@99: Thank you so much for doing that. I was afraid for a while that I was going nutzo. Not that that would be bad, necessarily...

Do you mind if I post a link over there to this post, so those with eyes to see can take a look?

(Now, she is presuming to teach me how to use and read an oscilloscope...       )

EDIT: I really don't like the "tone" she is taking with me. This is starting to get a bit personal, and I will be happy to pull out the "big guns" of accurate calorimetry to blow her out of the water. There's the matter of the patent applications...which in her mind seem to have the status of "patents"...and the supposed confirmations by independent labs, which turn out to be no such thing....and of course the Quantum circuit, which simply turns the mosfet ON and heats the load through simple Joule heating from the current conduction...

I suppose arrogance is a necessary concomitant of prevarication and mendacity, if one wants to enhance seeming credibility among the credulous. But it's the arrogant liers that are the worst, because they will never never admit that they are wrong and have been shovelling you a line of bs.

Sure. I don't mind.

What might have caught them: If you look at the MOSFET Drain with the scope referenced to ground, the wave form will look like a 3.7% duty cycle. But in reality it looks that way because the MOSFET is pulling the coil down to ground, 96% of the time. After all, the MOSFET is connected as an INVERTER 

.99

Thanks.
Yep, as I explained in one of the videos, when the voltage at her monitoring point "A" goes HIGH (to battery voltage positive rail) , that means the MOSFET is OFF. And her circuit turns the mosfet OFF in the range of about 1 to 10 percent of the time. It cannot be adjusted to turn the MOSFET ON for a short duty cycle, with the component values given, as you've confirmed.

Again, I really appreciate your taking a look at this. I posted a link, but I'm pretty sure it won't do any good.

I would like to get on with testing the main OU claim. My results so far, using a 3.7 percent duty cycle and tuning the gate drive for maximum ringdown weirdness (where the battery-monitoring voltmeter goes crazy from the spikes returning on the input), I get heating of the load that seems similar to what is reported in the Quantum article and the paper. So my main beef is with the published diagram, not the data itself.  It seems that a true 3.7 percent duty cycle can heat the load, with a similar profile to what Ainslie claimed.
BUT--my control experiment, which used the very same load resistor-inductor, and a DC current-limited source supplying the same average power as was given to the load in the experimental condition (about 1.1 watts, in line with Ainslie's number)--the control experiment causes almost exactly the same heating. So I am not detecting anything like COP>17. Not even COP>1, at this point. But the mosfet gets pretty warm too, and after all, I still don't have the IRFPG50 to play with.

There seemed to be another feature to her circuit.
Was it not mentioned that the batteries lasted a long time, considering the amount of heat produced?
I'm a newbie, but I suppose with a 3.7% duty cycle, your batteries are supposed to last a while? Yet, if the inverted duty cycle is the actual case, how long could her batteries be expected last?

Well, that's a question, isn't it? In the EIT paper she says the batteries were 12 volt, 20 Amp-hour rated. In the discussion thread where she is posting now, she says they were "car batteries", which are usually in the range 80-100 Amp-hours, and could even be as high as 200 Amp-hours.

So, I got two brand new 12V 20 A-h batteries, charged them fully with an 8-amp automotive "automatic" battery charger, and running the experiment over 4 hours continuously at 3.7 percent, the no-load voltage of the pair is still 25.4 volts. (It was 25.6 when charging was complete.)

It will take a long time for the batteries to deplete noticeably. The current drain is about 1.2 amps when ON, so figuring 25 volts x 1.2 amps that's 30 watts when ON, and on for 3.7 percent of the time that's about 1.1 watts average. They will go a long time before there's much of a voltage drop below 24 volts. Ten days? Maybe.

I don't think the reported experiment was done with the long duty cycle that the circuit produces, because of mosfet heating. And my load gets well over 110 degrees C when run with good batteries at long duty cycles. But even making 30 watts continuously, the batteries will last a long time. Many hours.

