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 643640 times)

WilbyInebriated

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 3141
Re: Claimed OU circuit of Rosemary Ainslie
« Reply #150 on: July 06, 2009, 07:35:22 PM »
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!

well, you clearly have the ability to make BS up on the spot and then misdirect and obfuscate when called on it... i am assuming $4! is still "expensive" for you then? or is it that ebay is as difficult for you to use as google? or do you just like posting outright falsehoods as justification for doing it wrong?

send me your address and i will send you the part, you worthless bum.

building "something" may or may not require opposable thumbs. from your elevated pulpit do let us know when you get around to building it "right"...

utilitarian

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 816
Re: Claimed OU circuit of Rosemary Ainslie
« Reply #151 on: July 07, 2009, 02:46:41 AM »
well, you clearly have the ability to make BS up on the spot and then misdirect and obfuscate when called on it... i am assuming $4! is still "expensive" for you then? or is it that ebay is as difficult for you to use as google? or do you just like posting outright falsehoods as justification for doing it wrong?

send me your address and i will send you the part, you worthless bum.

building "something" may or may not require opposable thumbs. from your elevated pulpit do let us know when you get around to building it "right"...

He is not being paid to do any of this, and you are not paying to have it done, so your level of agitation is somewhat comical.

poynt99

  • TPU-Elite
  • Hero Member
  • *******
  • Posts: 3582
Re: Claimed OU circuit of Rosemary Ainslie
« Reply #152 on: July 07, 2009, 03:57:46 AM »
Sorry TK,

I could not find a 2SK1548 model in PSpice. The closest part number was a 2SK1544, and it is quite a different animal by the looks of it.

I've just done some more reading over at the other forum, and also in the EIT paper, and I am almost in disbelief  :o There is such a comedy of errors now from Ainslie herself, her co-author Donovan, and the guy that apparently designed the 555 circuit and wrote the Quantum article, that I don't know where to begin.

Perhaps it's best I don't  ;D

.99

Kator01

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 898
Re: Claimed OU circuit of Rosemary Ainslie
« Reply #153 on: July 07, 2009, 12:36:57 PM »
Hello poynt99, hello TK

I agree on your statement "Perhaps it's best I don't".

Now this guy Donovan  either shows a total lack of electronic knowledge or he ist just poking fun on gullible members in this forum.
He makes the members believe that you can regain most of the E_mag-Energy in a coil by a flybackdiode and at the same time have all the termal energy generated by the same current available. It does not occur to him by this oversimplified example he presents that energy-balance demands E_in = E_mag + E-thermal. So for me this discussion over there develops into a comedy-show. It is very obvious that this Donovan is just an invention of Rosemary... if this person Rosemary ever exists as such in the first place
This thing is the worst desinformation-activity of a special desinfo-group I have seen up to now.
Waste of time

Regards

Kator01

poynt99

  • TPU-Elite
  • Hero Member
  • *******
  • Posts: 3582
Re: Claimed OU circuit of Rosemary Ainslie
« Reply #154 on: July 07, 2009, 02:29:16 PM »
Quite a change of tune (and tone) over at the other forum now.

It's pretty much self-explanatory.

.99

ramset

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 8073
Re: Claimed OU circuit of Rosemary Ainslie
« Reply #155 on: July 07, 2009, 03:05:38 PM »
A question put to Rosemary

. As soon as the Mosfet switches OFF, the inductor will do all it can to preserve the flow of current that was already established through itself, and consequently, the rest of the circuit....But still, none of these conditions produces, nor necessitates, any reverse current flowing through the Mosfet (in the body diode).Altair
-------------------------------------------------------------------------
Ok. I'm going to try and answer this. But I need to remind you all - all those that agree with Altair on this issue. I am an amateur. No-one taught me about electric current flow - and no-one taught me about the nature of inductors and their need to 'retain a directional flow in current'. It was entirely omittted from my frame of reference. From technicians all the way up to some highly qualified electrical engineers - many of whom are acknowledge experts in the art, those many who helped build or evaluate the circuit - never tried to teach me conventional current flow. And this was despite pretty constant discussion over a decade and many instances where I asked the question directly. It used to puzzle me - as I was anxious to learn this. I was looking for a common frame of reference. Then I realised that they were probably simply accommodating my view of this - precisely because it was different. Maybe, therefore it could possibly account for the anomalies that were evident in these results.

