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 641821 times)

BEP

  • TPU-Elite
  • Hero Member
  • *******
  • Posts: 1289
Re: Claimed OU circuit of Rosemary Ainslie
« Reply #45 on: June 21, 2009, 03:20:58 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?

Consider your solution confirmed. At least as far as your description of the real circuit behavior.

This circuit is not at all uncommon. In fact, I have one in-use for quite some time. I had to put a 2N2222 follower on the 555 pin 3 to invert the output so the 'REAL' ON cycle was the -short- part of the cycle. Using the CMOS flavor of the 555 you can have some very short pulses, once inverted.

The 100 ohm pot on pin 3 would just allow adjustment to a cleaner square wave out - or more sloppy. Whatever your preference. It does make a cleaner wave around 500 ohms with a 12V supply on the 555 while driving an IRF510.

The part values on the RC side would make it easy to push the 555 into La-La land. And yes, my sacrificial scope, an old 100meg Tektronix, can't keep up with the 555 when it goes ballistic with total cycle times less than off+on.

Attached is a way to fire the MOSFET with the shorter 'OFF' part of the 555 output.


ramset

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 8073
Re: Claimed OU circuit of Rosemary Ainslie
« Reply #46 on: June 21, 2009, 04:24:45 AM »
TK
Does this mean I have to cut your grass for the rest of my life?
If your findings are true ,you've saved this community a lot of wasted time.


Chet

TinselKoala

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 13958
Re: Claimed OU circuit of Rosemary Ainslie
« Reply #47 on: June 21, 2009, 03:34:32 PM »
@BEP: yep, I also have used similar circuits for years. I consume 555s and 2222s like candy. (My, they're crunchy.) And over the years I've learned to wear safety glasses around 555s that are hooked up to inductances. A liberal sprinkling of good fast diodes in the circuit will often keep the smoke in, but it is amazing how loud that little chip can be when it blows up. Tends to startle the landlord.

@ramset: lol, I neither sow nor do I reap, I just let it grow...
But before we consider the issue completely closed it would be nice to hear from someone (Rosemary? Are you out there somewhere?) who can confirm or deny that her research actually suffers from this problem. Although at this point it seems increasingly likely.

For your amusement:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=18raNyVTL6g

Kator01

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 898
Re: Claimed OU circuit of Rosemary Ainslie
« Reply #48 on: June 21, 2009, 07:15:44 PM »
Hi TinseKoala,

why not report your findings here in order to stop all the blah-blah of the so called experts and save time and energy of innocnet members of this group:

http://www.free-energy.ws/rosemary-ainslie.html

and ask Rosemary the relevant question her at her Blogsite

http://rosemaryainslie.blogspot.com/

As I stated before, you can save blowing your 555-chips by using the MIC4423-24-25.

NE555 can blow because of the huge reverse-current originating from the charge in the gate. It does not have anthing to do with inductance in this case.

Despite these facts, the low Inductance of 8 to 10 Myko-Henry does not store much energy at this frequency.
In another circuit where I was testing ( Cap recharge project byuser null_points ) I used a 2 Milli-Henry coil from an old speaker-filter. It had a inner resistance of 0.7 Ohm and I switched one fully charged cap with a BUZ11 via this coil to another cap. Here I found a very long off-ringing oscillation the frequnecy of which did not change much even if I used half of the inductivity ( 1 Millihenry ). Attached some the pics I made of this circuit including the damped oscillation. You have to adapt the frequency so the oscillation ends just before the next puls ( which i had not done yet in this pic set_ocill_01.jpg ) The red circled area is the time the flyback-diode is active. If it shuts of the rest of the flyback-energy oscillates between C1- and C2. Without the diode the oscillation was absolutly weird and the recharge efficiency very bad. I was able to regain the energy with this ultrafast diode so I had only a loss of 20 % at the end of the discarge-cycle. The discharge-cycle ended when the voltage-Level C2 and C1 was almost equal.

Frankly speaking : I think that especially if I observe the way, this is discussed in the above mentioned forum, this is jet another game of some known desinformation-agents acting in the free-energy.ws-forum in order to destract the attention of people.

