rather conflict with mainstream? And you don't think that any discerning reader here may pick up on a bias where the evidence is preferred to come from Lawrence rather than our own team? LOL. Poynty. Bias is evidenced in every single point that you make. I'm still waiting for that 'standardised' proof requirement. And while it is not forthcoming then I put it to you that you're deliberately holding back on this precisely because you know that we both have complied and can comply and can now comply at even better levels of return? And do you really think that your readers here are not aware of this bias? History rewritten to align with your preference. The problem will always be this. In the end you will have to apply EXACTLY the same standards as you apply to Lawrence's test - or show where ours has varied. And that's going to prove to be a bit of problem.
Not that I mind. I'm glad of it. It is the kind of fact that will be highlighted when our own system is finally and fully reported in the public domain. Bigotry or bias or personal preference DOES NOT constitute scientific proof.
Rosemary
Quote from: humbugger on 2011.01.17, 07:16:47
Rosemary, Oh Rosemary...
Maybe it's just me. Maybe I don't read or parse well enough. But it seems to me that you are a lady full of rather abrupt and stark contradictions. In the past three posts of yours, I see these pairs of seemingly "at-odds" statements:
Versus:
Then, on the personal side, you post this:
Immediately followed by this, which sure seems to show that you both read and responded to MH's preceeding post.
Even within this single post, the sentence "Personally I'm inclined to suspect that our own experimental evidence is unequivocal" seems conflicted to me in the sense that "inclined to suspect" seems out of place with "unequivocal". Okay...this one is nit-picking.
But this group of three contiguous sentences in one post is really confusing and seems outrageously contradictory to me:
This kind of confusion-inducing contradiction makes it hard for me to take anything you say too seriously sometimes. I hope you understand that my goal is not to belittle you, discount you or start a fight. I'm just trying to actually communicate and, for me, this stuff makes it frustrating.
Bryan
Humbugger? Have fun. I'm out of this. I rather hoped we'd be talking science and nothing else.
Rosemary.
Well! Personally I am waiting for some data to come in from PhysicsProf and any other testers before I express any definitive opinions about it!
Quote from: aetherevarising on 2011.01.17, 07:14:50
Humbugger - let me see if I can explain this better. You see. The assumption is made that current is somehow sourced from the supply and then used and reused around the circuit. Some of it dissipates as heat - some of it can be routed back to recharge the battery supply. Always the thing that is being taken from and returned to the supply are electrons that somehow materialise or are already in that material - depending on which school of thought anyone belongs to. Mainstream provide for both.
Now. My own thesis proposes that the current flow has a material property in and of itself. What is passing through the circuit is the flow of this material. When it flows to the battery it is returned to the battery in tact. When it flows from the copper wire then, depending on the material - it will return to that material - in tact. BUT. When it comes from the resistor - then things change. There's a radical change in the type of current flow. In the first instance it results in a disturbance of the bound state of that material. Some of the fields can indeed remain as a field and then flow as current. But a remaining half of that material simply cannot 'flow' anywhere at all. The disturbance is a consequence of the valence condition of that resistive material. It loosens an atomic bonding and simultaneously gets hot and big and slow. It expands the material of the resistor. And it renders the resistive material HOT to the touch. It's now in a usable form. What we do is apply a switching condition that prevents those fields from ever flowing anywhere at all. You see this? The resulting resonating frequency can induce a condition that does not allow that 'return'. Those two halves of one field cannot get together in that resistive material. Now. You want me to put a capacitor in series with that supply. The capacitor is certainly going to change that resonating frequency. Then we've lost that benefit of resonance. What is needed is an intimate relationship between the supply and the work station to sustain that oscillation.
Actually, electrons themselves don't exactly move around the circuit at light speed as is often conceptualized wrongly. They bump each other out of valence orbits in a sort of "musical chairs" game. When there is a potential across a conductor, more electrons "bump" toward one end or the other, depending on polarity of the potential (voltage). The net effect sends its message (current) down the conduction path at near light speed. Depending on the propagation velocity of the path..