So, Altair, I need to impose on you to hear my view point. If it is wrong then the measured results will refute my analysis. But my lack of understanding conventional flow has never been addressed. You will note that my knowledge, such as it is, of conventional current flow eventully relied on my own research. It is in two earlier consecutive posts on page 6, (from memory) in this thread. And both argue that conventional current flow, based on a concept of the 'flow of electrons' is simply illogical. But having said that - I happen to be the 'beginner' here and you guys are just so much better trained and experienced. If I am wrong then it will very quickly be shown. In fact henieck was the first person who ever showed me that - at its least - it could be argued that 'free floating' electrons could be responsible for charge distribution between two terminals. But even that entirely contradicts Pauli's exclusion principle, based as it is on the argument that two electrons (charged particles from the lepton family) cannot 'share' the same path. While Pauli was referring to the an atom's energy levels - and we are here looking at a far grosser field of application - then perhaps this law too, needs to be modified.

This has been a remarkably extensive 'apologia' and I think it may well stress the tolerance of such as Dr Stiffler, so - apologies all round. But I feel it is really important that you know where I come in.

I'm going to post this - because I've found that long posts cannot be easily edited - and I may well need to do so. I'll continue in the next post.

2
As soon as the Mosfet switches OFF, the inductor will do all it can to preserve the flow of current that was already established through itself, and consequently, the rest of the circuit....But still, none of these conditions produces, nor necessitates, any reverse current flowing through the Mosfet (in the body diode).Altair
--------------------------------------------------------------------------
I'm still trying to answer this question. So I've duplicated the reference. And as pointed out in the previous post my 'concept' of curent flow is not consistent with classical analysis. But as I do not understand classical concept I'm going to see if I can share my own.

To start with I need to refer to well known induction laws. In this, I think it was Farraday, established that changing magnetic fields induce electric fields. Then Maxwell argued and proved that changing electric fields also induce magnetic fields. But no-one to this day has found an electric field in a simple magnet on magnet interaction. Put two bar magnets together within a critical proximity and the one will attach to the other. That interaction shows an energetic movement of one or both magnets towards each other in space and over time - that, at its least, requires an energetic interaction. And - in that interaction - there is no evident manifestation of an electric field. It may, indeed, be hidden within the body of the magnet. But if it is there it has never been found. Now. I have discussed this point with acknowledged experts in the field - and, to a man - I have been assured that while the electric field has not been shown to exist in this magnet on magnet interaction - it is, nonetheless, assumed to exist. In fact I need to refer to a paper written on this but cannot, for the life of me, find it again. But there was an attempt at finding this field and the results were inconclusive. This also means that the lack of this electric field has been addressed. For some reason it has also apparently been put on hold - presumably in the hopes of finding a means of detecting it? I just don't know.

Well this is the first radical departure from known physics. In effect, if this magnet on magnet interaction - in fact manifests no electric field - then it may indicate that the magnetic force is an entirely independant field that is extant - as a newly identified and independant force - like gravity - or the strong nuclear force. And - in this way - the electromagnetic force may simply be a secondary force, relying, in its essential definition, on the existence of that primary field. That was the foundational basis of the field model.

I wont bore you with the tedious deductions that led to the field model except to reference one single effect that I have found resonates with most people. But I'll reference it in the next post - again, because I have found that I cannot edit my posts if they're too long. Apologies to Aaron if this, in fact, is not allowed.


3
As soon as the Mosfet switches OFF, the inductor will do all it can to preserve the flow of current that was already established through itself, and consequently, the rest of the circuit....But still, none of these conditions produces, nor necessitates, any reverse current flowing through the Mosfet (in the body diode).Altair
-------------------------------------------------------------------------

Here's the thing. Imagine that one has a machine that propels rocks in a vacuum. And it always applies a constant force so there are no extraneous forces to take into account. Under those circumstances then the smaller the rock the further the throw and vice versa. But if the rock were too big the machine could not lift it. And if it were too small the machine could not detect it. That's a boundary constraint.

(By the way there is an inverse proportional relationship suggested between velocity and mass - in that interaction. It is not required to answer Altair's quesion but I will refer to it in due course. It may possibly interest Armagdn03.)

