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 641843 times)

ramset

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 8073
Re: Claimed OU circuit of Rosemary Ainslie
« Reply #60 on: June 23, 2009, 11:15:20 PM »
AC
In the context of TK's findings [replicating the published circuit]
He has valid questions ,his replication did not produce the published result,
And the lack of interest in" THAT"fact was curious ,and I felt the basis of his remark[at least thats how I took it after reading all his posts ]
In no way has he intimated he has shot this down ,on the contrary he's looking for answers [joining the forum]
hopefully they [the answers ]will come
Chet

allcanadian

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 1317
Re: Claimed OU circuit of Rosemary Ainslie
« Reply #61 on: June 24, 2009, 12:33:28 AM »
@ramset
What I found offensive was his statement "that her claims of excess energy are completely invalidated", I don't think he has a clue what the term validation means. I spent two months on a simple circuit (Teslas ozone patent 568177) before I could validate Tesla's claims and this circuit is hardly more complex than the Ainslie circuit. Validation is making every effort to prove a device using the exact same materials and components in exactly the same manner, validation is not throwing whatever crap you may have on hand together in a few hours, this is not replication nor validation of anything.
My validations start with reading all know literature by the author in question, next I study all known devices in detail to establish a timeline of technology. This research could take weeks or months alone, then based on these endless hours of research I build the device to exact specifications if they are available. If specs are not available then the device "CANNOT" be validated---period, you can only make an effort to validate it based on incomplete information, based on nothing more than opinion.
Regards
AC

ramset

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 8073
Re: Claimed OU circuit of Rosemary Ainslie
« Reply #62 on: June 24, 2009, 12:49:51 AM »
AC
Your point is well made [and taken],Rosemary seems to be begging for replication and challenge from the status quo.
I take TK's comment as a shot across the bow[permission to ask questions about your findings Rosemary?] Bought on by his initial findings in his attempt at replication
He asked Her to comment in this thread ,perhaps she will in the other.

AC ,I just sweep the floors around here ,but I have admired your posts and work for quite some time.

Chet

TinselKoala

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 13958
Re: Claimed OU circuit of Rosemary Ainslie
« Reply #63 on: June 24, 2009, 05:09:55 PM »
@TinselKoala 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

Who am I judging? Who are you judging? Who are you calling names?

I suggest that you actually try to understand the English sentences in my post, before you go off judging someone.

Perhaps you, in all your vaunted wisdom, can tell us just what it means to her claims of overunity, IF (there, I even capitalized it AGAIN so that you might notice it) her duty cycle, as generated by the circuit SHE PUBLISHED, is actually making a 3.7 percent OFF cycle instead of the 3.7 percent ON cycle she claimed.

Did you build the circuit yourself? I am waiting eagerly for your report of your results.

allcanadian

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 1317
Re: Claimed OU circuit of Rosemary Ainslie
« Reply #64 on: June 24, 2009, 10:59:28 PM »
@TK
It is settled then, both of us agree my comments were out of line and I apologize for my behavior. Regarding Rosmary Ainslie's claims, as far as I can tell a printing error in the published circuit diagrams would have no bearing on her claims or her technology. Unless of course this mischievous printing error could somehow stop all of her circuits from working as stated and erase her patents from history by some divine intervention in which case I would be mistaken.
Regards
AC

TinselKoala

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 13958
Re: Claimed OU circuit of Rosemary Ainslie
« Reply #65 on: June 25, 2009, 03:27:29 AM »
@TK
It is settled then, both of us agree my comments were out of line and I apologize for my behavior. Regarding Rosmary Ainslie's claims, as far as I can tell a printing error in the published circuit diagrams would have no bearing on her claims or her technology. Unless of course this mischievous printing error could somehow stop all of her circuits from working as stated and erase her patents from history by some divine intervention in which case I would be mistaken.
Regards
AC
Accepted, and I also apologize for my sarcastic tone. It's in my nature, but that's no excuse.
(gee I hate the mushy parts)

 My point is simply that her theory (I have read her blog articles) seems constructed to explain certain observed phenomena under certain conditions, and if it turns out that the observations are incorrect because the conditions are other than as specified, it really does put the status of the theory in question.
In the "real world" of academia and peer-review, entire careers have been "tubularized" for similar errors.
But I'm really not too concerned about theories, anyway. I'm with Feynman as far as theories go:
"It doesn't matter how beautiful your theory is, it doesn't matter how smart you are. If it doesn't agree with experiment, it's wrong."

And I'm trying to clear up just that issue: Is it a printing error? Or is the error deeper than that?