If you look at a single given electron, it won't make it around your circuit anywhere near as fast as the circuit is pulsing. The "flow" is actually the chain of events that results from the billions of little adjacent-atom electrons jumping hopping out of orbit and replacing into the next or nearby atom's orbit. The rate of actual net total physical travel of a given electron is remarkably slow, in fact.
Quote
Our shunt resistor is placed in the direct path of the current flow. It can be on the negative or the positive rail or both. The voltage readings are identical. It is directly measuring both the input and the output of each on and off cycle.
This is a problem. Since you are correctly relying on a thermal rise measurement of the load resistor for output power, you should not let the shunt for measuring input power also contain output currents. You must learn to be "a good electron shepherd".
Quote
We IGNORE the voltage readings across the load. They don't matter. We only need to establish the wattage as it relates to its rate of temperature rise. That is an ABSOLUTE value of wattage dissipated. The two values NEVER agree. The output from the resistor is INVARIABLY GREATER than the output from the power supply in the first instance.
I agree with all but the last sentence, which, of course is the question at hand and the purpose of all this chat to establish a solid method to verify. I'm assuming that "...from the power supply" means from the battery.
Quote
If there are stray inductances that are not measurable by our DSO's, bearing in mind that not only does their bandwidth more than acommodate our frequencies - but there are one million samples taken of multiple or single waveforms - then NOTHING will ever prove this point. We also have a situation where the battery outperforms a control battery with tests run concurrently. We ALSO have NEVER recharged our batteries. But you see this? That evidence will not be considered conclusive until the tests are run for 1 week. Then someone will required 1 month. Then someone will require 1 year. And then someone will require it first be run for infinity if we are going to argue infinite COP. And all such comments are valid. The acid test is quite simply in the measurements. And right now you are asking me to take the measurements off a system that will obviate the benefits of resonance.
No I'm not at all asking anything of the kind.
Quote
Not sure of what you mean by that RC filter number. Presumably you want us to use a capacitor. It's absolutely not DOABLE. But nor am I prepared to explain why. But it doesn't matter Humbugger.
I meant to respond earlier to your post indicating your not understanding my "RC low-pass integration" method using a resistor and capacitor as shown in my test setup diagram. That was in no way a suggestion, as you remarked, to "use a capacitor" as power supply (I think that what you thought I was suggesting). It wis a simple hardware method of very precisely obtaining the integral of the shunt current over time. It's what removes the need, in my test procedure, for any high-speed scopes to integrate the current flowing in the shunt. An input-only shunt with a resitor and capacitor added will completely and unequivocally show the net current flow regardless of whether it is into or out of the battery and this no matter what the instantaneous pulses are doing...positive, negative, wide or thin. The result is easily measured across the small capacitor using only a DMM.
I did notice your claim several times that not only was the heater load super-hot but that the battery was actually charging up rather than discharging. That would automatically and clearly show infinite COP. I am among those "conventional thinkers that would be absolutely shocked and bewildered if this were truly the fact. Box it all up in a sealed metal box and start selling them tomorrow as free heaters, Rosemary! I see no obstacles. I'll help you get UL and CE compliance on the product. It will be easy. We'll be rich in no time. And you'll be even more famous than you are now!
Quote
Like I said. There is nothing in these forums that will ever satisfy anyone. Sad but true.
Rosemary
You may be right.
Quote from: humbugger on 2011.01.17, 08:24:43
Actually, electrons themselves don't exactly move around the circuit at light speed as is often conceptualized wrongly. They bump each other out of valence orbits in a sort of "musical chairs" game. When there is a potential across a conductor, more electrons "bump" toward one end or the other, depending on polarity of the potential (voltage). The net effect sends its message (current) down the conduction path at near light speed. Depending on the propagation velocity of the path..