The second point is this. All things are the sum of their parts. If we were to grind down a rock to its finest parts we'd find collections of atoms and molecules that formed the amalagam of the rock in its earlier bound state.
That's my definition of a principle of correspondence.

These were the tools that I used to determine the properties of a magnetic field. Again - just to get to the nub and to exclude the tedious dialectic that requires it I'll just deal with the conclusions.

My proposal is that magnetic fields comprise particles. They are too small and too fast for light to detect the particle. In effect they are outside the boundary constraints of light itself. They are magnetic dipoles that attach - north to south - head to toe. They form long strings that eventually close in on themselves to form circles. The whole field comprises many, many such strings to form the shape of a toroid. The particle, being a magnetic dipole, continually adjusts its position to its neighbouring dipoles in the field. This necessitates a compelementary movement of every particle in that entire field. This gives the field a fixed justification or direction. The force of the entire field maintains that direction. The particle is referred to as a zipon. It has a velocity of 2c and its mass is half that of a photon. All particles are composites of this zipon. The charge of the whole field is perfectly neutral and the zipons move to maintain that neutrality. Therefore each part of the entire field is perfectly balanced with every other part to produce a net zero charge.

In a simple bar magnet that symmetry is broken because one half of the orbit is shielded from the other half.

4a
As soon as the Mosfet switches OFF, the inductor will do all it can to preserve the flow of current that was already established through itself, and consequently, the rest of the circuit....But still, none of these conditions produces, nor necessitates, any reverse current flowing through the Mosfet (in the body diode).Altair
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Still the same question - but still the circuitous path (no pun intended) to answer it. Hope this is all readable and understandable. Anyway - fingers crossed and I'll plod on in the real knowledge that I'm taxing your patience. It is just that I SO need to make these points and hopefully to make them clearly. The arguments have been laboriously covered in my field model. That's where the actual dialectic comes in. But this, at its least, may serve as a synopsis.

So. The next point is purely hypothetical. Imagine that the universe comprises a backdrop of these magnetic fields. What if all of space comprises these little undetectable zipons that move around at twice light speed but always maintain that perfect charge distribution. They are entirely undetectable yet their force is - in fact - in every nook and cranny of the universe. Because the strings join - the influence on any part will be entirely consistent with the whole. Those strings would have to be really, really long, and really, really thin. And each string would have to move in 'lock step' with every other string. The outer strings would need to be longer than the inner - but the 'shoulder to shoulder' lateral arrangement of those strings would counter the distribution of charge and energy - that is makes for this required 'smoothness'. So. Hypothetically, this could be a fair description of the field - as a backdrop or a skeletal frame - to the condition of apparent vacuum of space. A really big toroid comprising an uncountable number of these tiny zipons. This, I think, may now occur to you as a possible source of both dark matter and dark energy required by our physicists.

But, in any event. Let's hypothesise further. What would happen if one of those strings broke?

4b
As soon as the Mosfet switches OFF, the inductor will do all it can to preserve the flow of current that was already established through itself, and consequently, the rest of the circuit....But still, none of these conditions produces, nor necessitates, any reverse current flowing through the Mosfet (in the body diode).Altair
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
The last question was 'what would happen if one of those strings broke?' I'm not too concerned as to the cause. It could be due to the unfortunate juxtaposition of two like charges in a chance coincident positioning of two or more zipons. Or, as I've described it in my field model, perhaps God Himself simply snipped one of those threads. In any event - once out of the smooth structure of the field I imagine that the truants would lose velocity and gain mass in an inverse proportion. In other words they would 'slow down' to the speed of light and light, itself, would find the zipon. That change in its manifest nature is likened to, and indeed proposed as - the source of all nebulae in space. Just a lot of zipons that have tumbled out of nowhere to structure into huge piles of manifest zipons.

But, in its state out of the field I've referred to the zipon as a truant. It is still a magnetic dipole but it no longer has the cohesive and coherent condition that it expressed in the field. Just a mass of manifest truants that have tumbled together from the force of a broken string of zipons. Like a pile of sugar - or clouds from a nuclear explosion - or falling leaves from a tree in autumn - or iron filings from a lathe.

