Looking for an optical RPM Module

[Pommie]

Out of curiosity, what is the purpose of the unit? Is it to find the best angle from electromagnet to hall sensor to get best results at different loads? Sounds like a a project my school could do with.

Mike.
Edit, school I work at - little old to be a pupil.

 

[JulesP]

Hi Mike,

As a retired physicist and secondary science teacher myself, that’s an interesting question because the original idea was proposed by an ingenious electrical engineer by the name of John Bedini (died a few years ago) and who developed a circuit called the SG (School Girl) because it was made and demonstrated by a pupil he knew and helped at some school in the US for a science project and which confounded her science teachers.

So it’s not a simple experiment on Hall probe position but can still be the basis of some fun experimental activity, even if not curricular at the moment.

Just put John Bedini into Google and loads will come up. Don’t be put off by the term ‘free energy’. Wind, wave, solar and geothermal etc, are ‘free energy’ in the sense it’s used - we get out more energy than we as the operator put in. Apart for some uninformed people, it’s CoP that’s over unity and not efficiency so no one is breaking the 1st Thermo Law.

For many this is seen as fringe science (isn’t everything ‘new’ to start with) as Bedini, whose developments in acoustic electronics became a world standard, developed many more advanced versions for pulsed battery charging and other things, simply said that the extra energy came from the ‘environment’. As with many scientific anomalies, we deal with data first and theories later.

My unit, which I call a Pulsed Induction Generator (and yes it has been a PIG at times) uses a Hall sensor rather than a trigger coil, as in the original circuits, and others have proposed changes for investigation. I based my design on a version built by a developer in another country, where he powers his home lights, and am revisiting this unit to make a lot of upgrades to see if it will perform better. One of my improvements is to have a permanent rpm readout instead of having to use a handheld tachometer. So the replication journey continues.

If you want to see a video of my original unit running, made three years ago, then I will upload some files in the next day or so and post a link, but let me know first.

Similarly, I have various ebooks on the SG that I can share for a more detailed coverage. If I get good results in the coming year, I plan to finish a substantial report that I have started and share freely. This is a project for scientific curiosity and not an profiteering enterprise.

SUMMARY
The Pulsed Induction Generator is an experimental setup to investigate the energy harvesting properties of voltage transients and permanent magnetic flux.

All five of the electromagnets are energised simultaneously, triggered by a Hall sensor and powered by the drive battery, as the rotor’s five permanent magnets approach alignment with the stators. This results in an acceleration of the rotor towards them. Just before alignment the coils are de-energised so the rotor can move past without a retrograde force pulling it back. With five energising events for each rotation of the rotor, it will accelerate to about 3,000 rpm.

As all the coils switch off, a backEMF is generated at the FET Drain 5 times per revolution and fed to the charging battery. The drive and charging batteries are electronically switched at a predetermined interval of between 30 and 180s.

The effect of the HV transients on the batteries, at a pulse repetition rate of about 260 Hz, results in their being recharged to replace the charge lost in powering the circuit and a modest external load.

The extra energy is deemed to come from the ‘environment’, much like a heat pump draws heat from it surroundings, possibly through the action of the transients’ electrical stress on the local ‘phase space’.

It is also proposed to recapture additional energy from the rotational momentum of the rotor and converted inductively back into voltage and electron flow.

The original build had an estimated efficiency of 55-65% and a Coefficient of Performance (CoP) hovering around 1. Modifications in progress may enhance the CoP to a significant degree worthy of further investigation.

To summarise, this device has the potential to power a load (others have done so) and never run down the batteries and, while theories about how this is occurring are far from being confirmed, evidence gathering is slowly gaining pace amongst researchers and hobbyists to contribute to a body of data using the ‘Inductive’ scientific method.

Julian Perry
MSc (Rad. Physics)

 

[Les Jones]

The tachometer design I linked to in post #14 would not need an external divide by 5 circuit as it can be configured to divide the input pulses by any integer value up to 99.

Les.

 

[JulesP]

The tachometer design I linked to in post #14 would not need an external divide by 5 circuit as it can be configured to divide the input pulses by any integer value up to 99.

