Language: 
To browser these website, it's necessary to store cookies on your computer.
The cookies contain no personal information, they are required for program control.
  the storage of cookies while browsing this website, on Login and Register.

GDPR and DSGVO law

Storing Cookies (See : http://ec.europa.eu/ipg/basics/legal/cookies/index_en.htm ) help us to bring you our services at overunity.com . If you use this website and our services you declare yourself okay with using cookies .More Infos here:
https://overunity.com/5553/privacy-policy/
If you do not agree with storing cookies, please LEAVE this website now. From the 25th of May 2018, every existing user has to accept the GDPR agreement at first login. If a user is unwilling to accept the GDPR, he should email us and request to erase his account. Many thanks for your understanding

User Menu

Google Search

Custom Search

Author Topic: Claimed OU circuit of Rosemary Ainslie  (Read 552071 times)

Offline jibbguy

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 352
Re: Claimed OU circuit of Rosemary Ainslie
« Reply #2805 on: January 16, 2010, 11:47:35 PM »
Please check the specs sheet or manuals for these "10 supplies" of yours, do they specifically read "Input To Output Isolated"? And i mean those exact words; they are of very specific meaning. Also read what they are rated for in output impedance. Having resistance between Signal Low and Ground is NOT Isolated. I think you will find that the majority of calibrated DC supplies are not "Input to Output Isolated", and are in fact "Single Ended To Ground".

Regarding "design criteria" these are observations that are "likely" but not yet proved (as i DID state)... So that was disingenuous. I guess you would rip us for that too if it were specifically stated  as not having proof lol ;) Actually if you did read my article most of that was stated there anyway. 

Lol as for the "belief"; you are quite convinced it does not work, so i think its obvious to all here we can call that one a wash ;)

But the difference between you and me is i believe in furthering science by studying these circuits, whether the mainstream says they are "not possible" or not. Ripping us any way possible is not conductive to research or furthering science, it is usually a way of attempting to assert "superiority". I think you will find that such an attitude is counterproductive and won't matter in the end ;)

Building two circuits, with 2 more batteries, actually adds more questions than it answers. Simple substitution of the element is wiser ;)

We are willing to do what is necessary to test it properly, and have.

Offline Vortex1

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 518
Re: Claimed OU circuit of Rosemary Ainslie
« Reply #2806 on: January 17, 2010, 12:04:25 AM »
Sorry if you felt ripped, that was not my intention, but I see where it could have been perceived that way.

Regarding power supplies, mine are fully isolated to prevent ground loops in testing. A chassis ground is not connected in any way to the plus or minus outputs, though it is available and can be strapped either way.

Quote
But the difference between you and me is i believe in furthering science by studying these circuits, whether the mainstream says they are "not possible" or not.

You don't know me and what circuits I have or have not studied to further science so please don't use that "old saw"

Quote
Building two circuits, with 2 more batteries, actually adds more questions than it answers. Simple substitution of the element is wiser

I guess you didn't even look at the circuit I supplied. Only one battery for the power and only one oscillator circuit.

Actually, you have not thought this through. It is the combination of the special "Ainslie" resistor acting upon the oscillator that creates the chaotic oscillation requirement.

 The plan was to feed this special oscillation to both resistors so that they both experience the same pulse conditions.

 It is not possible for the control resistor alone to produce the chaotic oscillation effect because it does not have the required inductance and stray capacitance to retrigger the 555 at the higher and chaotic rate, therefore it would not be an "identical" test.

Buffering the "chaotic oscillation" produced in the circuit and feeding it to another FET driving the control resistor would be as close as possible to identical.

Null balance techniques are very effective and were the heart of early measurement since the invention of the balance scale.

I have played with similar pulse circuits for a long time. So have scores of other engineers. No one ever noticed an anomaly where a power resistor of that size and rating suddenly burnt up or caught fire consistently and reproducibly. This would have been reflected in a study and recall of the equipment and would certainly have been noticed, documented and probably patented long before Rosie was born.

So yes, I am a little biased on the non-believing side and actually hope very much that I am wrong.

And you can publicly throw a pie in my face if I am wrong, because I will be so happy to be wrong on this one that it won't hurt a bit.

