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 641793 times)

TinselKoala

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 13958
Re: Claimed OU circuit of Rosemary Ainslie
« Reply #75 on: June 27, 2009, 06:22:20 PM »
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.

What I do with my time and money seems to be, last time I checked, My Business.
And even you should be able to tell that the problem I identified has NOTHING to do with the choice of MOSFET, as long as all are N-channel. And all the ones I used are.

If you are so concerned, why don't YOU build the circuit, or just send me any MOSFET you would like me to test.

But I can tell you this: ANY mosfet of the correct voltage and current ratings will produce heating of the load that looks just like what Ainslie reported, if the duty cycle used is 96.7 percent ON.

Once again, it seems that people who refuse to go out and assemble any components on their own are attempting to criticize the work of those who actually do build and test things.

So, at this point, I would be glad to hear explanations, even from you, wilby, as to the cause and effect of the DUTY CYCLE ERROR in Ainslie's work that I found. Until this issue is resolved the question of the MOSFET is irrelevant.

(Your hero DrStiffler is cracking me up, over on that other forum. His "replication" is wrong in every respect, every post he's made since I've been looking has contained severe errors and absolute asinine reasoning--"I'm not even going to try her 555 timer circuit because..." for totally invalid reasons. He's using wrong voltages, regulated supplies instead of batteries, wrong captions on his scope shots, wrong monitoring points, mistaken reads of the circuit diagram, and he doesn't even seem concerned when it's pointed out to him. It's pretty hilarious when an English-speaking reader reads his posts and mine, looking for real information on a "replication" of Ainslie's published work.)
« Last Edit: June 27, 2009, 06:44:43 PM by TinselKoala »

ramset

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 8073
Re: Claimed OU circuit of Rosemary Ainslie
« Reply #76 on: June 27, 2009, 07:06:30 PM »
Tk
It does not seem like Stiffler is replicating the circuit [or even trying to].
He seems to be trying to replicate or enhance an" effect" .

Chet
PS he refers to "interesting findings" in the first 10 minutes of a test he performed.
_____________________________________________________________________

HERE
 Run with oscillation
This is of course not what I should be doing, but I wanted to see if that 50V hash would do something that would not make sense.

Anyway as it turns out it is 'ho hum', here is the data from the run, 31.4% eff. is what one might expect, but more to come that we do not expect.

Tmin qa qc Vs Is Q = c m dq ein (J) CEC
0 26.4 28.50 12.00 0.022
10 26.3 29.90 12.00 0.020 117.236 151.200
20 26.3 30.02 12.00 0.018 10.049 136.800
30 26.5 31.00 12.00 0.018 82.065 129.600
40 25.8 31.90 12.00 0.018 75.366 129.600
50 26.3 32.00 12.00 0.018 8.374 129.600
60 25.6 32.00 12.00 0.018 0.000 129.600
70 26.0 32.50 12.00 0.018 41.870 129.600
80 25.4 32.50 12.00 0.018 0.000 129.600

334.960 1065.600 0.314339339

Gate pulse was 37uS and the Drain pulse was 72uS

Sorry the Greek symbols do not come across, but qa is the ambient temp, qc is the cell temp and of course Vs and Is need no further. What is so very interesting is that first 10 minutes.

 

TinselKoala

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 13958
Re: Claimed OU circuit of Rosemary Ainslie
« Reply #77 on: June 27, 2009, 08:00:33 PM »
Yes, Chet, I saw that post, thanks for putting it here, where some discussion might actually happen.

Feel free to explain the post. All I can get out of it is that his MOSFET's turn-off time is unusually long and his load warmed up some.

Oh, and the "ho-hum" part, I got that.

But what it's doing in a thread that is supposed to be about replicating a specific Ainslie circuit, that I don't get.

WilbyInebriated

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 3141
Re: Claimed OU circuit of Rosemary Ainslie
« Reply #78 on: June 27, 2009, 08:15:45 PM »
What I do with my time and money seems to be, last time I checked, My Business.
And even you should be able to tell that the problem I identified has NOTHING to do with the choice of MOSFET, as long as all are N-channel. And all the ones I used are.