Best Regards

Kator01


ramset

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 8073
Re: Claimed OU circuit of Rosemary Ainslie
« Reply #49 on: June 22, 2009, 01:32:26 AM »
Tk
All
In regard to this circuit,I believe its  real purpose is to prove the following.

posted by User Skywatcher [and agreed upon by P. Lindemann]
Quote<
And that is that we can charge a coil, make a magnetic field and use the field in a non-impeding manner such as an attraction motor or other setup and then we can reuse most of the field when it collapses.
>end Quote

Chet
PS
See this type of claim seems feasible to me,but I am unschooled  in these matters

TinselKoala

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 13958
Re: Claimed OU circuit of Rosemary Ainslie
« Reply #50 on: June 22, 2009, 03:32:48 PM »
Sure, all that's fine, but let's not forget the specific nature of the claim, in the magazine article, the pdf of the paper, the patent application, and elsewhere: the circuit as published is alleged to produce 17 times as much energy output as heat, as it receives as input from the batteries. COP>17, for a specific set of circuits.
I believe that I have shown that the circuit AS PUBLISHED and as I built it, does not perform as claimed, and in fact could not do so, since the 555 timer circuit CANNOT be set to provide a short ON duty cycle. And in fact, as I have shown, the numbers she obtained and cited in the pdf paper can be accounted for precisely, by computing power using her incorrect figure of 3.7 percent ON, but using the correct 96.3 percent ON duty cycle that her timer circuit provides, the true energy supplied by the battery is in the neighborhood of 3 MegaJoules, and thus the circuit's COP is in reality <1/2, far from the >17 that has been claimed.
This fact is independent of the MOSFET used, of course, so the fact that I am using the 2SK1548 instead of the specified IRFPG50 should be irrelevant here.

Now, as to the issue of chaotic, random, or parasitic oscillations caused by "turning down" the 100R potentiometer in the published circuit: It ain't happening, folks. Not for me. What IS happening, is false triggering of the oscilloscope, which can certainly look like random oscillations. And of course parasitic oscillations can be induced by means cited in previous posts by others: poor circuit layout, stray capacitances, improperly meeting the demands of the MOSFET's gate capacitance, dirty gate drive pulses, and so forth. Unfortunately (!?!) my build does not seem to suffer from these "features".

I am prepared to consider arguments that the MOSFET I am using is not the exact one Ainslie uses, and so my results could be invalid for that reason. But please, if you are going to make that argument, read the data sheets for the two MOSFETS first and please provide some hard reasoning for your stance.

I am also prepared to repeat the experiment, if Ainslie or somebody else can refute my finding that her duty cycle, as stated in the paper, is reversed, that is, not what she says it is. This finding alone calls into serious question her OU claims and, by extension, her entire theoretical structure, so I should hope that it is taken seriously.

BEP

  • TPU-Elite
  • Hero Member
  • *******
  • Posts: 1289
Re: Claimed OU circuit of Rosemary Ainslie
« Reply #51 on: June 22, 2009, 03:49:10 PM »
Is there any chance her load on the source pin is creating an inversion of the 555 output or causing some nonlinear state?

Then there is the 555. Output can go to what I term 'a garbage state' when you try for a <50% duty cycle, with this circuit and many other 555 circuits.

I think you are correct, TK. If there is such a measurement mistake the usual response from academia is to ignore the claim.

TinselKoala

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 13958
Re: Claimed OU circuit of Rosemary Ainslie
« Reply #52 on: June 22, 2009, 04:17:24 PM »
I don't see how, with the specific component values, that there could be instability of the 555 or "flipping" of its output cycle. But sure, those things can behave strangely sometimes. And I am always prepared to admit that I may have made some weird error in my build--but I don't think I have. That's why I've asked for some independent confirmation of the 555 circuit, at least, and it appears we've gotten that.
(EDIT to add: I even went back and checked --again-- to make sure my 2sk1548 and her irfpg50 are both N-channel mosfets--)

Is Ainslie still around? I think that if I were she, I'd be whipping up circuitry, photographing scope traces, and all kinds of other stuff, in order to refute that fool skeptic TK who can't even put a circuit together properly to oscillate wildly.

What about it, Rosemary? Can you tell us, one way or the other: Does YOUR circuit give YOU a 96.3 percent ON duty cycle, as I believe, or does it really give you a 3.7 percent ON duty cycle as you claimed in several published places?
I can't really see going further in this research (calorimetry, etc.) until this question is resolved.

Inquiring minds want to know...