Les.

Thanks for reminding me.

 

[rjenkinsgb]

The extra energy is deemed to come from the ‘environment’, much like a heat pump draws heat from it surroundings, possibly through the action of the transients’ electrical stress on the local ‘phase space’.

Except no one has ever achieved a genuine, sustained "over unity" situation with any such device. If they did, they would be world-famous.


Bedini motors are not really any different to the classic motor-driving-a-generator-driving-the-motor that gets reinvented on a regular basis, with the addition of a battery, so they just take a lot longer to run down and stop.

And note that any discussion of supposed over-unity devices is strictly forbidden on this site.


As a "visible" motor and purely as a physics demo, it's a good educational device. Claiming they are anything more than that to schoolkids would be very wrong.

 

[JulesP]

If you mean over unity of efficiency then you are right, no one ever has or ever will but, as I said it’s CoP that’s over unity not efficiency and which applies to every green energy harvesting system there is. If that’s not a discussion for a forum then I don’t know what is.

The purpose of my device is to investigate any possible energy harvesting and until some time as I show that’s not the case then I’m not going to say it’s not possible and make a priori predictions. That would be very unscientific.

The reason Bedini devices seem to take so long to stop is that they recycle energy- which itself is a very useful feature. That is also worth investigating.

 

[shortbus=]

And note that any discussion of supposed over-unity devices is strictly forbidden on this site.

He came here after being questioned about it at AAC. He's under the idea that nothing from the input of his stator is taken to "power" his output. His claim at AAC was his motor was ~58% efficient, where as most DCPM motors run at nearer 96-98%.

He also claims that the term "CoP" applies to electricity. No where that I have been able to find does that term apply to anything but heat transfer. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Coefficient_of_performance

My postings at AAC were deleted because I wasn't giving circuit help to him, but pointing out his misleading thinking. When he said his ideas didn't follow known physics.

I'm sure he will report me here too.

 

[JulesP]

CoP often refers to heat transfer but there is no reason why it can be used with electronic systems, the principles are the same and that is why research in to this area uses it.
Your posts were deleted because you were not addressing the electronics topic but aggressively trying to tell me things I’m well aware of. If we never ventured beyond the ‘known’ then science and technology would never advance. You need to get rid of the chip on your shoulder. The members here have been very helpful with my rpm meter circuit and how that fits into my larger work and activities is none of anyones business.

 

[shortbus=]

CoP often refers to heat transfer but there is no reason why it can be used with electronic systems, the principles are the same and that is why research in to this area uses it.

It just seems funny that only the fringe sees it that way. Using a known term that is respected and well known in it's common use is hiding behind the real point, that there is no energy being "harvested" that isn't coming from some where else. And you like many before you and many who will follow if you don't do this in the open and with real metrics of reporting are only hurting those that really may come up with something unknown. If they do or if you do you are shooting your self in the foot by making claims that can be easily proven not to be as you present them.

One of the things I did as a teenager was hang around a local guy that by training was a metallurgist, but he spent all of his inheritance(he came from a wealthy family and was an only child) trying to find ways of doing what your doing, and failing every time. He died lonely and broke financially. I have no "chip" on my shoulder, just a logical thought process that understands there is no "free energy" out there to harvest. Even solar and wind is a result of the power of our sun, it doesn't come from no where to be harvested.

So I learned at an early age there is no "free" energy to be had, only energy being pulled from some where else at the expense of that other source. I'll ask the same question of you here that was deleted at AAC, what is the efficiency of your motor when it isn't in "generating mode"? When your not creating your "harvested" power.

 

[JulesP]

It just seems funny that only the fringe sees it that way. Using a known term that is respected and well known in it's common use is hiding behind the real point, that there is no energy being "harvested" that isn't coming from some where else. And you like many before you and many who will follow if you don't do this in the open and with real metrics of reporting are only hurting those that really may come up with something unknown. If they do or if you do you are shooting your self in the foot by making claims that can be easily proven not to be as you present them.