If you are so concerned, why don't YOU build the circuit, or just send me any MOSFET you would like me to test.

But I can tell you this: ANY mosfet of the correct voltage and current ratings will produce heating of the load that looks just like what Ainslie reported, if the duty cycle used is 96.7 percent ON.

Once again, it seems that people who refuse to go out and assemble any components on their own are attempting to criticize the work of those who actually do build and test things.

So, at this point, I would be glad to hear explanations, even from you, wilby, as to the cause and effect of the DUTY CYCLE ERROR in Ainslie's work that I found. Until this issue is resolved the question of the MOSFET is irrelevant.

(Your hero DrStiffler is cracking me up, over on that other forum. His "replication" is wrong in every respect, every post he's made since I've been looking has contained severe errors and absolute asinine reasoning--"I'm not even going to try her 555 timer circuit because..." for totally invalid reasons. He's using wrong voltages, regulated supplies instead of batteries, wrong captions on his scope shots, wrong monitoring points, mistaken reads of the circuit diagram, and he doesn't even seem concerned when it's pointed out to him. It's pretty hilarious when an English-speaking reader reads his posts and mine, looking for real information on a "replication" of Ainslie's published work.)

i don't care what you did or said on who... it's not really EXACT or EXACTLY until you get the right fet, REGARDLESS OF THE SPECS SHEET OR KNOWN FET BEHAVIOR. why would you even leave it open for discussion or debate by 'believers' unless you're nothing but an internet 'tick' that feeds on such juvenile drama? why not get the right fet and put it all to rest. why use words like EXACTLY when IT'S NOT EXACT? i would expect better, even from you...

why do you always avoid the explicit point being made with some bullshit excuse?  i've asked you this before, are you mental?

once again, it seems one of our members here who thinks he runs in more 'erudite' circles, is making ee101 mistakes and bitching and crying about others not building, all the while talking about how his non-exact build is exact...

you're missing the point. i agree with you on the fet issue. THE POINT IS, (read slow and careful here so you can comprehend this) you can tell me whatever you want, just don't tell me it's exact until it is...
so at this point i would love to hear your explanation of how your circuit is exact.

stiffler isn't my hero. which is one of the reason i asked you to do one of your 'debunkings' on his circuit. if i recall, when i did ask you that, you went off on some tirade about stalkers and trolls, etc.
 then you made up some bullshit about how he was scared of you and so you couldn't put up a youtube video on your own channel 'debunking' him for some asinine reason...
i can find the posts if you need me to. i know you're really busy being a pompous ass that makes EE 101 mistakes like forgetting about the invert switch.  ::)


« Last Edit: June 27, 2009, 08:50:39 PM by WilbyInebriated »

WilbyInebriated

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 3141
Re: Claimed OU circuit of Rosemary Ainslie
« Reply #79 on: June 27, 2009, 08:22:11 PM »
Oh, and the "ho-hum" part, I got that.

if you're referring to the correct fet, about time...  ::)
was that so hard? and now you are 'bulletproof', barring anymore of those ee101 mistakes.  ;)

if you were not referring to acquiring the correct fet, all i can say is "damn, it's like pulling teeth or something."
« Last Edit: June 27, 2009, 09:09:12 PM by WilbyInebriated »

ramset

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 8073
Re: Claimed OU circuit of Rosemary Ainslie
« Reply #80 on: June 27, 2009, 11:59:21 PM »
Well whatever the DOC meant by the above, its getting better

 Moving closer
From ~1.5'C in 10 min to 1'C in four minutes, now it starts to look a bit better.