Kind regards....V
« Last Edit: January 17, 2010, 12:43:06 AM by Vortex1 »

Offline Rosemary Ainslie

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 3968
Re: Claimed OU circuit of Rosemary Ainslie
« Reply #2807 on: January 17, 2010, 02:13:16 AM »
Vortex - I have no idea what your actual intentions are in this 'so called'  replication to prove our test as shown in your advice to fuzzy to use a power supply.  This first suggested test parameter is ridiculous and only shows how little you understand about the purpose of these tests.  The battery has a resistance at plus/minus 24 volts and is thereby able to benefit from the recharge potential in those collapsing fields at the load resistor.  Put a power supply in series with the resistor that, in turn, is supplied by plus/minus 220 volt from a utility supply source - and I can guarantee you that the induced collapsing fields in the inductor will not breach that level.  Therefore will the returning energy NEVER be able to replenish the source.  Your understanding of the experiment is lacking or your scaling efforts here are wanting.  Take your pick 

The first and overriding object of the Quantum test and Fuzzy's replication is to prove something about the properties of current.  I am reminded, yet again, how little of our paper you actually understood.  The thesis is that current flow is not some vague abstraction related to 'flow of charge' but that it has properties of mass.  It is proposed that these 'things' - particles - return to their source to neutralise that imbalance.

If you want to effect a reasonably intelligent replication as a counter arguement can I impose on you to at least keep to the argument? 

For Rosemary to imply that a simple test setup may be acceptable to simple people like myself but never to academia is a bit of an insult, considering I've had over 40 years of temperature and power measurement skills and would like to believe I am rather good at it.
I have no opinions whatsoever on your areas of expertise.  Was rather amused at your private message where you state that none of us are worthy to 'sweeeeeep your floors'.  Golly Vortex.  Are you suffering from delusions of grandeur?

Throughout the history of science, researchers have devised very simple and excellently crafted devices to make extremely fine measurements. This is way before DSO's were available.
Not sure of your point here.  So what?  It all evolved to the Textronix and their multiple brands of impeccable instrumentation and we were proud to use such.  This particular 'rolls royce' example has published specifications that are proven and carry their authority.  At its least such data is unquestionable.   


Offline Rosemary Ainslie

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 3968
Re: Claimed OU circuit of Rosemary Ainslie
« Reply #2808 on: January 17, 2010, 02:49:08 AM »
Hi guys today I tried this circuit but no heat came.  ??? I have to say that my 24v batteries are low about 18v :-\ I am not using a shunt cause a guy told me you can eliminate that.
Any help please?
Thanks

Hi gurugi.  I think the problem is probably due to the voltage at the supply.  If the two batteries have  combined voltage at 18 volts then each battery supplying the energy is about 9 volts.  A typical 12 volt battery is considered pretty well dead at 10 volts.  So - at 9 volts - I don't think that there's nearly enough energy being delivered.  You probably need to recharge those batteries.

But I'd be intrigued to learn if there is any evident voltage across the load resistor at this level of voltage from the supply and what that potential is?  If there is, then I'd also be interested to know if the battery drops below 18 volts on an extended run?  Can you let us know.  I think Fuzzy saw evidence of a continued energy exchange at a really low battery voltage - and that would be really interesting to us even if the heat over the load resistor is hardly noticeable.

Another thing that's quite important is that you ensure that the switching cycle is working.  We use low 'on' duty cycles but this defaults to about 50% when that resonating frequency takes over.  Do you see evidence of this oscillating frequency?

Offline Vortex1

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 518
Re: Claimed OU circuit of Rosemary Ainslie
« Reply #2809 on: January 17, 2010, 03:08:48 AM »
Quote
Vortex - I have no idea what your actual intentions are in this 'so called'  replication to prove our test as shown in your advice to fuzzy to use a power supply.  This first suggested test parameter is ridiculous and only shows how little you understand about the purpose of these tests.  The battery has a resistance at plus/minus 24 volts and is thereby able to benefit from the recharge potential in those collapsing fields at the load resistor.  Put a power supply in series with the resistor that, in turn, is supplied by plus/minus 220 volt from a utility supply source - and I can guarantee you that the induced collapsing fields in the inductor will not breach that level.  Therefore will the returning energy NEVER be able to replenish the source.  Your understanding of the experiment is lacking or your scaling efforts here are wanting.  Take your pick



Only two possibilities? Nice setup Rose, but how about a third choice possibility, that you do not speak the language of engineering. Your text above is proof enough. With all due respect you do write a good science fiction paper though I'll give you that.

