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 643637 times)

TinselKoala

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 13958
Re: Claimed OU circuit of Rosemary Ainslie
« Reply #225 on: July 08, 2009, 02:34:13 AM »
Now, this thread is about the Claimed Overunity Circuit of Rosemary Ainslie.
So I am going to make a post concerning that circuit and those claims.

If I had a circuit that produced robust overunity at the levels that Rosemary is claiming, and she's claiming they can be easily gotten, and with common components, I would certainly be using it, if not to heat my home, at least to boil water for coffee.
Or, failing that, I would have a demonstration circuit set up that I could show to anyone who is interested, with some unequivocal means of demonstrating excess heat (SEVENTEEN times excess heat.)
Or, I would be able to keep batteries charged with real energy and run some lights or something for anomalously long times, and would be glad to refute any criticisms with solid proof.

But instead we have someone who seemingly doesn't understand the basics of electronics, formulating a wild elaborate theory based on flawed data from a poorly-designed and performed experiment, who ignores and flames the person who has done the most NEARLY EXACT reproduction of her experiment--even to the point of obtaining the same kind of heating in the load...and who cannot show any scope traces, any currently working build of her device, or any useful work performed by it.

And we seem to have picked up a parasite from being exposed to the flim-flam, as well.

Very much par for the course, I'd say, but still disappointing.

Oh, did I distract the thread from Wilby's pounding issue? Sorry...here, I'll reset it:

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

Damn, the reset key seems to be stuck.

TinselKoala

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 13958
Re: Claimed OU circuit of Rosemary Ainslie
« Reply #226 on: July 08, 2009, 03:05:17 AM »
Just for grins, let's see what a COP of >17 means in reality, if it's obtained with these kinds of components and at the power levels claimed.

My 1500 watt space heater is pretty efficient, converting the electrical power into heat. Let's say it's 33 percent efficient, so when it's drawing 1500 watts from the wall it's making about 500 watts of real heat power, or releasing 500 Joules per second into the room. (1 watt = 1 joule-second, so one watt of power for one second is one Joule of energy.) It's eating 1500 Joules per second to do this.
(The real efficiency is probably much higher, of course. But let's stay with the 1/3 figure as it is a nice underestimate and easy to compute with.)
Now, if Ainslie's claims were true, we should be able to do much better than this, using the SAME heater (it's got a bunch of nichrome wire spirals in it; cut them to the right length, adjust the inductances by geometry, hook up a bank of mosfets and diodes, a wall-wart instead of the batteries...and Bob's your transvestite auntie.)
So now with a COP>17 available...that's a clumsy number, let's use 15 (to compensate for the wrong MOSFETS?)...
The heating coils may be assumed to have the same 33 percent overall electricity-to-heat conversion efficiency...we haven't done anything to them except cut and stretch them...so let's still say it takes 1500 Joules into the coils to get 500 Joules of heat out. But the mosfet circuitry will give us that 1500 Joules for 1/15th the cost--that is, 100 Joules. So the COP>17 Ainslie circuit would give AT LEAST 500 Joules per second heat out, for 100 Joules per second electrical energy in--which means, even with inefficiencies included, and cutting the numbers down a bit more for Wilby, you could still run a 1500 watt space heater for the same energy cost as a 100 watt light bulb.

Don't you think someone would have noticed?

WilbyInebriated

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 3141
Re: Claimed OU circuit of Rosemary Ainslie
« Reply #227 on: July 08, 2009, 03:07:06 AM »
Just for grins, let's see what a COP of >17 means in reality, if it's obtained with these kinds of components and at the power levels claimed.

My 1500 watt space heater is pretty efficient, converting the electrical power into heat. Let's say it's 33 percent efficient, so when it's drawing 1500 watts from the wall it's making about 500 watts of real heat power, or releasing 500 Joules per second into the room. (1 watt = 1 joule-second, so one watt of power for one second is one Joule of energy.) It's eating 1500 Joules per second to do this.
(The real efficiency is probably much higher, of course. But let's stay with the 1/3 figure as it is a nice underestimate and easy to compute with.)
Now, if Ainslie's claims were true, we should be able to do much better than this, using the SAME heater (it's got a bunch of nichrome wire spirals in it; cut them to the right length, adjust the inductances by geometry, hook up a bank of mosfets and diodes, a wall-wart instead of the batteries...and Bob's your transvestite auntie.)
So now with a COP>17 available...that's a clumsy number, let's use 15 (to compensate for the wrong MOSFETS?)...
The heating coils may be assumed to have the same 33 percent overall electricity-to-heat conversion efficiency...we haven't done anything to them except cut and stretch them...so let's still say it takes 1500 Joules into the coils to get 500 Joules of heat out. But the mosfet circuitry will give us that 1500 Joules for 1/15th the cost--that is, 100 Joules. So the COP>17 Ainslie circuit would give AT LEAST 500 Joules per second heat out, for 100 Joules per second electrical energy in--which means, even with inefficiencies included, and cutting the numbers down a bit more for Wilby, you could still run a 1500 watt space heater for the same energy cost as a 100 watt light bulb.