Curious, isn't it, that the "printing error" circuit gives the exact inverted duty cycle at the exact freq range specified, instead of not working or producing some random frequency and duty cycle...I wish I could be that lucky.
And also curious that the "printing error" circuit behaves rather like the claimed circuit, as far as heating the load resistor goes, while function-generator driven versions (where the duty cycle is set at 3.7 percent ON) do not...and I'm not talking only mine, here. Others using FGs have also not been able to show load heating at short duty cycles, according to reports.

Of course, after all these years I am sure that the original tested apparatus that produced the COP>17 is no longer in existence, or cannot be found, or...something.

Down the rabbit hole...

(Oh, and what's this talk of "patents" and working circuits? All I've seen is a patent application and some diagrams, but I have not seen any circuits that do what she claims as far as being overunity in performance.)

Groundloop

  • TPU-Elite
  • Hero Member
  • *******
  • Posts: 1736
Re: Claimed OU circuit of Rosemary Ainslie
« Reply #66 on: June 25, 2009, 08:12:21 PM »
@TinselKoala,

Attached is a snip from the article.

I have highlighted the part where she say:

"This article describes the precise circuit, as"
"depicted in Figure 1, that is used to expose this"
"benefit in transient energy. This is to enable and"
"urge others to duplicate the experiment and"
"determine the measurements independently."

Groundloop.

TinselKoala

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 13958
Re: Claimed OU circuit of Rosemary Ainslie
« Reply #67 on: June 26, 2009, 12:30:43 AM »
Yes,  I see that, and I built the exact circuit (with the exception of the MOSFET, but that's not where the problem lies.)
If you want to see what I am talking about, check out that other thread, where I am trying to deal with DrStiffler saying that the 555 circuit is a misprint or has been "inserted"...Stiffler's position seems to be that it doesn't matter what was published, replicators can make up their own circuits rather than testing the published one--which he says is wrong, but he won't explain HOW it's wrong or WHY the paper has been out since 2002 with a WRONG circuit diagram...

The problem that I have identified is that the circuit in the above article Does Produce Heat in the load. It also has a 96.3 percent ON duty cycle, NOT the 3.7 percent ON that the authors of the paper claim. But a 3.7 percent ON duty cycle does NOT produce heating of the load.

So the conclusion is pretty clear to me.

Unless somebody can show me that Ainslie's circuit actually does produce the 3.7 percent ON duty cycle that is claimed in the above paper, I must conclude that the data and calculations based thereon are erroneous and that paper should be retracted.

And meanwhile I am coming to certain conclusions about the cognitive ability and style of certain OU researchers.

Let me review: I was presented with a circuit that Ainslie says is overunity. I built the circuit exactly as specified from Ainslie's publications. I found an inverted duty cycle, which invalidates the power calculations based on using the circuit. And now I am being told that the circuit is some unspecified misprint, even though it makes heat in the load and makes the correct frequency and makes the correct but inverted duty cycle...but the overunity claims in the paper are not wrong, so the circuit (which circuit, now?) is still worth investigation.

I've got to say, it's really hard to figure out how to do replications under these conditions. I mean, if the published diagrams are wrong but even so they produce the OUTPUT behaviour correctly...and correct diagrams are unavailable, and FG pulse drives at the specified duty cycle do NOTHING but FG pulse drives at the inverted duty cycle make things behave just as the "wrong" published circuit does...

Oh, well, what did I expect....

ramset

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 8073
Re: Claimed OU circuit of Rosemary Ainslie
« Reply #68 on: June 26, 2009, 03:21:06 AM »
TK
quote<

Oh, well, what did I expect....
end quote

RESPECT !!
For taking the time and money to do exactly as Rosemary requested.[replication]
Hopefully she will show up.
Chet


Groundloop

  • TPU-Elite
  • Hero Member
  • *******
  • Posts: 1736
Re: Claimed OU circuit of Rosemary Ainslie
« Reply #69 on: June 26, 2009, 07:37:02 AM »
@TinselKoala,

I found the other forum and did read the posts. LOL

I personally think you have done a good job replicating the circuit. The only person
that can clear up the "misprint" circuit is the inventor of the circuit. So far this has
not happen, so I must assume that until she decide to post the correct circuit, then
we are left with your conclusions that she got the math wrong because of the
duty cycle error.

Regards,
Groundloop.

alan

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 716
Re: Claimed OU circuit of Rosemary Ainslie
« Reply #70 on: June 26, 2009, 04:42:52 PM »
Quote
The problem that I have identified is that the circuit in the above article Does Produce Heat in the load. It also has a 96.3 percent ON duty cycle, NOT the 3.7 percent ON that the authors of the paper claim. But a 3.7 percent ON duty cycle does NOT produce heating of the load.
quite logical dont you think, more current flows, thus more heat is wasted.

ask yourself why you would want a small dutycycle?