Quote
The first and overriding object of the Quantum test and Fuzzy's replication is to prove something about the properties of current.  I am reminded, yet again, how little of our paper you actually understood.  The thesis is that current flow is not some vague abstraction related to 'flow of charge' but that it has properties of mass.  It is proposed that these 'things' - particles - return to their source to neutralise that imbalance.

I  will not argue with your thesis, it is good as far as a thesis can go.
Now the proof is to make lots of heat above that supplied by the power source as you claim. This has not been demonstrated.

Quote
If you want to effect a reasonably intelligent replication as a counter arguement can I impose on you to at least keep to the argument?
If you can keep to your claims and not try to switch gears into your thesis abstractions (which are fine and dandy if you don't make grandiose claims)

Quote
Quote from: Vortex1 on January 16, 2010, 06:56:43 PM

    For Rosemary to imply that a simple test setup may be acceptable to simple people like myself but never to academia is a bit of an insult, considering I've had over 40 years of temperature and power measurement skills and would like to believe I am rather good at it.


Quote
I have no opinions whatsoever on your areas of expertise.  Was rather amused at your private message where you state that none of us are worthy to 'sweeeeeep your floors'.
 

Perhaps you should post the whole PM so its not taken out of context.

Quote
Golly Vortex.  Are you suffering from delusions of grandeur?

I'm not the one writing papers that attempt a new explanation for the physical laws. Your serve.

[/quote]
Quote from: Vortex1 on January 16, 2010, 06:56:43 PM

Throughout the history of science, researchers have devised very simple and excellently crafted devices to make extremely fine measurements. This is way before DSO's were available.
[/quote]

Quote
Not sure of your point here.  So what?  It all evolved to the Textronix and their multiple brands of impeccable instrumentation and we were proud to use such.  This particular 'rolls royce' example has published specifications that are proven and carry their authority.  At its least such data is unquestionable.   

Yes the Tektronix (spell it right) equipment is some of the finest. I have a large collection going back to some of the very early tube models, maybe 30 in all. But even a Rolls Royce can crash and burn in the hands of the unskilled. As for the data.....you know the old adage.....garbage in=garbage out.

I wish you well in your work...try putting some low pass filters on some of your scope inputs, you might be surprised.

Best of Luck...You will need it...V

Offline Pirate88179

  • elite_member
  • Hero Member
  • ******
  • Posts: 8366
Re: Claimed OU circuit of Rosemary Ainslie
« Reply #2810 on: January 17, 2010, 03:59:32 AM »
where did that come from man? look around you you'll see the same thing everywhere.  he's wrong, and anyone can see that ken and vortex1 have tons more background and experience than this guy with 3000 posts, which isn't impressive btw. vortex is right on the money and pirate man 3000 is making comments way out of his own league. relax man, he had his opinion and i had mine.

How unscientific of you to make a comparison to my background of which you know nothing at all?  You obviously have not read this entire topic, (it shows) or any other topic that I have posted in so, you are basing this declaration of yours on what exactly?  Obviously a very uneducated guess.

Also, not that it matters, but it is 4,027 posts.  You were only off by about 25%.  I can see that is close enough for you though.

Bill

Offline Rosemary Ainslie

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 3968
Re: Claimed OU circuit of Rosemary Ainslie
« Reply #2811 on: January 17, 2010, 04:02:15 AM »
Only two possibilities? Nice setup Rose, but how about a third choice possibility, that you do not speak the language of engineering. Your text above is proof enough. With all due respect you do write a good science fiction paper though I'll give you that.
It's been suggested before.  Maybe one day I'll have a stab at it.

I  will not argue with your thesis, it is good as far as a thesis can go. Now the proof is to make lots of heat above that supplied by the power source as you claim. This has not been demonstrated.
If you can keep to your claims and not try to switch gears into your thesis abstractions (which are fine and dandy if you don't make grandiose claims)
No switching of of anything here - except on the circuit itself.  The thesis has been part of the abstract, introduction and conclusion of every paper written on this subject.

