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

Custom Search

Author Topic: Claimed OU circuit of Rosemary Ainslie  (Read 641829 times)

Kator01

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 898
Re: Claimed OU circuit of Rosemary Ainslie
« Reply #30 on: June 20, 2009, 02:00:26 AM »
Hi TinselKoala,

now I am  watching a bit from the sideline and checking in once and awhile
to contribute my experience with switching MOSFET´s.
I was following the whole conversation in the energetic-forum and I must say that I really do not understand why all these people do a lot of blah blah - and do not mention this one thing I learned a month ago about switching MOSFET´s.

Before I take it upon myself to explain all this, please see attachment of MICREL´s Application note on this subject.

Be aware, that you have to charge up the full gate-capacitance which needs a total charge of 190 nanocoulomb. Not before the Miller-Capacity is charged up can the gate-to-drain-charge be filled up an be effective in switchting the MOSFET to its specified rds_on of 2 Ohm.
Second - if the MOSFET-driving Voltage of NE555 is cut of - this very charge at the gate must be removed as fast as possible for the MOSFET to shut down fast.
How can the charge in this circuit be removed ? There is no bypass-way  to escape. It even has an 100 Ohm resitor in its way.
I personally doubt that - if this setup published by Rosemary is for real - this circuit will work as described. There is a lot of information missing concerning these technical details ( driving MOSFETs )

I used a MIC4424 MOSFET-Driver in a different circuit which can take a backward-current resulting from the Gate up to 0.5 Ampere and it worked very well

TinselKoala , you see the point ?

Best Regards

Kator01

jas_bir77

  • Newbie
  • *
  • Posts: 26
Rosemary Ainslie as a loop system
« Reply #31 on: June 20, 2009, 04:15:38 PM »
 @all
hi, i am not a technical person at all. i was just wondering if Rosemary Ainslie circuit can be a looped system.
what i mean to ask is that can we get a loop system using Rosemary Ainslie circuit using the system described below.
1. we get a electric boiler and fill it with steam using electricity from the grid.
2. we use that steam generated to generate electricity, now using this circuit produce steam from the electricity generated in 1st step.
this steam should be 15 - 20 times more,since Rosemary Ainslie circuit is 15- 20 times more efficient.
3.now again using the steam generated in pt 2 (15-20 times more than in pt 1) we produce electricity using a steam generator.
now if the electricity produced at pt 3 stage is more we can loop the sys.

eg .(this is a totally hypothetical figures i am taking ).

1. we use 10 kWh (from grid) to produce lets say 10 kg of steam (1 kWh =1 kg of steam) .

2. 10kg of steam produces 8 kwh of power.(80 % efficient)

3. 8 kWh produces 136 kg of steam (8 * 1 * 17) using Rosemary Ainslie circuit.

4. 136 kg of steam produces 108.8 kWh

now we use 100.8 kWh as excess power and use the remaining 8 kwh back to produce 136 kg of steam and so on.

kindly comment on the calculations.

if any tecnical person reads this feel free to give the exact conversion numbers for electric to steam conversion and stem to electric conversion.

since we already have the rest of the things( boiler , steam generator) easily available all we need is Rosemary Ainslie circuit to work and all our energy problems could be solved very easily.
since i am not a technical person i do not have the ability to contribute in testing of this circuit, but i would be grateful if more and more people test and develop this circuit and give laymen like the easy to follow instructions to make this circuit work.
thanks
jasbir

ramset

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 8073
Re: Claimed OU circuit of Rosemary Ainslie
« Reply #32 on: June 20, 2009, 04:38:15 PM »
Jasbir
Nice ideas!!
This circuit is QUITE DIFFICULT to validate,very deceptively simple.
We have a gentleman here that goes by user name Tinsel Koala
He has been researching this circuit and attempting an exact replication
STAND BY
Chet
Ps
along with the help of the other amazing talent in this forum

jas_bir77

  • Newbie
  • *
  • Posts: 26
Re: Claimed OU circuit of Rosemary Ainslie
« Reply #33 on: June 20, 2009, 04:40:07 PM »
thanks for the reply
looking  forward for exact replication.