MY 2 CTS, havent studied the circuit very much, so my view could be wrong:

The dutycycle must correlate/compensate the time constant of the coil, the time it takes for current to rise.

at one instant, you get potential difference over the coil - this is felt by the load, without current going through it - call it static electricity, or scalar wave, or radiant energy.

I think you can even up the frequency, while keeping the same dutycycle in units of time, not percentage.

While the FET is low or non conducting, a displacement current flows, inducing a magnetic field and all, and voltage is built up, current stops flowing [contrary to a closed loop] but voltage stays there, just like a regular wire, and the field collapses because current changes to zero amps.

Now introduce ground to the coil, current starts flowing through the coil but gets inhibited by the reactance, while the potential over the coil remains.
After a short pulse duration, when FET gets low again, the voltage on the ground side gets replenished.

I don't know if you have done this, but analyze this:
measure with a scope the voltage over the coil while pulsing, but also when switching on the power.
see if it gets magnetized when switching power on, but while fet stays in non conducting state.

You can conclude that a bigger coil is better, because current will rise slower.
« Last Edit: June 26, 2009, 05:28:50 PM by alan »

TinselKoala

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 13958
Re: Claimed OU circuit of Rosemary Ainslie
« Reply #71 on: June 26, 2009, 05:14:00 PM »
Hi Alan
Thanks for taking a look. But I suggest you spend a moment and look at the Quantum article and the EIT pdf paper (links above in the thread somewhere.)
The heating of the load is the "output" of this circuit as claimed, and as far as I can tell the overunity claim depends on the true duty cycle that was fed to the mosfet. The heating of the load isn't in question, but rather what duty cycle was actually used to produce the heating shown in Rosemary Ainslie's paper.
I've built the circuit exactly, with the exception of the MOSFET--the one that I'm using is the 2sk1548 which has similar parameters to the IRFPG50. However the mosfet isn't the issue for me--but rather, the duty cycle of the 555 timer circuit.

One possible reason for the "mistake" if there is one, is the fact that the voltage at point "A", where she monitors the load, is high (that is, at battery voltage) when the MOSFET is OFF. This might make some think that the duty cycle at this point is short, when actually the load is OFF when the voltage here is high. So the load is ON (current flowing through it, causing heating) when the voltage at "A" is LOW, which means the circuit shown here is making a LONG duty cycle not a short one.  Current is flowing in the load (and being drawn from the battery) for 96.3 percent of the time, not 3.7 percent as the papers state.
Hence the OU calculations are in error.

UNLESS:::Unless I have made some really embarrassing mistake. So I have been trying to get people to build the 555 timer portion of the circuit at least, using the Quantum paper (or the cleaned-up diagram from Groundloop) to verify or deny that it makes the duty cycle that I found.

If I've made a mistake I would really like to know, because I'd like to continue on with output measurements, as it's an interesting project. But if what I've found re duty cycle is true (and I don't consider it confirmed yet) then there isn't much point in continuing, that I can see.

As far as the magnetic measurements that you suggest Alan, I'll position a Hall sensor in the appropriate place and see what it does, the next time I fire up the system, which will probably be later this evening. I think I've already looked at the voltage drop across the load, looking for power injection from the FG or timer circuit...but I can't really remember right now, so I'll repeat those measurements as well. Thanks for the suggestions...I don't know what to do with the findings but maybe you will.

--TK

(EDIT I don't know why you removed your comment; it made perfect sense to me...)

alan

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 716
Re: Claimed OU circuit of Rosemary Ainslie
« Reply #72 on: June 26, 2009, 05:22:38 PM »
-
« Last Edit: June 26, 2009, 08:41:09 PM by alan »

alan

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 716
Re: Claimed OU circuit of Rosemary Ainslie
« Reply #73 on: June 26, 2009, 08:45:41 PM »
I made it some more readable  :)
I've read the article

my comments wasn't really relevant to the circuit, I had something different in mind, remembered the circuit incorrectly.
I thought the load was placed parallel over the coil, but the load is the inductive resistor itself.

Have you done any temperature measurements?

anyway, I saw your vid's and you did a great experiment, I give it a thought later again.

WilbyInebriated

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 3141
Re: Claimed OU circuit of Rosemary Ainslie
« Reply #74 on: June 27, 2009, 10:06:40 AM »
tk

i see you tossing the word 'exact' or 'exactly' out in a few of your posts. maybe you need a refresher?
http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/exactly

did you drop the $10! for the correct fet yet? i should think after your $1000 U.S. equiv. offer to mylow? and your own admission that you spent $900 and 80hrs of your time on it (mylow's wheel) you wouldn't be so pompous as to expect us to think you can't cough up the $10! for the correct fet for this 'debunking'. i should also think you wouldn't want to leave this fet issue open for contention whatsoever. nice work as usual.