Included is a scope shot of the last run.
Attached Thumbnails
cop-17-heater-rosemary-ainslie-aosc002.jpg 

http://www.energeticforum.com/renewable-energy/4314-cop-17-heater-rosemary-ainslie-5.html
« Last Edit: June 28, 2009, 12:32:15 AM by ramset »

TinselKoala

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 13958
Re: Claimed OU circuit of Rosemary Ainslie
« Reply #81 on: June 28, 2009, 08:16:23 PM »
if you're referring to the correct fet, about time...  ::)
was that so hard? and now you are 'bulletproof', barring anymore of those ee101 mistakes.  ;)

if you were not referring to acquiring the correct fet, all i can say is "damn, it's like pulling teeth or something."

Build the circuit as shown in the Quantum paper. Look at the duty cycle produced by the timer portion.
Then, tell me who has made the ee101 mistake.

Then, once you've done that, tell me logically why I should bother to do any more testing, since the ORIGINAL Ainslie circuit produces the WRONG duty cycle.

And while you're at it, tell me why Stiffler has made ee101 mistakes in every post he's made over there.

TinselKoala

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 13958
Re: Claimed OU circuit of Rosemary Ainslie
« Reply #82 on: June 28, 2009, 08:21:16 PM »
Well whatever the DOC meant by the above, its getting better

 Moving closer
From ~1.5'C in 10 min to 1'C in four minutes, now it starts to look a bit better.

Included is a scope shot of the last run.
Attached Thumbnails
cop-17-heater-rosemary-ainslie-aosc002.jpg 

And as I said in an apparently unread reply to one of Stiffler's posts over there: his mosfet isn't turning off properly and so his duty cycle, once again, is LONGER by far than the 3.7 percent specified AS PRODUCING THE OU EFFECT by Rosemary Ainslie.

But this seems to be OK, as far as the "replication police" are concerned.

But there has still been no explanation of the fundamental issue: the Ainlsie paper is WRONG--the heating produced was not accomplished with a short ON duty cycle as claimed.


http://www.energeticforum.com/renewable-energy/4314-cop-17-heater-rosemary-ainslie-5.html

TinselKoala

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 13958
Re: Claimed OU circuit of Rosemary Ainslie
« Reply #83 on: June 28, 2009, 08:31:17 PM »
Well whatever the DOC meant by the above, its getting better

 Moving closer
From ~1.5'C in 10 min to 1'C in four minutes, now it starts to look a bit better.

Included is a scope shot of the last run.
Attached Thumbnails
cop-17-heater-rosemary-ainslie-aosc002.jpg 

http://www.energeticforum.com/renewable-energy/4314-cop-17-heater-rosemary-ainslie-5.html

Stiffler's frequency: 239 kHz
Ainslie's frequency: 2.4 kHz
Stiffler's gate drive duty cycle: about 18-20 percent
Ainslie's CLAIMED duty cycle: 3.7 percent
Ainslie's ACTUAL duty cycle: 96.3 percent
Stiffler's MOSFET effective duty cycle: around 30-40 percent
Stiffler's gate drive from FG
Ainslie's gate drive from specified 555 circuit
Stiffler's mosfet source power 12 volts from regulated supply
Ainslie's mosfet source power 24 volts from batteries


So I ask again: what does Stiffler's work have to do with Rosemary Ainslie's circuit and the claims made in her paper?


TinselKoala

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 13958
Re: Claimed OU circuit of Rosemary Ainslie
« Reply #84 on: June 28, 2009, 11:42:20 PM »
Here's some more information, for whatever it's worth.

I have been testing the circuit with, in addition to my Philips and Tek oscilloscopes, a FLUKE ScopeMeter 199, as reportedly used by Ainslie.

Here's what I found: In addition to the "trace invert" setting, the "duty cycle" display function also may be set to read percent high or percent low. And the 3.6-3.7 percent value is about as low as it will go. In fact when I first hooked up the scope to my Ainslie circuit, using the FG setting "eyeballed" as I have been, it immediately read "3.7 %" .

Very suspicious, that I was able to "accidentally" set my duty cycle, by eye, exactly to the tenth of a percent (one part per thousand). This number is simply the shortest that the Fluke will report under these conditions. It may not be accurate at all.
Also, with trace invert and duty cycle polarities set properly, monitoring Channel B at the point indicated by Ainslie, the 555 timer circuit driving---the FLUKE scopemeter indicates 3.7 percent ON.