TinselKoala

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 13958
Re: Claimed OU circuit of Rosemary Ainslie
« Reply #34 on: June 20, 2009, 08:04:12 PM »
@Kator: Yes, of course I am aware of those facts about switching mosfets. I assure you that this is not the first circuit of this type that I have constructed! You will note that I have mentioned several times that the mosfet in this circuit is being operated out of its normal performance envelope and should be expected to behave non-linearly. I'm not trying to "improve" Ainslie's circuit, just yet--first I need to confirm (or not, as the case may be) her initial measurements on the circuit to see if they are valid and reproducible. So far, with the short duty cycles specified, I am not seeing heating of the load. Only when the mosfet duty cycle (triggered by whatever: the FG actual input, or the chaotic parasitic oscillations that I am finding difficult to induce) exceeds about 30 percent do I notice warming of the load.
Now that I have breadboarded up the Ainslie 555 timer trigger circuit I will be experimenting with that later today. So far, the 555 circuit is effective at producing a short duty cycle pulse at the appropriate frequency range, but the 100 ohm attenuator doesn't do much (or anything) at all to the signal.
Yes, I am coming to the opinion that either 1) some things are left out of the information available, and/or 2) there may be misprints in some component values and/or measurements.

@Jas_bir: Yes, certainly it would be "trivial" from an engineering standpoint to harness the COP>17 claimed for this device. Since the circuit has been around for many years, you'd think that someone would have done so by now. Of course, the answer could be as simple as this: No overunity performance is actually exhibited by this circuit. But we'll see what we shall see, won't we.
 :o

jas_bir77

  • Newbie
  • *
  • Posts: 26
Re: Claimed OU circuit of Rosemary Ainslie
« Reply #35 on: June 20, 2009, 08:19:18 PM »
@TinselKoala
best of luck

Groundloop

  • TPU-Elite
  • Hero Member
  • *******
  • Posts: 1736
Re: Claimed OU circuit of Rosemary Ainslie
« Reply #36 on: June 20, 2009, 09:07:56 PM »
@TinselKoala,

I have uploaded the Rosemary Ainslie patent. Can be found here:
http://www.overunity.com/index.php?action=downloads;sa=view;down=290

Also, I noted that she state in an article that she did add inductance to the heating resistor. See snip. If you read the patent then you can see in one of the drawings that she put the heating resistor (load) in parallel with the coil. I think there is more to this circuit than just the load resistor.

Groundloop.

TinselKoala

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 13958
Re: Claimed OU circuit of Rosemary Ainslie
« Reply #37 on: June 21, 2009, 12:04:18 AM »
Erp. Yesss....

I have found very interesting behavior using the 555 timer circuit as compared to the FG output.

The FG output, set to 10 V peak and under 5 percent duty cycle, gave no heating of mosfet or load.

The 555 timer circuit produces pulses that are, as I expected, not as "clean", that is, rectangular, as the FG pulses, but a casual inspection would say that they are very similar indeed.

However they produce radically different behaviours in the Ainslie oscillator.

I'm still playing with it, but I can definitely say this much: the mosfet and load resistor/inductor do definitely get quite warm at short duty cycle (load resistor went up to 76 C quite rapidly); the major spikes are now on the leading edge of the pulse, and there may be more peculiarities of interest as well.

The 100R pot in the 555 circuit has miniscule effect on anything, until you look really closely at the spikes on a fast timescale.  It might be possible to induce false triggering with setting this pot, but it sure doesn't induce anything like random oscillations or parasitic ones either.
The 200K pot in my original circuit still has the greatest effect on waveform.

Also some power leaks through from the battery powering the timer circuit, but it really doesn't look like much, just off the cuff.

I will make a video showing what I mean later on tonight, unless the MIB get here first.
 ;)

(I'm still not seeing anything like chaotic or random behaviour though...I have seen false triggering or non-triggering of the scopes due to the complexity of the spikyness...could she be referring to false triggering? I mean, even parasitic oscillations are usually regular enough to be resolved on the scope...)

TinselKoala

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 13958
Re: Claimed OU circuit of Rosemary Ainslie
« Reply #38 on: June 21, 2009, 12:08:26 AM »
(light bulb goes on over head)

Is it possible that my FG is making the device operate at a duty cycle of 3.5 percent "on" and the 555 is making it operate at a duty cycle of 3.5 percent "off" ??
This would move the apparent position of the spikes, and would account for the vast heating discrepancy...

(runs off to check polarities, yet again....)

TinselKoala

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 13958
Re: Claimed OU circuit of Rosemary Ainslie
« Reply #39 on: June 21, 2009, 12:22:15 AM »
WHOLLY CRAP!!!

The Ainslie 555 timer circuit as posted above produces a duty cycle that is from 0 to 10 percent or so OFF, and CANNOT be adjusted to make a duty cycle that is 3.5 percent ON.
When I was testing the circuit I inadvertently had the scope's "polarity invert" switch for the 555 channel in the invert position, and I compared the waveforms of the FG and the 555 and they looked alike--but of course since the 555 waveform was inverted, what represented "ON" peaks from the FG corresponded with OFF peaks from the 555 circuit.