One of the things I did as a teenager was hang around a local guy that by training was a metallurgist, but he spent all of his inheritance(he came from a wealthy family and was an only child) trying to find ways of doing what your doing, and failing every time. He died lonely and broke financially. I have no "chip" on my shoulder, just a logical thought process that understands there is no "free energy" out there to harvest. Even solar and wind is a result of the power of our sun, it doesn't come from no where to be harvested.

So I learned at an early age there is no "free" energy to be had, only energy being pulled from some where else at the expense of that other source. I'll ask the same question of you here that was deleted at AAC, what is the efficiency of your motor when it isn't in "generating mode"? When your not creating your "harvested" power.

I will reply one last time at length, but it may not be today as I have family arriving, and I will try and put some of your concerns to rest. Then perhaps I can direct my full attention to where it should be.

 

[rjenkinsgb]

A heat pump is still a "pump" - it transfers something (heat energy, in that case) to the same thing at a different place or level. CoP applies, in relation to heat transfer vs direct electrical heating.

The same could be applied to eg. using a small, high pressure water supply to run a turbine turning a larger pump filling a tank from a local source, rather than using the small supply directly. That could have a CoP, the ratio of the direct to pumped fill rates.

A bedini motor (or anything) producing more energy that its input would be _converting_ some magical / fantasy thing to electrical energy, not moving it from one place to another. CoP does not and can not be applied.

Solar panels etc. convert one form of energy to another; no over unity, no magic. Again no CoP, only efficiency can be measured.

I'm done on this subject / thread.

 

[JulesP]

It just seems funny that only the fringe sees it that way. Using a known term that is respected and well known in it's common use is hiding behind the real point, that there is no energy being "harvested" that isn't coming from some where else. And you like many before you and many who will follow if you don't do this in the open and with real metrics of reporting are only hurting those that really may come up with something unknown. If they do or if you do you are shooting your self in the foot by making claims that can be easily proven not to be as you present them.

One of the things I did as a teenager was hang around a local guy that by training was a metallurgist, but he spent all of his inheritance(he came from a wealthy family and was an only child) trying to find ways of doing what your doing, and failing every time. He died lonely and broke financially. I have no "chip" on my shoulder, just a logical thought process that understands there is no "free energy" out there to harvest. Even solar and wind is a result of the power of our sun, it doesn't come from no where to be harvested.

So I learned at an early age there is no "free" energy to be had, only energy being pulled from some where else at the expense of that other source. I'll ask the same question of you here that was deleted at AAC, what is the efficiency of your motor when it isn't in "generating mode"? When your not creating your "harvested" power.

Okay, I'll give this one last shot and try to be very clear and detailed in the process. This will paint a much larger picture of what is going on and my role in it. This is taking a lot of my time and attention, trying to justify my activities for what are personal projects, but if it clarifies things for others then it’s worth it.

The term coefficient of performance is traditionally used for heat pumps, but as a simple quotient of ‘energy out’ divided by ‘user input energy’, it can be applied to any form of energy.

Since it is the common heat pump that displays this type of ‘open’ behaviour, it has been used for that and, as electrical systems that harvest energy are not commonplace or much known about, then it is not generally applied to them. But for those researching open electro-mechanical systems, and therefore energy harvesting, it is a very applicable and relevant term. To say it can’t be used is like saying one can only use the quantity ‘acceleration’ for motorbikes on the M1 in England in the summer and not for the tip of a butterfly's wings in the Amazon jungle. A physical quantity has no preference for where it is applied, so long as it is mathematically and contextually consistent, and only humans have established such preferences and conventions.

Saying that a solar panel has a CoP of infinity, while strictly true, is not helpful or meaningful to anyone so we only use the more appropriate term of efficiency, but there is no reason why we can’t use CoP where it is useful. Sticking with something one way because it hasn’t often been done another way is pretty much the definition of stagnation. Not being aware of something does not mean it doesn't exist.

An example of such an electro-mechanical application of CoP, and some of the ideas I mention below, is here:
https://novam-research.com/resource...trical-Regauging-to-increase-COP-21343253.pdf

Now regarding the term ‘harvesting’. As an analogy with the farmer’s harvest, the term means to gather something in one place and transfer it to another, not to create something ‘ex nihilo', out of nothing.