However for symmetry - while some truants may have slowed down, equally therefore some truants may have speeded up. Those that have increased their velocity would do it at the expense of their mass in direct opposition to the those that increased their mass at the expense of their velocity. The smaller truant is referred to as the antitruant. And because of the boundary constraint, the zipons in the field can find neither truant. The one is too big and the other is too small. In effect, both truants remain invisible to the field. The field simply closes ranks to compensate for that broken string and they continue their march, ever forward, entirely oblivious to the break in that string and to the loss of the string, to the field.

I want to refer to the next points in a single paragraph - with apologies to purists who would require a fuller description. Again, it is fully described in the field model itself. This is merely a synopsis relating to the conclusions of the model rather than to an account of the logic that precedes the conclusion.

Virtual particles are those particles that lose their mass - regain their velocity and slip back into a string in that background universal structure. Stable particles are those truants that 'link' with their antitruant across the field, the 'ground zero' so to speak or the great divide. The point being that in this movement towards each other brings their mass/velocity back into co-incidence with the field which means that they are no longer invisible to the field. They would then be moved - by the force of the field at that point that they interacted with each other. Therefore, the antitruant is also a quark - here defined as that truant that anchors a composite out of the field. And composite truants can only be stable if they comprise 2, 3 or 9 truants. All other composites between 4 to 8 would variously subdivide into 1, 2 or three composites. The model also determines that 2 composites comprise the photon, 3 the electron and 9 the proton. But I'll return to this point at a much later stage - when and if anyone wants a fuller explanation of the field model. Otherwise a fuller description is largely irrelevant. I think I've covered the more salient features as needed to answer Altair's question.

5a

I think I'm nearing the point where I can finally answer the question. Apologies for taxing everyone by telling them so much more than they may want to know. In any event. The end looms large. Please bear with me. And again to the purists, the following statements need to be argued. But, again, this is just an abbreviated, broad brush stroke account. It is more fully explained in that model.

The next point is this. The truants in that nebulus are still simply very small magnets and they do what all magnets do. They try to congregate in orderly formations. They cannot, however, re-constitute that string. Rather do they cohere or fuse into stable or virtual particles in a series of 'small steps' so to speak. The first amalgam is into photons and electrons. The second more complex step is into the structure of a proton which, with it, comes the first real closed system away from the nebulus and out of the field. But in the accretion or 'fusion' into this hydrogen atom - and really to satisfy the symmetries of 'charge distribution' - it is proposed that the creation of this atom is also accompanied by a field of zipons that decay from truants in the nebulus itself. It is proposed that these zipons form the energy levels or hydrogen lines that are measurably evident. It is these energy levels themselves that it is proposed, maintains the hydrogen atom as the first truly closed system away from the primary fields of the universe itself.

Then further accretion - and the hydrogen atom itself is massed with other hydrogen systematically generating the structure of a new star. However, the actual binding of those atoms and their energy levels is at the cost of yet more traunts and antitruants from that same nebulus. They form fields that circle that atomic structure - holding one atom hydrogen atom away from another. This is the point. The actual material of the star body is held together by an unseen binding force of zipons that decayed from the truants and antitruants to form a kind of glue. This first holds star amalgams together and then - on a more universal scale - all amalgams.

The proposal is, therefore, that in the visible evidence of any gross amalgam, be it battery acid, iron, rocks, whole mountains, buildings, whatever - the thing that actually binds such structures are always zipons. These fields circle the atoms and determine the kind of 'abodes' of such atoms and their alignments in chaotic or structured crystalline formations. We don't see them because they orbit. Therefore, regardless of their justification or direction, the field is neutral. And we cannot find them because their velocity exceeds light speed. They are, therefore, outside the boundary constraints of light itself.

The existence of this field is relevant because it is proposed that it is these fields that move as current in electric energy through circuit components. These same fields manifest as flame in 'fire' which I'll discuss later. I mention it here because it most easily illustrates this particle. But for now, it is just necessary to point to these fields, entirely extraneous to the atomic structure, that are responsible for ensuring the equal distribution of atoms within amalgams. If the atom's basic structure is ionised therefore requiring some equal distribution of charge through the positioning of those abodes - then these zipons align the atoms to achieve that balance.