So the complete circuit as specified in the above posts from ramset and groundloop generates what I would call a 96.5 percent duty cycle, NOT a 3.5 percent one. The mosfet is ON most of the time, the spikes are still on the trailing edge of the pulses, the heating is not unusual at all, and all the power calculations in Ainslie's papers are, shall we say, "in error" because of this mistake in duty cycle.

Can anybody confirm this with a quick build of the 555 circuit and an oscilloscope?

TinselKoala

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 13958
Re: Claimed OU circuit of Rosemary Ainslie
« Reply #40 on: June 21, 2009, 12:39:16 AM »
@TinselKoala,

I have uploaded the Rosemary Ainslie patent. Can be found here:
http://www.overunity.com/index.php?action=downloads;sa=view;down=290

Also, I noted that she state in an article that she did add inductance to the heating resistor. See snip. If you read the patent then you can see in one of the drawings that she put the heating resistor (load) in parallel with the coil. I think there is more to this circuit than just the load resistor.

Groundloop.

That patent application (not patent!) says completely different things wrt "duty cycle" than does the original pdf that started this whole thing, and also makes much more conservative claims as to efficiency. In the cases cited in the application the margin is so small that measurement error is the first suspect, and the devices described in the application are intended to work at completely different frequencies and duty cycles than the circuit in the pdf. As far as I can tell, that is.

In the pdf she represents the load symbolically as an inductor in series with a resistance because she uses a wirewound resistor of significant inductance. I'm using the same total inductance as far as I can tell.


TinselKoala

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 13958
Re: Claimed OU circuit of Rosemary Ainslie
« Reply #41 on: June 21, 2009, 02:09:50 AM »
Grrr. See what happens when you open these cans of worms?

In the pdf of the EIT paper, on page 8, she describes a "control" experiment where she just hooks the 10 ohm wirewound load resistor up to a battery. And she calculates 17.7 watts as the average power dissipation here.
Then she cites and tabulates the results of an experimental run where she estimates the power dissipated in the load resistor, over the 997 minutes of the experiment to average 17.5 watts and total power 1.22 Megajoules.
And then that figure is compared to the calculated 67.6 kiloJoules calculated to have been delivered by the battery.
And this is where the COP>17 comes from.

BUT:

She states in the pdf that the circuit is ON for 3.7 percent duty cycle. However I have determined that the 555 circuit posted here produces a 96.3 percent ON duty cycle, and that it appears that she may be mistaken about what the true ON duty cycle is in her experiments.

Just roughly looking at the input parameters using this circuit, I get a 600 mV, nearly rectangular pulse shape, representing the voltage drop across a 0,25 ohm shunt. Ignoring the spikyness for the moment just to get ballpark values: that gives a current of 2.4 Amps, and times 24 volts that's 57.6 Watts, times 0.963 (actual duty cycle) gives about 55.5 Watts average power drawn from the battery. No wonder my load and mosfet heat up so quickly.
55.5 Watts times 997 minutes times 60 minutes per second gives about 3.3 MegaJoules input energy.

So the effect of the duty cycle mistake, if it is such, is to bring the COP down from >17 to about only 37 percent or so (COP<1/2), which is just what is expected in this kind of circuit. A substantial portion of the input power is going to the mosfet as heat, and some more is being radiated as EM waves, and some is even being reflected back into the battery.

What's not happening is "more energy out at load than in from battery".



fritznien

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 294
Re: Claimed OU circuit of Rosemary Ainslie
« Reply #42 on: June 21, 2009, 02:19:40 AM »
well done TK!

poynt99

  • TPU-Elite
  • Hero Member
  • *******
  • Posts: 3582
Re: Claimed OU circuit of Rosemary Ainslie
« Reply #43 on: June 21, 2009, 02:23:24 AM »
Wow I certainly hope it wasn't this little "innocent" mistake that caught Rosemary, although it would not surprise me.

Many people invert their scopes or swap the scope leads around to make the wave form "look better" only to later fail to realize that all their measurements will be inverted as well, as TK has just shown can easily happen.

.99

TinselKoala

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 13958
Re: Claimed OU circuit of Rosemary Ainslie
« Reply #44 on: June 21, 2009, 02:27:16 AM »
well done TK!

Thanks, but we need confirmation of several things before we can put the issue to bed.

First, did I build and connect my 555 circuit correctly, and am I right about its performance?
Second, did Ainslie really make the same error that I did at first? That is, is she really using 3.7 percent OFF instead of 3.7 percent ON?
And third, does her power calculation method (which seems a bit screwy from the outset) come up with the same input figures, proportionally, if the duty cycle correction is made?