Don't you think someone would have noticed?

LMFAO, you should apply for a job on mythbusters, your "science" would be a perfect fit.

just for grins, let us know when you get around to that "serious" work, and that test of your hypothesis about the irfpg50. is this endless prattle just that, your idea of serious work?

TinselKoala

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 13958
Re: Claimed OU circuit of Rosemary Ainslie
« Reply #228 on: July 08, 2009, 04:06:15 AM »
No, I do it to rattle your cage, and it's something to do while the videos upload. In the one I'm uploading now I have the Fluke0Scope hooked up, and I show that it apparently defaults to 96.3 percent on duty cycles with short off times, and 3.7 percent on duty cycles with short on times. That is, those numbers are the maximum and minimum duty cycles that it will report. At least at 2.4 kHz. (EDIT: it does flip to 96.4 there for a moment but I can't get it to stabilize there. I would hope that the scope could do better than this.)
So this even calls into question the reliability of the "3.7" percent number, and especially the shorter number that she says happens during "random chaotic resonance"--which is almost certainly her term for false triggering of the Fluke. Which I will also be illustrating, if Wilby will cut me a break.

Oh, and there's also this:

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

(I'll never get tired of that, it's so much fun. So you might as well just send it--no, wait, then you wouldn't have anything to bitch about at all, and we wouldn't want that.)

TinselKoala

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 13958
Re: Claimed OU circuit of Rosemary Ainslie
« Reply #229 on: July 08, 2009, 04:08:01 AM »
LMFAO, you should apply for a job on mythbusters, your "science" would be a perfect fit.

just for grins, let us know when you get around to that "serious" work, and that test of your hypothesis about the irfpg50. is this endless prattle just that, your idea of serious work?

I'll be pleased if you can show me the error(s) in my calculations. Other than the one I made by expecting you to understand it, that is.

WilbyInebriated

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 3141
Re: Claimed OU circuit of Rosemary Ainslie
« Reply #230 on: July 08, 2009, 05:20:05 AM »
No, I do it to rattle your cage, and it's something to do while the videos upload. In the one I'm uploading now I have the Fluke0Scope hooked up, and I show that it apparently defaults to 96.3 percent on duty cycles with short off times, and 3.7 percent on duty cycles with short on times. That is, those numbers are the maximum and minimum duty cycles that it will report. At least at 2.4 kHz. (EDIT: it does flip to 96.4 there for a moment but I can't get it to stabilize there. I would hope that the scope could do better than this.)
So this even calls into question the reliability of the "3.7" percent number, and especially the shorter number that she says happens during "random chaotic resonance"--which is almost certainly her term for false triggering of the Fluke. Which I will also be illustrating, if Wilby will cut me a break.

Oh, and there's also this:

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

(I'll never get tired of that, it's so much fun. So you might as well just send it--no, wait, then you wouldn't have anything to bitch about at all, and we wouldn't want that.)

what fet are you using this time? the correct one?  ::)

i like this one for fun, it never fails to make me laugh.
So I built a circuit, identical only with some different components, and started testing it.

WilbyInebriated

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 3141
Re: Claimed OU circuit of Rosemary Ainslie
« Reply #231 on: July 08, 2009, 06:31:14 AM »
great video. still the wrong fet...

Asymatrix

  • Jr. Member
  • **
  • Posts: 88
Re: Claimed OU circuit of Rosemary Ainslie
« Reply #232 on: July 08, 2009, 07:12:43 AM »
great video. still the wrong fet...

Seems to me TK has tested the circuit while you've done jack squat (other than whine). Please tell the class why a slightly different FET will make a huge difference, let alone create OU.

WilbyInebriated

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 3141
Re: Claimed OU circuit of Rosemary Ainslie
« Reply #233 on: July 08, 2009, 07:56:29 AM »
Seems to me TK has tested the circuit while you've done jack squat (other than whine). Please tell the class why a slightly different FET will make a huge difference, let alone create OU.

wrong, tk has tested every variation but the circuit, all i have done is continue to point that out.