TinselKoala

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 13958
Re: Claimed OU circuit of Rosemary Ainslie
« Reply #53 on: June 22, 2009, 04:43:21 PM »
I just checked the thread on energeticforum. Nobody seems concerned at all that her claims of excess energy are completely invalidated, IF her circuit in the pdf, which is the only one with reported test results, is doing what I found. They are happily theorizing and going off on tangents, while ignoring my work completely (except for ramset--thanks, Chet...)
When they should be seeking information from Ainslie, or building their own damn replications, or at least telling me why I'm full of crap.

ramset

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 8073
Re: Claimed OU circuit of Rosemary Ainslie
« Reply #54 on: June 22, 2009, 07:05:13 PM »
TK
may i post a summary
perhaps a very brief # 3
Chet

TinselKoala

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 13958
Re: Claimed OU circuit of Rosemary Ainslie
« Reply #55 on: June 22, 2009, 08:13:19 PM »
TK
may i post a summary
perhaps a very brief # 3
Chet

Absolutely, please do.
I've been trying to get on that forum myself. Register, wait for email validation, disable browser security, first try doesn't work, second validation number received, validation accepted, now I must be "moderated" before I can post. Since Friday I've been trying.

ramset

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 8073
Re: Claimed OU circuit of Rosemary Ainslie
« Reply #56 on: June 22, 2009, 08:17:13 PM »
PM
Jibbjuy [member here and there]He got me on in ten minutes[slight exaggeration ]
Chet
PS
I also put in a request on the Thread
« Last Edit: June 22, 2009, 08:38:20 PM by ramset »

ramset

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 8073
Re: Claimed OU circuit of Rosemary Ainslie
« Reply #57 on: June 23, 2009, 04:21:33 AM »
TK
Aaron says your good to go

Chet
BTW when you have a moment,whats a scalar wave?[besides dangerous]
Ive heard these are the longitudinal waves Tesla spoke of?
nothing can shield them?
There making them in the Ed Gray tube thread over there.
« Last Edit: June 23, 2009, 05:55:48 AM by ramset »

TinselKoala

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 13958
Re: Claimed OU circuit of Rosemary Ainslie
« Reply #58 on: June 23, 2009, 08:42:07 PM »
TK
Aaron says your good to go

Chet
BTW when you have a moment,whats a scalar wave?[besides dangerous]
Ive heard these are the longitudinal waves Tesla spoke of?
nothing can shield them?
There making them in the Ed Gray tube thread over there.

Thx, chet, discussion in progress over there now.

Scalar waves...mostly misunderstood. You will even hear people talk about "scalar vectors" which always cracks me up. A vector, of course, is a quantity with both a definite magnitude and a definite direction, like a force for example. A scalar is just a magnitude, with no direction associated with it. So a "scalar vector" is sort of like a "jumbo shrimp" only worse--a contradiction in terms. Like saying "free" and "energy" in the same breath.
But anyway, the idea seems to be that EM can come in two flavors--second, like the transverse and orthogonal E and M oscillations from normal radio systems, and first, like what Tesla and others have called "longitudinal waves" or perhaps scalar waves. While the transverse waves can be viewed like a vibrating string under tension, with nodes, a plane of oscillation, and so on, the longitudinal waves are more like sound itself--that is, a "compression and rarefaction" of the medium, so the oscillation is not at right angles to the direction of propagation like in transverse waves, but is in the same direction--longitudinal--as the propagation.
Shielding? The experiments that I have done myself indicate that longitudinal waves are indeed very difficult to shield by normal RF shielding means. I was able to transmit a longitudinal signal into a Faraday screen room, using a circuit I found on JLN's site.
Dangerous? I would imagine that given enough power and at the right frequencies they could be dangerous. So could anything else.
Reality: I think what most people are referring to as scalar or longitudinal waves (even Tesla) are really wide powerful broadband bursts of simple RF.

allcanadian

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 1317
Re: Claimed OU circuit of Rosemary Ainslie
« Reply #59 on: June 23, 2009, 10:58:20 PM »
@TinselKoala
Quote
I just checked the thread on energeticforum. Nobody seems concerned at all that her claims of excess energy are completely invalidated, IF her circuit in the pdf, which is the only one with reported test results, is doing what I found. They are happily theorizing and going off on tangents, while ignoring my work completely (except for ramset--thanks, Chet...)
Completely Invalidated you say,LOL, I do not think one minor attempt qualifies as "completely invalidated" in any sense of the word. You should understand that many real inventors can spend months or years to perfect a device, then some yahoo throws together a bunch of crap in a single day and yells "Ah-ha it's all a lie" and the cycle of ignorance continues. I would suggest you actually try to understand the circuit process before you go off judging anyone.
Regards
AC