So it is proposed that current flow is - in fact - the flow, not of electrons that are essentially of like charge and therefore mutually repellent - but of zipons that easily structure into plastic formations, can extend their influence through space, and can adjust their own and other atomic charge by the careful positioning of atoms - one against another and can move to realign molecules and atoms so that the charge distribution is better balanced.

5b
As soon as the Mosfet switches OFF, the inductor will do all it can to preserve the flow of current that was already established through itself, and consequently, the rest of the circuit....But still, none of these conditions produces, nor necessitates, any reverse current flowing through the Mosfet (in the body diode).Altair
-------------------------------------------------------------------------

So here's my take on current flow through the circuit. The material of the battery acid comprises ionised molecules and atoms that essentially have a like charge and are therefore mutually repellent. Between these molecules and atoms are fields of zipons that spin in the opposite direction to those molecules and atoms to counter the ionised condition of those atoms at the source. But having a like spin they themselves are mutually repellent - the one field to the other. Their object is to change their spin - realign this to accommodate their own mutual repulsion. And by so doing they then rearrange the abodes of those molecules and atoms at the source, thereby diminishing the effects of that like charge. In so doing they also diminish the potential difference at the source.

But they cannot simply change their orbits, any more than a flux field from a permanent magnet can change its orbit. However, if they move from one terminal to another they effectively describe an orbit. And then their re-introduction to the field in that amalgam can then also enable that required 'changed spin'. In effect they change their position in space. Just think of a bar magnet. It has to change it's actual physical position to adjust to another magnetic field. The same with these little fields. They also move through space by interacting with the inductive and conductive material of the circuit components themselves. That way they reach the opposite terminal with an opposite spin and can re-introduce themselves into the material at the source with an adjusted spin.

But they do not interact with anything in that circuit other than the circuit's own binding magnetic fields. The zipon is restricted to its own boundary constraint. Anything that moves at light speed is too big and too slow to be seen or detected. Matter iself is invisible to this particle. It simply only sees and only interacts with those binding fields because these binding magnetic fields are precisely the right velocity and mass to enable an interaction. And both the zipon particle and the field of zipons are always neutral. It is just the justification and direction of their spin that determines their charge.

Therefore with the full force of potential difference measured at the supply source, it can overwhelm these binding zipons in circuit components to move them out of the structure of the circuit material or interact with them to move themselves through the circuit. Their only object is to reach the opposite terminal in order to change their justification. And having changed this they also realign the molecules and atoms so that that they no longer repel each other. They simply realign their own spin as it relates to the atoms in the source amalgam. That way they diminish the potential difference of the source amalgam over time.

6
As soon as the Mosfet switches OFF, the inductor will do all it can to preserve the flow of current that was already established through itself, and consequently, the rest of the circuit....But still, none of these conditions produces, nor necessitates, any reverse current flowing through the Mosfet (in the body diode).Altair
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Now, finally, I think I can answer your question. The transfer of these fields through the circuit material is proposed to be at twice light speed. The extruded magnetic fields across the resistor is also therefore, instantaneous, with respect to our own time frame. The justification of that extruded magnetic field is determined by the applied potential difference from the source.

So. During that ON period of the duty cycle when the switch is open - these zipons from the battery supply source line up in fields through the circuit material and across the circuit itself to discharge at the opposite terminal. Let's call that justification or path - south/north. And the extruded fields from the resistor/inductor would then, correspondingly, be north/south.

When the switch is closed and the battery can no longer deliver any current, then the extruded fields collapse. Collapsing magnetic fields are simply magnetic fields changing in time. They induce a reversal in the voltage which is also a measure of the newly applied potential difference from the material of the resistor itself. Changing magnetic fields induce an electric field. The justification of the voltage has changed - say south/north so the resultant current will change, let's say north/south. Those same zipons that have not yet discharged at the terminal now do an 'about face' so to speak and move towards the postive terminal of the battery. Their justification is such that they then recharge the material at the source.

In effect, the fields have simply flowed in the reverse direction to recharge the material that they had previously intended to discharge. I don't mean, by the word 'intended' that they sat around and discussed the issue. Just that they are compelled to move in the direction of the applied potential difference. The applied potential difference during the off period of the duty cycle is in reverse to the on period.

The bias of the flyback and the body diode in the MOSFET enables this flow during the off period, as their polarity is now consistent with the flow of current.