Asymatrix

  • Jr. Member
  • **
  • Posts: 88
Re: Claimed OU circuit of Rosemary Ainslie
« Reply #234 on: July 08, 2009, 08:57:55 AM »
wrong, tk has tested every variation but the circuit, all i have done is continue to point that out.

He's tested the circuit with one minor component variation.

I suppose my car it will transform into a jet if I attach wings...

exnihiloest

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 715
Re: Claimed OU circuit of Rosemary Ainslie
« Reply #235 on: July 08, 2009, 09:00:48 AM »
...
My 1500 watt space heater is pretty efficient, converting the electrical power into heat. Let's say it's 33 percent efficient, ...

It's close to 100% efficient (even more with heat pump).
All electric heaters are 100% efficient because the "losses" are... heat!



TinselKoala

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 13958
Re: Claimed OU circuit of Rosemary Ainslie
« Reply #236 on: July 08, 2009, 02:59:40 PM »
It's close to 100% efficient (even more with heat pump).
All electric heaters are 100% efficient because the "losses" are... heat!

Shhh! You'll wake the troll!

I know that, and you know that, but do you realize what that does to my calculation of real-world implications?

It means that I could run my 1500 watt heater for the same cost (roughly) as the light bulb in my desk lamp.

And yet...nobody's noticed, except Rosemary, and even she isn't heating her home this way.

TinselKoala

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 13958
Re: Claimed OU circuit of Rosemary Ainslie
« Reply #237 on: July 08, 2009, 03:00:46 PM »
He's tested the circuit with one minor component variation.

I suppose my car it will transform into a jet if I attach wings...

Only if you can achieve random chaotic resonance.

 :P

(Oh, and did you see the part where I asked someone to send me a mosfet, and Wilby said it would do so, and then reneged? "send me your address and i will send you the part, you worthless bum" and it even got that wrong. I'm not a bum, I'm a jerk. (Thanks, Steve...))

TinselKoala

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 13958
Re: Claimed OU circuit of Rosemary Ainslie
« Reply #238 on: July 08, 2009, 05:24:04 PM »
I am pleased to report that Rosemary Ainslie has now acknowledged that she holds no patents. She only has patent APPLICATIONS, which she claims were "dropped" in the interests of humanity.

More likely, the applications were rejected as unoriginal and non-physical and she didn't pursue them further. But no matter, the issue of PATENTS vs. APPLICATIONS is now settled--and as I said from the beginning, she has no patents.

Even though she still presents the link on her web page as a "patent".

And, there is more news on the "duty cycle" front. She now has an "expert" who has viewed my videos and is accusing ME of fraudulently presenting my results, or making them up, or something.

Still, nobody has actually built the circuit to see if I am right or she is right.

And of course there is another "explanation" that tries to show that I am wrong, while actually demonstrating that she has no clue.

COME ON PEOPLE, all you have to do to PROVE ME WRONG is to build the circuit in the quantum article and look at the duty cycle it generates.


allcanadian

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 1317
Re: Claimed OU circuit of Rosemary Ainslie
« Reply #239 on: July 08, 2009, 06:33:20 PM »
@Tinselkoala
Do you know what a motorcycle is? It is a means of transportation that utilizes two wheels and a motor. However there are people who have the ability to transcend what we call transportation into a form of art. They fly 100's of feet through the air performing backflips, they jump off the bike with their feet straight up holding on to only the handlebars --- this is not transportation it is a form of individual expression.
I watched your video's and while you may be competent at standard electronics I am afraid this is not going to cut it, not in any way. As well from your scope shots it is obvious that you have done nothing out of the ordinary, so why would you expect extraordinary results. I wonder why Rosemary requires a mosfet rated at 1000v@6.2A when her source is only 24v? or why she requires a mosfet with an on resistance of only 2 ohm and rise/fall times in the 35/36 ns range when the 555 timer is relatively slow at 100ns max?. It would seem the circuit properties are designed for high speed switching of high potentials and yet everyone is still preoccupied with trying to push slow pulsed low potential currents through the resistance and hoping to come out ahead,LOL. Rosemary also states that in operation the internal diode is conducting, if the drain to source breakdown voltage is 1000v then we can assume her transient spikes are in excess of this. I wonder has any of your circuit voltages exceeded 1000v? If your video's are any indication then I can assume you are nowhere near the operating parameters dictated by Rosemary. All of this relates to the beginning of this post, if you want to practice common electronics then you should expect common results, if however you take your circuits and your understanding to the next level then you become the artist not bound by common practice nor common results.
Regards
AC