What a load of doggy doo - if you don't mind my saying. If that 'bumping of electrons' is happening at a given rate then how is the signal itself able to exceed that rate? And the SIGNAL always EXCEEDS the rate of 'bumping electrons'.
Quote from: humbugger on 2011.01.17, 08:24:43If you look at a single given electron, it won't make it around your circuit anywhere near as fast as the circuit is pulsing. The "flow" is actually the chain of events that results from the billions of little adjacent-atom electrons bumping and knocking out of orbit and replacing into the next or nearby atom's orbit. The rate of actual net total physical travel of a given electron is remarkably slow, in fact.
And to say the same thing twice does not thereby make it twice as true. Not even half has true again. Just stays where it was. In fantasy land. Both statements are unsubstantiated - unproven and never experimentally verified. The rate at which one electron can possibly influence another valence electron is KNOWN. If one applied that 'rate of transfer' to the average electric appliance then - for about every 2 meters of wire, and after switching an appliance 'on', you'd need to wait about , 20 minutes before it would light that light or heat that pot or whatever. In fact that transfer is instantaneous. It may be reasonably and theoretically argued that that - THEREAFTER - the rate of transfer will be continuous and uninterrupted. But SOMETHING HAPPENS that allows that signal to reach the source in a timeframe that exceeds what is feasible from the known rate of transfer of anything at all in the exchange of valence electrons influencing other valence electrons. The theory is therefore NOT SUPPORTED BY THE EVIDENCE.
Quote from: humbugger on 2011.01.17, 08:24:43This is a problem. Since you are correctly relying on a thermal rise measurement of the load resistor for output power, you should not let the shunt for measuring input power also contain output currents. You must learn to be "a good electron shepherd".
And you must learn some measurement protocol. If the battery is ouputting - as you put it - energy then do you seriously propose to ignore that quotient? And why? Is it not relevant to assess how much power the battery is delivering in the first instance? This thread is now getting to be a fiasco.
Quote from: humbugger on 2011.01.17, 08:24:43I agree with all but the last sentence, which, of course is the question at hand and the purpose of all this chat to establish a solid method to verify. I'm assuming that "...from the power supply" means from the battery.
NO. It means from the power supply.
Quote from: humbugger on 2011.01.17, 08:24:43I meant to respond earlier to your post indicating your not understanding my "RC low-pass integration" method using a resistor and capacitor as shown in my test setup diagram. That was in no way a suggestion, as you remarked, to "use a capacitor" as power supply (I think that what you thought I was suggesting). It wis a simple hardware method of very precisely obtaining the integral of the shunt current over time. It's what makes the need, in my test procedure, for any high-speed scopes to integrate the current flowing in the shunt.
Still don't get it. Once we've got a capacitor in series with the current flow either to or from the battery - then we've got something that will entirely interrupt that resonating frequency.
Quote from: humbugger on 2011.01.17, 08:24:43I did notice your claim several times that not only was the heater load super-hot but that the battery was actually charging up rather than discharging. That would automatically and clearly show infinite COP. I am among those "conventional thinkers that would be absolutely shocked and bewildered if this were truly the fact. Box it all up in a sealed metal box and start selling them tomorrow as free heaters, Rosemary! I see no obstacles. I'll help you get UL and CE compliance on the product. It will be easy. We'll be rich in no time. And you'll be even more famous than you are now!
If I, at any time, gave you to undestand that I would get into a business relationship with you - of any nature at all - then I sincerely apologise. I would sooner get into a business relationship with TK himself than with someone on these forums. And YES THERE IS EVIDENCE OF BATTERY RECHARGE. That was ALWAYS EVIDENT - ON EVERY PAPER EVER WRITTEN BY ME OR BY ME AND OTHERS.