The point about the flow of zipons as opposed to the flow of current is, the known speed of current flow would be enabled - seen to be at light speed - but proposed herein to be at 2c. The zipon is able to change direction and justification. The zipon is not constrained to the exclusion priniciple as, far from being mutually repellent, zipons would attach, exactly as magnets attach - in long plastic lines through the circuit itself. And their path would be restricted through polarised materials such as the diodes - depending on their justification as they respond to different potential differences. Then the recharge system would simply force the realignment of these same zipons to their previously charged state within the material of the battery itself.

I hope that's answered the question Altair. And if I've told you much, much more than you intended to ask - apologies.
End quote

Chet

PS
This is good ,It will not take years to have this "revealed"one way or the other.
And some big names "in the business " are helping!

This is the proof is in the pudding part
« Last Edit: July 07, 2009, 05:57:46 PM by ramset »

TinselKoala

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 13958
Re: Claimed OU circuit of Rosemary Ainslie
« Reply #156 on: July 07, 2009, 03:19:58 PM »
Thank you for posting that, Chet.

The tests of a good theory are these: Does it make testable, falsifiable predictions? Does it account in a consistent manner for experimental observations already made? Does it account, in a testable falsifiable way, for new observations? And finally, is it consistent with what is already known about the world?

(Note that good theories can be falsified, and they are, all the time. "Goodness" doesn't mean correctness in this context.)

And there are many other, finer points, like: Are the constructs well-defined? Are there mathematical formulations for any parts of the theory, and is this math consistent and correct? Has the theory been peer-reviewed and published for comment and criticism?

And so forth.

If a theory has trouble passing these minimal tests, and yet includes entities such as "zipons" and "truants" and "antitruants" that are unknown to conventional science, what is to distinguish it from the rantings of a paranoid schizophrenic?

TinselKoala

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 13958
Re: Claimed OU circuit of Rosemary Ainslie
« Reply #157 on: July 07, 2009, 05:00:56 PM »
OK, for my morning blood pressure boost, I read up on the recent posts "over there". Hah!
It seems that Rosemary has a lot of time and energy to answer the difficult questions, but is ignoring my simpler, easier questions regarding verifiable facts.
So I asked them again.

(Quoting my post)

I see you're having fun answering hard questions. But why don't you answer my easy ones?

1) Did any of your patent APPLICATIONS result in the actual granting of PATENTS, and if so, where are the patent documents available?

2) Was the circuit published in the Quantum article used to generate the data in that article and in the EIT paper, or not?

3) Can you assure us that the energy balance calculations in the article and the paper do NOT suffer from the "duty cycle" problem that I have identified? I mean "assure" not "assert." I'd like to see some original data from the experiment and exact details of calculations. After all, the claim is COP>17. Surely something that robust can survive a little scrutiny.

4) Do you (or other readers) realize that if the data was generated with the Quantum circuit, the energy balance conclusions are Wrong, and so--all theoretical speculation based upon them are, at best, unsupported by evidence..???

Easy questions, straightforward. And all of them are critical this "discussion."

(End quoted post)

The thing that I find perhaps most ironic is that she is repeatedly pleading for someone to replicate her "results".
Well, I've done so. I've used her published circuit to show that the heating from that circuit is nothing unusual as the mosfet is ON most of the time.

I've given her the benefit of the doubt and used a 3.7 percent ON duty cycle and shown heating of the load that is in line with the load heating that she reported--within experimental error. So no real problem here--even though I obtained it with (4 different) "wrong" mosfets.

BUT: in a properly-performed control experiment, where I fed the same load with DC at a constant power level (constant regulated voltage and current) that was the same as the computed AVERAGE power coming from the Ainslie circuit at 3.7 percent ON, the load heated to a little above the same temperature and at the same rate of temperature increase as in the Ainslie experimental condition.

Note that this procedure is different from the "control experiment" used by Ainslie which relies on "guesstimations" of power dissipated in a load resistor over a long time period.

My preliminary conclusion USING THE WRONG MOSFETS (there, Wilby, you happy?) is that the Ainslie circuit produces no effects that are not also produced by straight DC at the same average power levels. (The Ainslie circuit also heats up the MOSFET, so less overall power is actually delivered to the load. Also, the Ainslie circuit allows a small amount of power from the clocking circuit to leak to the load. In a proper experiment these amounts should be quantified.)