 
Perhaps you should post the whole PM so its not taken out of context.
Feel free to do this yourself.  I really couldn't be that bothered.

I'm not the one writing papers that attempt a new explanation for the physical laws. Your serve.
I'm not sure that asking questions also requires a mind set prone to delusions of grandeur?  We have only asked mainstream academics to evaluate the evidence in terms of thesis. 

Yes the Tektronix (spell it right) equipment is some of the finest. I have a large collection going back to some of the very early tube models, maybe 30 in all.
Indeed.  Abject apologies for the misprint.  We have the use of a wonderful Tektronix 3054C DPO and all the equipment in the Tektronix stable is to measurement what rolls royce is to engines.  Unquestionably the best.

I wish you well in your work.
And I wish that there was more evident sincerity as such wishes are belied by the offensive nature of your communications.

Offline Rosemary Ainslie

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 3968
Re: Claimed OU circuit of Rosemary Ainslie
« Reply #2812 on: January 17, 2010, 04:51:08 AM »
Guys, just a general observation here.  It continually intrigues me that this particular thread subject seems to solicit so much anatogonism.  I really would love to know why.  Everyone, just about, who subscribes to this forum, is also interested in the challenging prospect of defeating the energy barriers.  God knows - our own mother Nature would probably enjoy some relief from our excesses - if this were ever managed.

But always there has been the implicit or explicit challenge that we're doing nothing more than wasting our time.  Here's the thing.  A handful of open source subscribers have spent huge chapters of their lives in trying to show evidence of just this event - carefully recorded and detailed in a paper that modestly requests mainstream academics to check it out and comment.  No-one is asking for public funding.  No-one is asking Stefan for prize money.  No-one is claiming unequivocal proof.  We are just presenting, within the constraints of some varied talents from all corners of the planet - and to the best of our abilities, an argument that seems to conform to this general requirement.

It seems to merit nothing but a parade of competing interests from heavily weighted egos using wild and ill considered arguments to challenge not only the evidence, but our presumption in presenting that evidence.  What is wrong with you all?  We're doing our best to help things.  Some positive comments would be appreciated - even if it's to acknowledge a first.  We're taking the argument to mainstream as a collaborative open source effort and with nothing more than an earnest desire to get into an earnest dialogue with them in terms of the thesis and the evidence of that thesis that has been equally exhaustively and earnestly collated and presented. 

I would so welcome a sincere dialogue in this thread.  Not this absurd nonsense where the one tries to sound cleverer than the next and all parties simply managing to parade their ignorance of the test, its objects or its proof.  I personally see a want of maturity which would be so much more welcome.  We're not competing with anyone.  We're asking questions.  And we're trying to get those answers from a forum where it really does matter.  Our convictions or anyones are irrelevant compared to mainstream's.  Mainstream still command public respect.  We don't.

My wish for this year is that this thread either dies, or that it can change its flavour to something a little more adult.  And this latter cannot happen until you guys let up - grow up - or show some evidence of intellect rather than testosterone.

Offline guruji

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 470
    • http://andyborg.tripod.com
Re: Claimed OU circuit of Rosemary Ainslie
« Reply #2813 on: January 17, 2010, 01:41:59 PM »
Hi gurugi.  I think the problem is probably due to the voltage at the supply.  If the two batteries have  combined voltage at 18 volts then each battery supplying the energy is about 9 volts.  A typical 12 volt battery is considered pretty well dead at 10 volts.  So - at 9 volts - I don't think that there's nearly enough energy being delivered.  You probably need to recharge those batteries.

But I'd be intrigued to learn if there is any evident voltage across the load resistor at this level of voltage from the supply and what that potential is?  If there is, then I'd also be interested to know if the battery drops below 18 volts on an extended run? 
Hi Witsend Yes I will try to inform you the thing is that I don't have a scope :-\.
I only have a multimeter. [/quote]
Can you let us know.  I think Fuzzy saw evidence of a continued energy exchange at a really low battery voltage - and that would be really interesting to us even if the heat over the load resistor is hardly noticeable.
Another thing that's quite important is that you ensure that the switching cycle is working.  We use low 'on' duty cycles but this defaults to about 50% when that resonating frequency takes over. [/quote]
Is there a way to know about the switching cycle is working without a scope?