Rosemary,
I think I am beginning to understand why it has taken you ten years so far and no one will even accept a paper for publication. Your statements are typically contradictory to themselves and often patently false. This is my opinion based on your few posts here. You agree with things you immediately admit you don't understand. You say that most tenets of "conventional current flow" are wild speculation, incorrect and unproven emperically. that is absolute hogwash, my dear.
So I guess I'm also tired of playing this tennis match with you. You return the ball out of bounds every time and then assert that the marked and accepted boundaries are really not important. I guess you win, but the prize is a ticket to endless delusion.
http://www.jimloy.com/physics/electric.htm (http://www.jimloy.com/physics/electric.htm) Maybe a better explanation here. This is well-proven time and time again and is not "an opinion".
Quote from: humbugger on 2011.01.17, 09:12:45
Rosemary,
I think I am beginning to understand why it has taken you ten years so far and no one will even accept a paper for publication. Your statements are typically contradictory to themselves and often patently false. This is my opinion based on your few posts here. You agree with things you immediately admit you don't understand. You say that most tenets of "conventional current flow" are wild speculation, incorrect and unproven emperically. that is absolute hogwash, my dear.
So I guess I'm also tired of playing this tennis match with you. You return the ball out of bounds every time and then assert that the marked and accepted boundaries are really not important. I guess you win, but the prize is a ticket to endless delusion.
I don't see this as a tennis match Humbugger. On the contrary. It's way more important. And if I based my thesis on any 'tenets' of faith or understanding - then indeed I'd have wasted my time. I don't. It is entirely UNRESOLVED as to what is the true nature of current flow. And the evidence is that this CANNOT be the flow of electrons as is wildly and widely ASSUMED. That you find this point a matter of such contention that you cannot therefore continue with this discussion is understandable. You are in very good company. And your closing of the eyes and blocking of the ears is also the way most experts in electrical engineering have met with this point. Fortunately it is not shared by ALL physicists - but only by the most of them. But then too - there was a time when consensus was that the world was flat. And that too was an OPINION held by an esteemed majority. Fortunately time gets factored into our history and that consensus changes. It's just a bit awkward belonging to the minority that see the truth for what it is. But it's not that awkward that it matters too much. That majority rather lose any rights to respect when they endorse such flagrant contradictions.
I confidently predict that there will be a paper written on this point - in the near future - and that this paper will be published. And it will not be by me. And when those manifold contradictions are finally addressed - then you too will belong to that minority. But hopefully that minority will then also be a majority. One hopes that one won't also have to wait too long. That paper will be just as contentious as our claim.
And ten years is nothing. Look how long it took for the church to acknowledge that Gallileo was right. Many such examples.
Rosemary
I am less interested in discussion with you not because of the disagreement on the speed a given electron moves down a wire. I am objecting to your contrqadictions and your assertions that you agree or disagree with things stated that you immediately later indicate that you do not even understand what was said.
You revert to your own set of undefined jargon constsntly. This is okay with me, but it definitely makes communicating with you extremely difficult, tedious and frustrating. :-X
Nighty night now, Rosemary. And Godspeed you to your dreams of being acknowledged and your theory being accepted by the "mainstream majority". I truly wish you well. I'm merely suggesting that you work on your communication skills so as not to frustrate so terribly when speaking with people about your ideas and theirs.
Personally, if I was as confident as you are in your theory and device performance, I'd care less about academic or mainstream acceptance gaiined via published papers in scientific journals. I'd build a ton of them and get rich while providing a great solution to the energy crisis and winning the admiration, awe and respect you clearly desire by doing a great service to mankind.
For anyone interested, there are plenty of references on the speed of an electron down a wire (drift speed of a single specified elrectron is millimeters per second), as opposed to the speed at which the electrons dance around from atom to atom (million meters per second but not always in the same direction or even close) and the speed of transmission of an electrical signal down a wire (near to 300 million meters per second).