There are so many inconsistencies popping up in what's been reported that I'm not sure what to think. Ainslie isn't giving any actual information, if you look at her posts. She's engaging in theoretical discussions and ad hom attacks against me but isn't answering any actual questions about the circuit or the experiment.

you get that $10 fet yet? or are you a hypocrite?

@poynt99
what fet did you use? the same as tk? or the right one?

As I have explained several times, my local suppliers do not stock them, and I would have to order a minimum of 10. I don't need these expensive transistors in order to prove that Ainslie's circuit does not produce 17 times more energy out than in.
And I have also offered to test any transistor anybody would care to send me.

And the fet used by poynt99 is specified right there on the circuit he made, and if you would learn to read instead of troll you might be able to see it.

As I have explained several times, my local suppliers do not stock them, and I would have to order a minimum of 10. I don't need these expensive transistors in order to prove that Ainslie's circuit does not produce 17 times more energy out than in.
And I have also offered to test any transistor anybody would care to send me.

And the fet used by poynt99 is specified right there on the circuit he made, and if you would learn to read instead of troll you might be able to see it.

re: your first paragraph. ie:more tk BS
http://cgi.ebay.com/IRFPG50_W0QQitemZ370108354282QQcmdZViewItemQQptZLH_DefaultDomain_0?hash=item562c2d4eea&_trksid=p4634.c0.m14.l1262&_trkparms=%7C293%3A10%7C294%3A30
look, $4! gasp! and if you would learn to use the web for something other than being a tick, you might be able to find a single IRFPG50 fet for half of what you claim they cost.

re: your second paragraph. it was a rhetorical question, more of another poke at you to get the right one. obviously...

edit: i'm curious though, and feel free to jump to the conclusion that ainslie is my new hero. how much did you spend on those "brand new" 20ah batteries?

re: your first paragraph. ie:more tk BS
http://cgi.ebay.com/IRFPG50_W0QQitemZ370108354282QQcmdZViewItemQQptZLH_DefaultDomain_0?hash=item562c2d4eea&_trksid=p4634.c0.m14.l1262&_trkparms=%7C293%3A10%7C294%3A30
look, $4! gasp! and if you would learn to use the web for something other than being a tick, you might be able to find a single IRFPG50 fet for half of what you claim they cost.

re: your second paragraph. it was a rhetorical question, more of another poke at you to get the right one. obviously...

edit: i'm curious though, and feel free to jump to the conclusion that ainslie is my new hero. how much did you spend on those "brand new" 20ah batteries?

Well, clearly you have the ability to order your own parts and build your own circuit, since you can use a web catalog. Oh, wait--using the catalog only requires a single finger for typing. Actually building something requires opposable thumbs.

If you want to buy that from ebay and send it to me, I'll deduct the cost from the bill I send you for the consulting work.

And the batteries cost "somebody" seventy-six dollars each. But I just had to walk around the building to get them.

Now, from your elevated pulpit, can you read me the gospel chapter on how the choice of any particular N-channel mosfet would make a likety-split of difference in the duty cycle issue? And why do you care so much anyway? Why don't you go attack her, there are a LOT more holes in her story than you will ever find in mine.
Zipons! Hah!

All
Something else "Very Good' is happening this week.[in regard to this circuit]


S.Roksund

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.


Re: Claimed OU circuit of Rosemary Ainslie
« Reply #94 on: June 30, 2009, 08:12:09 PM »

    * Reply with quoteQuote

It is good if no patent has been issued.
I will post my electronic schema and a component list - as
well as the measurement methods I have used, here in this forum.
My intention is  that someone (hopefully) will make a replicate and test.
When I get the circuit and measurements confirmed, I will start making
units that can be tested in practice - before I start the production.
If all fails, - well it has been exciting all the way, and I have learnt a lot.
I am leaving to celebrate my mother (98), so no posting until next week.
Rgds
Sigvald