 Do you see evidence of this oscillating frequency? [/quote]
Don't know what do you mean?
Thanks



[/quote]

Offline Vortex1

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 518
Re: Claimed OU circuit of Rosemary Ainslie
« Reply #2814 on: January 17, 2010, 02:49:02 PM »
Witsend

You and a few others seem annoyed with my some of my posts so I will pre-emptively ban myself from this thread.

I am in the process of testing your theory using thermal methods and other methods.

If I find no excess energy, I will not publish the results to this forum.

If I find excess energy of any type, indicating that your theory works I will get the information to you somehow. It will be fully documented.

You can have your cake and eat it too!!

Cheers......Bye

Vortex1

Offline Rosemary Ainslie

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 3968
Re: Claimed OU circuit of Rosemary Ainslie
« Reply #2815 on: January 17, 2010, 02:50:13 PM »
Hi Witsend Yes I will try to inform you the thing is that I don't have a scope :-\.
I only have a multimeter.
Golly gurugi, you're working against the odds here.  That 'oscillating frequency' is the waveform that Fuzzy showed us in his live broadcasts.  One sees two patterns emerging the one overlying the other.  It's something like an arrow or a stick that comes to a point at the top.  it sort of looks like a picket fence.   And it seems darker than the other lines because it takes place for a very short time at a very fast frequency and then fades again.  Check out Fuzzy's live show videos when he next does them.  But I'm not the best person to explain this perhaps Fuzzy or someone can help me out here.

I do know that Fuzzy has kindly offered to do a live broadcast on how to find the waveform from a more standard scope.  But I'm afraid without that - I'm not sure that you'll find the required duty cycle, let alone waveform.  If you're near a university you may be able to take your experiment there and try it out.  Just phone them and see if they'll allow it.  I know that the lab at our university allows senior students access - as required and under supervision.

I think that Fuzzy is going to do a live broadcast to show everyone how to find the right waveform from a more standard oscilloscope.  And it may be that that's available later today.  If I spot it I'll let you know and give you a link.  But always, at it's least, one needs that scope to analyse that waveform. 

I don't think a voltmeter will cut it at all.  But that will be useful for measurements across the load.  But even there - it needs a meter that can read quickly to deal with those fast frequencies. 

I'm most anxious to help you here gurugi, but not sure how to.  Try - first - to get access to an oscilloscope.  Then I'm sure that Fuzzy or someone will advise you.




 
« Last Edit: January 17, 2010, 03:12:58 PM by witsend »

Offline Rosemary Ainslie

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 3968
Re: Claimed OU circuit of Rosemary Ainslie
« Reply #2816 on: January 17, 2010, 03:09:36 PM »
Witsend

You seem annoyed with my some of my posts so I will pre-emptively ban myself from this thread.

I am in the process of testing your theory using thermal methods and other methods.

If I find nothing, I will not publish the results to this forum.

If I find excess energy of any type, indicating that your theory works I will get the information to you somehow. It will be fully documented.

You can have your cake and eat it too!!

Cheers......Bye

Vortex1

Good heavens Vortex.  I think both Fuzzy and I are perfectly capable of getting rid of unwanted posts should we want to.  Personally I don't care what people post.  Discerning readers see through bombast and unnecessary nonsense for themselves. And I try to write for the discerning reader.  But I also indulge my own nonsense periodically.  Far be it from me to stop others.  And frankly I find some criticisms variously entertaining or constructive.  But they're really only valid when they've also been fairly well considered and articulated.  Then they're either amusing or challenging or, indeed both.  And both are gold.  It's just they've become increasingly less evident of late and this thread is groaning for its want.

I would also disabuse you of ANY interest in keeping information off this thread.  I would be alarmed to think that there was any reluctance to post a result - negative or positive.  Why else are we here?  It's open source research and development that we're interested in.  At its least that calls for transparency.  And that's also what Stefan is trying to promote in starting this forum.  SO PLEASE.  I would far rather you post your results - positive or negative.  Golly.  I would feel utterly defeated if you didn't.  And frankly - with your knowledge of instrumentation - I'm satisfied that you'll also be able to set the required duty cycles.  Which also means that your findings will be of some considerable interest.