For this to happen a system has to be an open one with cross-boundary flows of energy or matter (which are the same thing). In fact, most systems are naturally open unless deliberately engineered to be closed which is not easy to obtain in practice. Even an internal combustion engine has in reality a flow of heat to the outside, but we approximate it by talking about adiabatic heat transfer, suggesting that only useful work leaves the system. It's not true but more convenient. Usually, energy drawn across a boundary into an open system is converted to another form, but this is not always the case.

So energy harvesting is a legitimate area of research, the basis of every green and alternative energy system and indeed an official area of discussion on the AAC forum, as listed under Power Electronics, as one of the forum’s moderators happily chatted to me about.

The fact that we understand what is happening in a solar panel or a heat pump means that no one questions these open systems. However, when the suggestion is made that a particular configuration of an electrical or electro-mechanical system MIGHT also behave as an open system, drawing additional energy in from ‘the environment', then everyone gets into a flap and falls about wailing due to their worldview somehow being threatened or disassembled.

The device I'm working on is not in fact a motor, but more like a generator, so your question about the efficiency of my ‘motor’, when it’s not in generating mode, is not relevant. However, the device does display one property of a motor in that there is a driven rotating mass.

The function of a motor is to convert electrical energy into mechanical energy expressed as output shaft torque. With my rotor, I haven’t even begun to work on how to extract its kinetic energy, inductively or otherwise, and when I do I expect the overall efficiency will move towards 90+%.

The rotor’s function is twofold. It acts as a trigger for the electromagnetic stators and also contributes the magnetic flux from its permanent magnets to the solenoids which will, in turn, generate the back EMF pulses when their fields collapse.

The present efficiency is brought down by the presence of other ancillary circuits that are required and my figure at this stage only refers to the ‘battery to voltage transient’ conversion and is surprisingly hard to measure or even calculate accurately, due in part to the microsecond rise times.

So what, I hope you are thinking, is so special about voltage transients?

Although exploring theories about what is happening in a device like this are misplaced at this stage, one can still flirt with possibilities (see above paper). In part this is to consider whether what MIGHT be happening is consistent with the current worldview or at odds with it. It also helps drive motivation when there is little else to draw on.

There are various theories about how such as system can behave in an open way and where the energy could be drawn from. I will just mention a key one here and that is to do with ‘non-equilibrium systems’, as defined by the Chemistry Nobel prize winner Ilya Prigogine for his work on self-organising and dissipative structures. In systems that are far from equilibrium, entropy can be reversed so this is a modification, an adjunct, to the Second Law of Thermodynamics. This is how life itself can emerge - order out of chaos and disorder instead of the natural trend the other way. It is suggested that one method of creating such a non-equilibrium state in an electrical system is with a voltage transient or gradient that stresses the local ‘phase space’.

I stress that the work I’m doing is NOT testing any of these ideas, nor any other in the hypothetico-deductive method of scientific enquiry, so beloved of grant-funded institutions and universities. To do so is way beyond my facilities and resources. What I am doing is firmly in the inductive methodology which, historically was far more significant than the other, and the foundation of many of Science’s great leaps. In these, it was often the ‘residual data’, which didn’t fit in with the current theory, that led to them. An example here is the retrograde motion of Mars that led to the overturning of the Geocentric view of the solar system, or the Universe as it was perceived at the time.

In the inductive process, a phenomenon is observed which does not fit the current paradigm and which others then try to replicate. If gradually the phenomenon is replicated then a body of data grows until a generalised observation or pattern is achieved. Then the hypothesising and theory building can start with subsequent deductive testing etc.

My journey on this device began when I spoke to an engineer in another country who had built a device that he was using to power a large proportion of the lights in his home, due to the fact that his local power infrastructure was so painfully inadequate and unreliable. The fact that the local authorities would jump on his head if they knew is why he chooses to keep his identity quiet, and Governments don’t normally jump on your head unless they have something significant to lose or fear.