Here is another, complete with the math:
http://hyperphysics.phy-astr.gsu.edu/hbase/electric/ohmmic.html (http://hyperphysics.phy-astr.gsu.edu/hbase/electric/ohmmic.html)
Here is a small excerpt attached below from the above link and here is another source, the U.S. Department of Energy site:
http://www.newton.dep.anl.gov/askasci/phy99/phy99488.htm (http://www.newton.dep.anl.gov/askasci/phy99/phy99488.htm)
I do not believe there is any argument among physicists even far out minority types on this question.
That last graphic shows the key point: The electrons in a wire will move under the influence of an electric field that can exist in the wire. The electric field itself travels at nearly the speed of light inside the wire. Therefore for all practical intents and purposes, all of the electrons start to move at the same time, it has nothing to do with them bumping into each other. An electron in an electric field experiences a force exerted on it due to the electric field.
I don't know why there is this fetish in free energy circles about the denial of the existence of current itself and current as the flow of electrons. Rosemary might claim that nothing like this can be or has been proven but in all likelihood there are thousands of experiments that have been done to investigate the nature of the electron and electric current and prove that both exist. NP and PN semiconductor junctions work based on our understanding of how electrons flow through a lattice and how they act under the influence of an electric field. The whole electron/current denial fetish is preposterous.
A charged capacitor has a lack of electrons on one plate and an excess of electrons on another plate. I can envision some kind of experiment where the charged capacitor discharges through a cathode ray tube and you see the spray of electrons on the phosphor surface of the tube. Those electrons came from the negatively charged plate of the capacitor. I bet an experiment similar to that was done more than 100 years ago.
MileHigh
"Bump" was agreeably a poor choice of words. I did not say or mean they bumped into each other. What I said exactly is:
"They bump each other out of valence orbits" and what I meant was when one electron pops out of orbit in a given atom and hops to a nearby atom lacking a valence electron. I suppose I should have used "hops", "jumps", "leaps" or some other term that does not imply an actual collision as in pool balls. I have never thought there were collisions involved and I should have thought better about my words. Thanks for clarifying this, MH.
(But Zipons are a whole nuther thing. They bump. They grind. They crash and collide fiercly, creating huge amounts of extra heat and then go on to charge any batteries in the circuit.) ::)
By the way, MH, I found one Tektronix current probe that covers DC to 120MHz. It's the TCP0030 running a mere $3,110.00
Gift wrap a dozen, please. :o
Good grief!
I gave Rose a part number a few days ago....TCP202, DC-50MHz, roughly $1200.
LeCroy certainly makes a number of current probes as well, and that's the brand of scope Rose is using right now.
I don't believe I can muster any further argument in this. It's plain as day for those knowledgeable in the art, and no justification is required for their use when dealing with these type of circuits. Similar goes for the use of differential voltage probes. I've provided more than ample references for anyone to investigate and learn on their own what the merits are of these probes.
.99
Rose,
As usual, you are really pushing the envelope of tolerance here. Humbugger is experiencing first hand what a few of us have dealt with for some time.
I'll state these points, then I'm done for now:
1) The LeCroy current probes are available for your scope, i.e. see this page (http://www.lecroy.com/Options/default.aspx?categoryid=3&groupid=7&capid=102&mid=508). LeCroy differential probes (high voltage) can be found here (http://www.lecroy.com/Options/default.aspx?categoryid=3&groupid=148&capid=102&mid=508).
2) You may test your circuit however you wish. Keep in mind however, if your data is anything like that of previous tests, it is unlikely to be accepted at OUR as valid and credible. The reasons have been adequately explained several times.
3) Any claims will be vetted against the OUR guidelines.
4) Your slander towards me is deplorable, and your presumption to know more about scopes and probes and testing than I is laughable, if not insulting. Continuing in that vein may result in you being set to read only.
.99
Poynt:
The Tektronix you mention is 50MHz, which explains the extra cost of the fancier 120MHz Tek unit (I guess).