I notice your schematic includes batteries.  I trust you'll use such. And delighted to hear that you're going to set this up and anxious for some reassurance that you'll post your findings right here and in public.  That's the only way I get to eat the cake.

EDIT  By the way - your proposed 'control' run simultaneously with the test - I'm not sure that it'll work as there will surely be some degradation of that harmonic with competing voltages from both resistors.  It's a tricky number to get and conversely, easy to lose. 

2nd EDIT  - sorry.  Another rather critical requirement is the diameter of the resistor.  If you can't wind one like Fuzzy's then please just get a resistor with THICK INDUCTIVE WIRE and as wide a girth as possible. I know it's counter intuitive - but that's what Fuzzy has found and his test results show that this, at it's least, is required.
« Last Edit: January 17, 2010, 03:44:09 PM by witsend »

Offline Rosemary Ainslie

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 3968
Re: Claimed OU circuit of Rosemary Ainslie
« Reply #2817 on: January 17, 2010, 08:12:34 PM »
Hi Vortex.  Just to let you know that I sent you 4 pm's and I think all 4 were lost.  I HATE PM's.  I don't know my way around the system and I can never find my replies and - more often than not I lose the pms themselves.  I meant to give you an alternate address - but am not sure if you got that either.

Delighted you've got such a wide variety of resistors and really look forward to results - regardless which way they swing.

Feel much happier now.  Thanks for the concessions here.

Offline Gauss

  • Jr. Member
  • **
  • Posts: 50
Re: Claimed OU circuit of Rosemary Ainslie
« Reply #2818 on: January 18, 2010, 01:10:59 PM »
You want to spend your precious time on something verifiable high-COP, patented(6 patents) and no-nonsense, simple to replicate?

Here you have it from a real physics professor:

http://guns.connect.fi/innoplaza/energy/story/Kanarev/analysis/index.html

Some additional info: This is normal electrolysis with lye(ie NaOH, KOH) and 1% duty cycle. You need a water flow, circular metal plates, ie the water coming in at tangential direction and going out at the center top. Measure the running current and preferrably use a high voltage(ie 500 V).

Can it be that easy? Try for yourself! You will need a simple PWM, lye and some metal, potentially a water pump or simple self flow.

Offline guruji

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 470
    • http://andyborg.tripod.com
Re: Claimed OU circuit of Rosemary Ainslie
« Reply #2819 on: January 18, 2010, 08:50:42 PM »
Golly gurugi, you're working against the odds here.  That 'oscillating frequency' is the waveform that Fuzzy showed us in his live broadcasts.  One sees two patterns emerging the one overlying the other.  It's something like an arrow or a stick that comes to a point at the top.  it sort of looks like a picket fence.   And it seems darker than the other lines because it takes place for a very short time at a very fast frequency and then fades again.  Check out Fuzzy's live show videos when he next does them.  But I'm not the best person to explain this perhaps Fuzzy or someone can help me out here.

I do know that Fuzzy has kindly offered to do a live broadcast on how to find the waveform from a more standard scope.  But I'm afraid without that - I'm not sure that you'll find the required duty cycle, let alone waveform.  If you're near a university you may be able to take your experiment there and try it out.  Just phone them and see if they'll allow it.  I know that the lab at our university allows senior students access - as required and under supervision.

I think that Fuzzy is going to do a live broadcast to show everyone how to find the right waveform from a more standard oscilloscope.  And it may be that that's available later today.  If I spot it I'll let you know and give you a link.  But always, at it's least, one needs that scope to analyse that waveform. 

I don't think a voltmeter will cut it at all.  But that will be useful for measurements across the load.  But even there - it needs a meter that can read quickly to deal with those fast frequencies. 

I'm most anxious to help you here gurugi, but not sure how to.  Try - first - to get access to an oscilloscope.  Then I'm sure that Fuzzy or someone will advise you.

Hi Witsend thanks for your info as I was telling Jibbguy on the other forum I hooked the mosfet wrongly I am going to test again tommorow. Will let you know the results.
Thanks.