He himself was inspired by the work of others so, in a real way, there has been a process of attempted replication going on for at least a couple of decades and some good findings have accrued along the way. But that is not enough for an open-minded sceptic like myself, so I decided to try and replicate it and, so far, I would say the results are interesting but inconclusive but warrant my taking it into the next phase with a series of upgrades.

My role here is to confirm, or not, a measurable effect and not to ‘a priori’ predict what might, or should, happen based on current understanding. To do so is not Science at all.

So what would a measurable effect look like? It would most likely show as an external resistive load (e.g. a bank of lights) being fed from a pair of batteries, (continually rotating drive and charge batteries), and which did not run down over an extended period. This is what has been reported by a few others who appear to have the appropriate skills, know what they are doing and have clear results to share. Since the actual level of charge in a battery is hard to measure directly, one can instead measure its open-circuit voltage as an indicator of its internal chemical state.

If I get statistically significant positive results then I will write it all up, together with some theoretical considerations, and share it freely to those places where there is an openness to such findings (AAC won’t be one of them). If the findings are negative then I will be happy to know that I found that out for myself and move on to other interests, of which I have many. Meanwhile, I will employ the various skills I honed in my career in Radiation Physics and Dosimetry to best effect in this investigation.

If you go outside on a warm, bright day and turn your face to the Sun you can feel the heat on your skin. However, in a career such as mine I was continually dealing with radiations, both particulate and EM, that can never be felt by the human being, except perhaps as symptoms of high dose damage. That doesn’t mean they are not there. At any moment countless trillions of virtual and ‘real’ particles are passing through your body: pi mesons, muons, protons, positrons, neutrinos and so on. In addition, every particle in the cosmos arises out of the quantum vacuum, an understanding that developed since the 1920s.

While the Vacuum is glibly taken to be a sort of random background noise, with little significance to macro energy systems, coherence and temporary ‘violations’ of the 2nd Law (as in dissipative structures) can be induced in this background flux to allow short bursts of energy to flow into everyday space and conductive systems, just as virtual particles are continually popping in and out of existence in our ‘real’ space to form electrons, protons and everything else.

This pumping of energy into our concrete reality is itself a problem and dilemma for Science, the so-called ‘Source Charge Problem’. Every point charge in the Universe is continually pouring out EM energy in every direction without absorbing light waves, despite the invariance of Maxwell’s equations. This contradicts the 1st Law - a sort of Prime Mover contradiction that is quietly swept under the carpet. The simple answer is that every point charge derives its energy from the Vacuum polarisation and we are unable to take the line of causation back beyond that.

It is a viable possibility then that this bottomless source of particles and fields can be induced to self-organise itself when non-equilibrium states persist (back to Prigogine and transients). Similarly, work on EVOs (Exotic Vacuum Objects) is indicating this process when, for example, re-entrant jets are formed in water cavitation. To put it another way, under certain conditions, the otherwise random Vacuum field can briefly ‘burb’ some coherent energy out into an open receptive macro system. If you want perpetual motion then look no further than the objects around you (as in the above mentioned Source Charge Problem) instead of someone trying to form a closed motor-generator feedback loop, and failing miserably.

Yes I agree with you that there is no ‘free energy’ available, in the sense that you mean it, but there is an infinite amount of ‘freely available energy’ and our human role and input is to develop such systems that will facilitate a practical and constructive flow gradient.

So the idea that we are literally immersed in energy, mostly unseen and unfelt, is completely consistent with my training, career and experience and the disciplines of Particle and Nuclear Physics, a concept actively promulgated by the likes of Nikola Tesla, Albert Einstein, Paul Dirac and many others.

The prospect that the Vacuum can be engineered to transfer energy into a macro system is a tantalising prospect and the subject of active enquiry, for example for space flight (https://arxiv.org/pdf/1012.5264.pdf)

While there are experiments that have been done that hint at this, it’s a long way off from being fully proven. Early days, small steps, but anything that may help our increasingly desperate plight as a planet is to be welcomed.

Let me summarise all this in some bullet points:

1. CoP is an appropriate measurable quantity for open systems involving any form of energy, even if it isn’t currently used routinely outside of heat pumps.