My hypothesis for future research is that the "proper" IRFPG40 mosfet will not perform substantially differently in this experiment. BUT--in fact the 2sk1548 has a guaranteed +-30 volt gate-to-source voltage max, while the IRF unit only specifies +- 20 volts max--so it is indeed possible that the mosfet used in Ainslie's work was being overdriven. She has made statements about blowing mosfets...

(EDIT: as Wilbyshouldbedeleted so politely pointed out, I made a boo-boo in the post: it should say IRFPG50, not IRFPG40. I certainly hope that error doesn't cause anybody to waste time building the WRONG CIRCUIT, like the one in Ainslie's still-not-retracted Quantum article.)
« Last Edit: July 07, 2009, 10:15:40 PM by TinselKoala »

WilbyInebriated

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 3141
Re: Claimed OU circuit of Rosemary Ainslie
« Reply #158 on: July 07, 2009, 07:51:37 PM »
My hypothesis for future research is that the "proper" IRFPG40 mosfet will not perform substantially differently in this experiment. BUT--in fact the 2sk1548 has a guaranteed +-30 volt gate-to-source voltage max, while the IRF unit only specifies +- 20 volts max--so it is indeed possible that the mosfet used in Ainslie's work was being overdriven. She has made statements about blowing mosfets...

wow! that's brilliant  ::)
let us know when you get around to do the "proper" and "correct" experiment that should go along with that hypothesis. you know, the one i have been asking you about since the first page of this thread...
wasn't it a irpfg50? and you were giving me crap about not being able to read. you make me laugh tk.

TinselKoala

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 13958
Re: Claimed OU circuit of Rosemary Ainslie
« Reply #159 on: July 07, 2009, 10:05:22 PM »
wow! that's brilliant  ::)
let us know when you get around to do the "proper" and "correct" experiment that should go along with that hypothesis. you know, the one i have been asking you about since the first page of this thread...
wasn't it a irpfg50? and you were giving me crap about not being able to read. you make me laugh tk.

Look!!

TinselKoala made a TYPO!!!

Call out the RCMP, the FBI, CSIS, and the Salvation Army, there's something wrotten in Denmark!! Clearly all his work is invalidated, since "4" and "5" are on completely different parts of the keyboard...

Check your PM, I've sent you an address so you can send me your mosfet. Be sure to wrap it in foil to protect from static. If it gets here and doesn't work for some reason, it will clearly be your fault.

WilbyInebriated

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 3141
Re: Claimed OU circuit of Rosemary Ainslie
« Reply #160 on: July 07, 2009, 10:26:20 PM »
Look!!

TinselKoala made a TYPO!!!

Call out the RCMP, the FBI, CSIS, and the Salvation Army, there's something wrotten in Denmark!! Clearly all his work is invalidated, since "4" and "5" are on completely different parts of the keyboard...

Check your PM, I've sent you an address so you can send me your mosfet. Be sure to wrap it in foil to protect from static. If it gets here and doesn't work for some reason, it will clearly be your fault.

you forgot the MIB...  ::)
no, it's clearly invalidated because you have done it incorrectly 4? times now, and haven't got any? fet to self-oscillate. obviously...

wrotten? you make me laugh.

TinselKoala

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 13958
Re: Claimed OU circuit of Rosemary Ainslie
« Reply #161 on: July 07, 2009, 10:52:38 PM »
you forgot the MIB...  ::)
no, it's clearly invalidated because you have done it incorrectly 4? times now, and haven't got any? fet to self-oscillate. obviously...

wrotten? you make me laugh.

Try not to pee your pants. It makes the smell even worse.

So now, it's "self-oscillation". Before it was "random chaotic" oscillations or "non-periodic resonance."
Well, since you are the expert on self-oscillation (careful, you'll grow hair on your palm, or is it easier to use your foot...) perhaps you can publish a screen shot of your oscillating MOSFET oscillating, so I can be sure you aren't sending me a dud...


EDIT and by the way, in her latest, Rosemary explains just how to get overunity power measurements, and with her technique it appears that the mosfet isn't critical--in fact, it isn't even required, as just about any oscillating circuit will behave as she describes, and will give "overunity" gain when measured and calculated as she recommends. The duty cycle doesn't even matter.