Here's one on eBay (more expensive than your estimate , but in the ballpark):
http://cgi.ebay.com/Tektronix-DC-Coupled-Current-Probe-TCP202-/320636936917?pt=LH_DefaultDomain_0&hash=item4aa77362d5 (http://cgi.ebay.com/Tektronix-DC-Coupled-Current-Probe-TCP202-/320636936917?pt=LH_DefaultDomain_0&hash=item4aa77362d5)
I agree that using the right probes for the job is essential if (and this is a big if, in my mind) the approach is to gather all the high-speed transient data into a scope for analysis. I'm convinced that for Rosemary Ainslee device testing, at least to qualify the super-high COP claims and claims that the net power flow at the battery is a charging flow predominantly (COP=Infinity), the test method described in this thread is entirely adequate. JM2C.
She's a real firecracker, all right! Tough to talk with and not go crazy with frustration though, that's for sure.
For a light refrain, check your Lee Crock thread ;D
Quote from: aetherevarising on 2011.01.17, 08:57:39
What a load of doggy doo ... If one applied that 'rate of transfer' to the average electric appliance then - for about every 2 meters of wire, and after switching an appliance 'on', you'd need to wait about , 20 minutes before it would light that light or heat that pot or whatever. In fact that transfer is instantaneous...
Actually, Rosemary, in a 50/60Hz AC appliance, if you had to wait for even one single individual electron to move from one end of your two meter wire to the other, you'd be in the dark forever (if you were switching on a light bulb anyway...In your case, no matter what the appliance was, apparently ;) ).
The electric field "chain of events" happens nearly instantaneously, but the actual "electrons individual" in a50/60 Hz AC circuit have no net movement around the wires. They just stay within millimeters (more like micrometers, in truth) of where they were when the switch closed, believe it or not! Reversing their slow and tiny migration 50 or 60 times per second limits their range of actual travel to a tiny bit of copper "turf".
Admittedly, this is non-intuitive. I had designed many successful commercial products before I learned this somewhat trivial fact that is of little or no importance in understanding how circuits behave. Let us not spend any more time following the penchant for trivial argument exemplified by Thomas Aquinas, who is said to have spent significant time arguing about how many angels could dance on the point of a needle.
http://www.straightdope.com/columns/read/1008/did-medieval-scholars-argue-over-how-many-angels-could-dance-on-the-head-of-a-pin (http://www.straightdope.com/columns/read/1008/did-medieval-scholars-argue-over-how-many-angels-could-dance-on-the-head-of-a-pin)
Back to the subject at hand. There has always, as far as I can tell, been a terrible flaw in the placement of the current measuring shunt in the Ainslee-based circuits being evaluated.
Rosemarie admits that the shunt measured both input and output currents. Given a reasonably constant input voltage, this means that the entire measurement approach, whether based on ultra-precise DSOs and expensive probes and mathematical integrations or on simple RC hardware integration IS BOUND TO BE HORRIBLY FLAWED!
The fact is that the output power is being measured by temperature rise in the load. Period. This leaves only the input power to be measured accurately. With a constnat supply voltage, the input current is the only variable in the input power equation. Polluting this current measurement with output currents makes absolutely no sense and will invariably lead to falsely high or low input power measurements. How is it that this simple observation has not led to a complete rejection of all testing done to date?
The simple test I have laid forth herein allows for measuring only the input current flow. It accounts completely for any claimed power being returned to the battery by the circuit and automatically integrates that into its measurement, even if it is greater, as Rosemary claims, than the power drawn out of the battery.
The whole discussion around all the fancy 'scopes and probes and making sure to accurately capture and tediously analyze the mixed input and output currents is just folly, in my opinion. That is, as long as that shunt is where it is in her circuit.
Can anyone else see this glaring flaw or is it just me?