2. There is an infinite amount of energy freely available.

3. Energy harvesting and open systems are a valid and urgent area of research.

4. Open electrical systems will likely come to the fore in the future, especially in connection with overdue modifications to the Maxwell-Heaviside equations.

5. Many of the descriptions regarding the behaviour of open systems, are completely consistent with our current understanding of the Universe and the Standard Model.

6. Replication of an observed effect is the bed rock of good inductive Science.

7. Nothing here contradicts standard Physics, just extends its application as regular research does.

8. What is seen as ‘fringe’ can, and often does, find its way into the mainstream.

9. It’s easy to ignore or deny facts that might require changing our worldview, however good the evidence. Cognitive dissonance is not comfortable.

Well, there you have it, the long answer! If I still haven’t answered your query then so be it. I’m not going to enter into a debate on any of it - you can explore any areas yourself. Neither will I try and be all things to all people. So long as I follow the evidence and the logic of the path of rational enquiry, I will find MY OWN answers, even if they are worrisome and upsetting to others.

That’s me most certainly done on this issue.

 

[shortbus=]

What's next for you? Are you still working on the Philosophers Stone too. You cite these people, first Bedini now in the PDF it's mostly about T.E. Bearden both known charlatans/scam artists.

Here's what the world says about Bearden - "The motionless electromagnetic generator (MEG) was built by Tom Bearden. Allegedly, the device can eventually sustain its operation in addition to powering a load without application of external electrical power. Bearden claimed that it didn't violate the first law of thermodynamics because it extracted vacuum energy from the immediate environment.[48] Critics dismiss this theory and instead identify it as a perpetual motion machine with an unscientific rationalization.[48][49][50][51][52] Science writer Martin Gardner said that Bearden's physics theories, compiled in the self-published book Energy from the Vacuum, are considered "howlers" by physicists, and that his doctorate title was obtained from a diploma mill.[48] Bearden then founded and directed the Alpha Foundation's Institute for Advanced Study (AIAS) to further propagate his theories. This group has published papers in established physics journals and in books published by leading publishing houses, but one analysis lamented these publications because the texts were "full of misconceptions and misunderstandings concerning the theory of the electromagnetic field."[53] When Bearden was awarded U.S. Patent 6,362,718 in 2002, the American Physical Society issued a statement against the granting.[51] The United States Patent and Trademark Office said that it would reexamine the patent and change the way it recruits examiners, and re-certify examiners on a regular basis, to prevent similar patents from being granted again" From - https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/History_of_perpetual_motion_machines

Bedini like so many people doing this wouldn't allow an outside independent review of his "motor/generator".

So back to the CoP being used to discribe something it doesn't pertain to. By you reasoning "R value" since it is a value of resistance to heat transfer, can also be called "Ohm value" when discussing heat transfer? Since the both are a resistance. Don't think you would get too far trying to do that, but I've been wrong before.

 

[JulesP]

You still don’t seem to get it.

No amount of critiquing various ideas and theories about what might be occurring is relevant or necessary at this stage. The ONLY thing that is important at the moment is confirming, or not, if there is a real phenomenon or effect occurring. No amount of trying to imagine what might be happening is contributing anything useful, except, as I suggested, seeing if a particular set of ideas is consistent or not with current received wisdom. Even if it isn’t that’s not necessarily a bad thing.

All the ideas I wrote about are based on known and accepted theories and knowledge I.e. self-organising and open systems, negative entropy and behaviour of far-from-equilibrium systems as well as field theory, QED and the quantum vacuum.

I have no particular allegiance to Bearden’s ideas and while some of what he says is sound, a lot of other stuff is ‘photons out of his a**’ or unrealistic extrapolation and wishful thinking. The ‘battle’ for whose ideas make sense and are acceptable to scientific consensus and peer review can only reasonably take place where there is some agreed phenomena to build a theory around - and that ain’t happened yet.