"And that is all that is required to prove the over unity claim. It will not matter what duty cycle you use. It will not matter what frequency you run the test at. The sum over the shunt resistor will always be less than the product over the load resistor. That's strictly in terms of classical analysis of energy delivered by the battery and dissipated at the load. You do not need to be a genius to see that the one will inevitably be greater than the other."

That's all, it's easy. Even you, Wilby, should be able to prove the overunity claim, using her technique.


WilbyInebriated

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 3141
Re: Claimed OU circuit of Rosemary Ainslie
« Reply #162 on: July 07, 2009, 11:01:16 PM »
it's a simple question, i asked it on page one. yet you avoid it like, how did you say? a politician.

any plans on doing it right?

nice try on the latest misdirection though

TinselKoala

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 13958
Re: Claimed OU circuit of Rosemary Ainslie
« Reply #163 on: July 07, 2009, 11:12:08 PM »
You mean this post?
You want me to confirm a diode on the FG output---Just like Rosemary used...where's Rosemary's diode there? I don't see it.
Do I plan to use a calorimeter--just like Rosemary did?   No, wait--she didn't use a calorimeter. She just used a "draft shield" of some non-specified type, and showed no data for the construction or performance of the "shield".
By now it should be clear, even to you, that even Rosemary Ainslie herself has no idea what circuit was used to make the data in the Quantum article or the EIT paper. Since I have asked her repeatedly to confirm or correct the circuit and she hasn't done so---I feel free to use whatever components I like to make my replication, and it's up to someone else to show, BY COMPARISON TO THE CORRECT CIRCUIT, whether or not I am using the "exact" parts or not.
After all, other "replicators" add capacitors, use different valued loads, different frequencies, different duty cycles, different transistors, and so forth--yet they don't have their "wilbys" grafted to their backs like I seem to...

any plan on doing it right? meaning getting proper components for the ones that you have that are not spec.
do you plan to use a calorimeter if/when you make the circuit to spec?

i am assuming you have a diode on the genny output? could you confirm?

Of course, once you send me that MOSFET, you will have to find some other inaccuracy in my build to complain about. How about the color of the base? No, wait--we don't know what her base color was. And she's not answering questions from me. So maybe you could ask her, in the interests of accurate replication: What color was her circuit board base material?

After all, I live only to please you, Wilby, and making an accurate replication is my lifetime goal. I wouldn't want to let you down by passing up a chance to generate SEVENTEEN times more energy out than I put in...just because I used the wrong mosfet--4 times running.

Even though I am quite sure that Rosemary could measure overunity performance even from a dead shorted mosfet.

WilbyInebriated

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 3141
Re: Claimed OU circuit of Rosemary Ainslie
« Reply #164 on: July 07, 2009, 11:16:54 PM »
You mean this post?
You want me to confirm a diode on the FG output---Just like Rosemary used...where's Rosemary's diode there? I don't see it.
Do I plan to use a calorimeter--just like Rosemary did?   No, wait--she didn't use a calorimeter. She just used a "draft shield" of some non-specified type, and showed no data for the construction or performance of the "shield".
By now it should be clear, even to you, that even Rosemary Ainslie herself has no idea what circuit was used to make the data in the Quantum article or the EIT paper. Since I have asked her repeatedly to confirm or correct the circuit and she hasn't done so---I feel free to use whatever components I like to make my replication, and it's up to someone else to show, BY COMPARISON TO THE CORRECT CIRCUIT, whether or not I am using the "exact" parts or not.
After all, other "replicators" add capacitors, use different valued loads, different frequencies, different duty cycles, different transistors, and so forth--yet they don't have their "wilbys" grafted to their backs like I seem to...

Of course, once you send me that MOSFET, you will have to find some other inaccuracy in my build to complain about. How about the color of the base? No, wait--we don't know what her base color was. And she's not answering questions from me. So maybe you could ask her, in the interests of accurate replication: What color was her circuit board base material?

After all, I live only to please you, Wilby, and making an accurate replication is my lifetime goal. I wouldn't want to let you down by passing up a chance to generate SEVENTEEN times more energy out than I put it...just because I used the wrong mosfet--4 times running.

Even though I am quite sure that Rosemary could measure overunity performance even from a dead shorted mosfet.

so that's a no then?