Even if the MOSFET never avalanches or never has its intrinsic diode turn on, the Coss (Drain-to-Source capacitance of a large MOSFET like this is a significant current path when the MOSFET turns off and the inductance discharges. If the circuit is "resonating" or "oscillating" or exhibiting "aperiodic frequency ringing" or aany large fast voltage excursions, these will show up in the shunt. These are not part of the input current. What more can be said? Well, one more thing, actually. The Ciss of the MOSFET (input gate capacitance) will also allow all current associated with driving the MOSFET into the shunt.
http://www.irf.com/technical-info/appnotes/an-1001.pdf (http://www.irf.com/technical-info/appnotes/an-1001.pdf)
Quote from: aetherevarising on 2011.01.17, 07:14:50
Our shunt resistor is placed in the direct path of the current flow. It can be on the negative or the positive rail or both. The voltage readings are identical. It is directly measuring both the input and the output of each on and off cycle. We IGNORE the voltage readings across the load. They don't matter. We only need to establish the wattage as it relates to its rate of temperature rise. That is an ABSOLUTE value of wattage dissipated. The two values NEVER agree. The output from the resistor is INVARIABLY GREATER than the output from the power supply in the first instance.
Does that make sense? Measuring both input and output currents mixed together and saying that's the input power measurement basis in the same paragraph as saying the thermal test is the only test used to measure output power? NO!
Furthermore, looking at the temperature rise of the load is in no way translatable to any kind of "absolute" measure of the power in the load unless the load is in a complete vacuum and all infrared energy is not allowed to escape the load. It is only a relative indication of the power and must be compared to the known power fed into the identical load in the identical environment but driven directly from the DC power supply in the control test. When the temperature rises match, and only then, can you compare the unadulterated input power of the two setups to find COP.
If a given power always raised the temperature of any resistor the same amount and at the same rate, then a 1/4 watt tiny resistor would get only as hot and equally fast as a big 50W resistor when each had 2W fed in. Is this born out bt doing that experiment? NO! The small resistor glows red hot and burns out in seconds; the big one isn't even warm. It all depends on the thermal mass of the physical resistor and how well it is coupled (by surface area) to the ambient surrounding.
You cannot determine the power in watts being dissipated by a resistor by looking only at its rate in time per degree of rise or the temperature at which it stops rising. These are only relative indicators and must be compared and matched to those reactions in the same resistor when a known power is dissipated.
Then this:
Quote from: aetherevarising on 2011.01.17, 06:06:41
Not sure of what you mean by that RC filter number. Presumably you want us to use a capacitor. It's absolutely not DOABLE. But nor am I prepared to explain why. But it doesn't matter Humbugger. I've long determined that these forums are not trying to evaluate anything at all. Notwithstanding the apparent intentions they're more anxious to discount than disprove. And it's a waste of time. We're exploring other channels. Much more to the point. I think these forums are pretty well discredited anyway as a means to advance this technology.
I think that by any reasonable standards - then right now our experimental evidence is unequivocal. That's good enough for me.
Rosemary
Look at the diagram, below.
It shows Rint and Cint, the integrating components (RC filter number). It shows a shunt that is only sensing battery current flow (input current). None of these components will in any way effect the operation of your circuit. PERIOD. IT IS NOT ONLY "DOABLE" but is is far more doable than any other bunch of procedures and fancy equipment used to measure your circuit so far, with its shunt in the wrong place. And it is accurate. What's not DOABLE?
In the face of these simple, straightforward, clear and technically sound observations, will you curl up in a ball and hide? Refuse to answer? Walk away in a huff? Probably. You have based outrageous claims on wishful thinking, grossly flawed test methods and assumptions that are blatantly incorrect. You have gained notoriety all over the forums and become the center of attention at many. If you have any personal integrity, you will now acknowledge your errors and procede to face the truth by doing actual fair testing. Let the chips fall where they may, Rosemary. But stop cheating and finding ways to fool yourself and others, please!