But of course, since it is indicating HIGH or battery voltage at this 3.7 percent ON duty cycle, what it really is indicating is that the LOAD is ON, conducting current, for 96.3 percent of the time.
At monitoring point A, the current-viewing resistor, the FLUKE isn't getting enough signal to lock onto a duty cycle or frequency value at all. So I must conclude that her Duty Cycle and Frequency information came from "B", the load--where "HIGH" or battery voltage means that the load is OFF, not conducting...

Just like I said.

And, just like I said, the FLUKE exhibits false triggering and gets the frequency and duty cycle wrong, in response to those inductive ringdown spikes and complex waveforms induced at HIGH (not low) gate drives.
This accounts for the reports of "random chaotic" oscillations and changes in duty cycle and frequency READINGS that were reported.

Sometimes you need a digital storage oscilloscope, and sometimes you don't. They have their advantages and their limitations.

So, the Ainslie paper is wrong; her misunderstanding of her own circuit and the use/abuse of the Fluke 199 ScopeMeter are contributing factors; the load heats plenty, just as the papers claim, but the calculation of input energy is flawed because the wrong duty cycle was used in the calculations.

S.Roksund

  • Newbie
  • *
  • Posts: 10
Re: Claimed OU circuit of Rosemary Ainslie
« Reply #85 on: June 29, 2009, 02:54:37 PM »
Re: Claimed OU circuit of Rosemary Ainslie

I am a Novice member in this forum, but a retired electronic engineer with some 35 years of experience. I take the chance that my posting is a little bit beside what is discussed in this tread.

In the last one and a half year or so I have done research on capturing energy from the inductive back spike from transformers. I use my own kind of circuit and use a microcomputer to control the switches. Experimentally I have several times – and with different duty cycles - obtained  2 - 5  times electrical energy output relative to the input.

I have read a lot in this forum and other forums - of similar circuits to the Rosemary Ainslies, and I am worried of the fact that she and Peter Kevin ASHBY has obtained a patent on a circuit which seem to operate in  similar - or quite similar ways, that many  other publizised circuits do. In my oppinion it should not be possible to get a patent on a system or circuit that have been discussed openly for such a long time.

Here is the link to the patent:
http://www.wipo.int/pctdb/en/wo.jsp?wo=1999038247&IA=IE1999000005&DISPLAY=STATUS

Do any of you have comments to this.

Regards from S.Roksund - Norway.

Groundloop

  • TPU-Elite
  • Hero Member
  • *******
  • Posts: 1736
Re: Claimed OU circuit of Rosemary Ainslie
« Reply #86 on: June 29, 2009, 03:41:10 PM »
@S.Roksund,

wrote: <obtained  2 - 5  times electrical energy output relative to the input.>

Can you post the information on how you managed to do that? If you do not want to
post the information here, please PM me and will give you my email address.

Regards,
Groundloop, Norway.

TinselKoala

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 13958
Re: Claimed OU circuit of Rosemary Ainslie
« Reply #87 on: June 29, 2009, 04:03:45 PM »
Isn't that a patent APPLICATION, not a patent?
Has an actual patent been granted?



S.Roksund

  • Newbie
  • *
  • Posts: 10
Re: Claimed OU circuit of Rosemary Ainslie
« Reply #88 on: June 29, 2009, 05:35:32 PM »
To me it look like an issued patent. It is even shown that it was patented in most countries of the world. If I am wrong on this, it is the first time I see someone applying for worldwide patentents before they have got the original patent accepted. But - I am not an expert on patent laws, I just know that one can not patent something that has been discussed and shown openly. Just trying to get things right here.
 
SR

S.Roksund

  • Newbie
  • *
  • Posts: 10
Re: Claimed OU circuit of Rosemary Ainslie
« Reply #89 on: June 29, 2009, 05:37:38 PM »
To Groundloop
I will contact you.

Regards
SR