There are plenty of ‘off the wall’ ideas from within mainstream Science about the existence and causes of ‘Dark energy’. We don’t ditch the phenomenon of dark energy (an agreed observation) because some scientists suggest that we have to radically revise General Relativity, or have to reintroduce a modern ‘ether’ (after Einstein removed it) even if we eventually end up doing just that.

The only difference between this example and what I am exploring is that the existence of something we term dark energy is pretty firmly agreed upon at this time. No so with open electro-mechanical systems. The reality or not of open, energy-harvesting electro-mechanical systems is completely independent of Bearden and his musings.

The reason why Bedini wouldn't let certain people evaluate his work is due to the 'sheep and goat' effect. If you are not both neutral and open in your mind set then an overly biased approach will swamp and even damage the data gathering process. There are countless examples of this in everyday research. The Philosophy and Psychology of Science are very clear on how all this works. If I ever get any worthy results, I will be very keen to get confirmation, but only from those who do not carry negative baggage or a bias that would interfere with observation and recording. The scientific process is not as 'neutral' as we like to think it is because it is undertaken by human beings.

As for CoP, I’ve said all I need to on the subject - except below. It’s a term that has any application we choose to agree its use for. It’s the quantity of choice for open energy systems and its historical use for heat is of no substantive consequence. I’m sure you don’t need reminding that Heat and electricity are both forms of the same thing - energy.

Regarding the use of Ohmic value in place of R-value? No, you can’t interchange them because they use different fundamental SI units. R-value is Temperature/Heat flux across a barrier. Ohmic resistance uses the derived unit R calculated from voltage/current - V/I. If you do a unit analysis of these, that is break them down to their fundamental SI units, you will see that they are not consistent with each other and involve different quantities. For example, the fundamental unit of Temperature is not common to both. (Don’t tell me, you missed school that day). So your example and argument fall apart. I don’t think you would get too far trying to do that, and I’ve been right before.

Like Efficiency, CoP has no units, it’s simply a ratio of two energy values expressed in Joules and so can be applied to any energy situation where it is useful.

Now, I’m directing all my attention to my upgrades and to designing and building a suitable PCB.

LE FIN

 

[shortbus=]

You still don’t seem to get it.

Your right about that point.

You want to use CoP to measure something that it's not meant to, and you give a link, https://novam-research.com/resource...trical-Regauging-to-increase-COP-21343253.pdf that on it's first page sates that it only works out if you forget about Lorentz and Maxwell theory. Theory that has be used and proven for a couple of centuries to look at what your talking about. And just throw them aside because the new theory doesn't work if you assume they are correct. Now that's a scientific way to think. That does though bring up another word/thought what ever, crack pot theory.

 

[JulesP]

They didn’t know about the vacuum when those equations were first devised. It’s a perfectly valid exercise to adapt ‘old’ theories to accommodate newer findings. Now that the vacuum is seen by many as an active energetic medium it needs reguaging.

Changing those equations has nothing to do with the application of CoP. I’ve been through all that.

What you don’t seem to get is that all these theories are secondary to the question of confirming a measurable effect. If it is confirmed at some point then there will be plenty of debate over how to expand, modify or replace any relevant understanding.

 

[alec_t]

The effect of the HV transients on the batteries, at a pulse repetition rate of about 260 Hz, results in their being recharged to replace the charge lost in powering the circuit and a modest external load.

Have you actually measured the amount of charge going back into the battery?
How much power does the battery provide when powering the circuit plus load?

 

[shortbus=]

Have you actually measured the amount of charge going back into the battery?
How much power does the battery provide when powering the circuit plus load?

I've ask him that before here and at AAC(the mods deleted it there as being too off topic) he seems to think it doesn't require an answer. That seems to be the way of ALL of those going down this path of interest, there is no "proof" you just have to take it on faith that THEY know it's there. It seems that their inventions are drawing some invisible unknown energy while using a know energy, but they just can't explain it because you or I won't accept that things that have been proven or worked for hundreds of years weren't smart enough to find this energy. If they had been smarter back then the theory of physics would agree with what they are finding now.

One more thing that hasn't come up yet is almost all of these "ideas"/"inventions" have a spiral in them some where. That seems to be the big difference maker.