TK made this great little U-tube and Poynt posted it in his Oscilloscope power measurement thread. Because it so nicely illustrates the kinds of errors that simple variations in probe/ground placement can induce, I thought it should be linked in this thread and possibly others as well.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KWDfrzBIxoQ&feature=player_embedded#! (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KWDfrzBIxoQ&feature=player_embedded#!)
It would have been even more striking had he continued to re-configure the ground until the trace from the current probe looked exactly like that of the shunt/voltage probe. Probably not possible with the length of the ground clip wire he was using.
In the RF power work I've done, you quickly find out that using any length at all on your probe ground wire is a no-no. We always used little tiny short spring-wire grounds that attach right to the tip of the probe and always built our circuits compactly (using the shortest leads possible or surface mount parts soldered to each other) on a ground plane. Even that was insufficient in many cases.
If you really want to know what your circuit is doing, and you use a high bandwidth scope, you MUST use impeccable methods. If the object is to ooo and aah and play with the mystical spiky waves all day, attributing magical properties to them, then by all means, put your circuit together with clip-leads and long wires over a large area and use real long ground leads on your scope probes!
All of this is why I highly recommend using simple RC integration techniques close to the shunt itself when measuring current to derive power in pulsing circuits. Especially if you are not an experienced expert in scope probing or don't have a wideband AC/DC current probe.
Quote from: humbugger on 2011.01.17, 09:37:20
[to Rosemary Ainslee]
Personally, if I was as confident as you are in your theory and device performance, I'd care less about academic or mainstream acceptance gaiined via published papers in scientific journals. I'd build a ton of them and get rich while providing a great solution to the energy crisis and winning the admiration, awe and respect you clearly desire by doing a great service to mankind.
It seems like Andrea Rossi (see COLD FUSION thread) has the right approach and agrees with my sentiments, above. He says, regarding his claimed cold fusion breakthrough:
"We have passed already the phase to convince somebody. We are arrived to a product that is ready for the market. Our judge is the market. In this field the phase of the competition in the field of theories, hypothesis, conjectures etc etc is over. The competition is in the market. If somebody has a valid technology, he has not to convince people by chattering, he has to make a reactor that work and go to sell it, as we are doing."
This is the bottom line regarding claims of cheap (or free) energy devices. Can you build it? Will it sell?
Quote from: aetherevarising on 2011.01.19, 18:58:45
Poynty and Humbugger - thanks for your offers to test - but I'll pass. I'd prefer this to first be done by local experts for a variety of reasons - not least of which is the real and present danger of dedicated objectors that lurk these forums. All over the place. :o
Do you really consider me to be a "dangerous lurking dedicated objector"? I assure you, the only danger I represent to those claiming to have achieved amazing breakthroughs is that I try to see and point out errors they might have made in reaching their conclusions. That's it, no other "danger" or "objection".
Quote from: aetherevarising on 2010.10.10, 11:55:28
...Our own device showed an unarguable result at COP >17. Glen's device showed COP>7. Those two facts I KNOW. I have all the empirical evidence that I or any reasonable scientist requires. I KNOW that both Glen's and my device showed repeated performance levels where more energy was returned to the battery than was ever supplied....
Quote from: aetherevarising on 2011.01.19, 18:58:45
...Have only now determined the feasibility of doing a public demo. I'll first need to see if this is ever likely to happen. And even before then - I'll need to establish some reliable results. Right now the circuit is in sulk mode and all I can get from it is resonance with absolutely no heat. Hopefully this is correctible. Otherwise you'll all be hearing some reluctant retractions to earlier claims. God forbid.
:'(
Rosie
:)
These two quotations, from posts only a couple of months apart, seem to say that your confidence is no longer overshadowing your true desire to arrive at the facts. That is great. I hope you can get your circuit out of "sulk mode" soon and that you can do an unbiased evaluation using the techniques I've offered here. It should be easy as pie. It must be something simple wrong if it puts out no heat at all. Is it still recharging its own supply battery?
Humbugger