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 643635 times)

poynt99

  • TPU-Elite
  • Hero Member
  • *******
  • Posts: 3582
Re: Claimed OU circuit of Rosemary Ainslie
« Reply #450 on: July 15, 2009, 04:45:57 AM »
RA circuit (minus the 555 of course).

Negative current spikes at the MOSFET Source lead (200mA spikes at the Drain lead)

Any guesses how/why? (hint at EF post?)

.99

TinselKoala

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 13958
Re: Claimed OU circuit of Rosemary Ainslie
« Reply #451 on: July 15, 2009, 05:06:26 AM »
Uh-huh. I have no problem with simulated free energy. Or simulated battery charging.

It's the reality that I have trouble with.

Here is a clear demonstration of Aaron's little circuit--which clearly shows that when the mosfet drain is HIGH the mosfet is OFF. OR, conversely, when the mosfet drain is LOW the mosfet is ON.

So, when any clock, a 555 or a FG provides a positive pulse to the mosfet, it turns ON and conducts, and the Drain goes LOW. When the FG provides a low or zero voltage to the gate, the mosfet turns OFF and the Drain goes to battery voltage--that is, HIGH.

So, if one monitors the mosfet drain like Joit, or equivalently, the load at point A in the Ainslie circuit, one will see a 3.7 percent HIGH duty cycle...when the mosfet is OFF 3.7 percent of the time.  And, since that's where the circuit is supposed to be monitored according to Ainslie...the conclusion is inescapable. When Ainslie says the circuit is running at a 3.7 percent ON duty cycle, she WANTS the mosfet to turn on for that short interval. But--as we all now know, that's backwards. When the Drain has a 3.7 percent HIGH duty cycle, the MOSFET is ON 96.3 percent of the total time.

That sort of thing can really mess up your energy balance calculations, if you are doing them by hand instead of having the scope's math function do it. Even then, the scope must be set right, and read right, and more importantly, interpreted correctly.

NOTE: at about :18 I mistakenly call the negative rail the positive, and at about :50 in the vid, I refer to the LED's cathode, when I should have said "anode". Sorry about that. The circuit is correct as Aaron posted it.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rSFS99SaZTA
« Last Edit: July 15, 2009, 07:28:46 AM by TinselKoala »

poynt99

  • TPU-Elite
  • Hero Member
  • *******
  • Posts: 3582
Re: Claimed OU circuit of Rosemary Ainslie
« Reply #452 on: July 15, 2009, 05:17:42 AM »
Uh-huh. I have no problem with simulated free energy. Or simulated battery charging.

It's the reality that I have trouble with.

I'm not saying this is going to push the RA circuit ou ;) I have no trouble with PSpice behaving itself, in fact I'm confident it can't show ou. It's the users that can mess things up and obtain incorrect results.

For now it's an observation, and I feel it is the parasitic capacitances around the MOSFET that is providing the path.

I'll be doing an analysis of the RMS power in them there spikes to see what gives.

.99

TinselKoala

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 13958
Re: Claimed OU circuit of Rosemary Ainslie
« Reply #453 on: July 15, 2009, 05:47:58 AM »
I'm not saying this is going to push the RA circuit ou ;) I have no trouble with PSpice behaving itself, in fact I'm confident it can't show ou. It's the users that can mess things up and obtain incorrect results.

For now it's an observation, and I feel it is the parasitic capacitances around the MOSFET that is providing the path.

I'll be doing an analysis of the RMS power in them there spikes to see what gives.

.99

Yup, I totally agree. In fact you can see in my latest vid, at reallly rreallly low frequencies, there is so much gate capacitance that without the proper pull-down resistor the mosfet actually does leak a bit. It's doing this at higher freqs too, you just don't notice it as much. And the Ainslie circuit relies on whatever's coming from the FG to pull the gate back down. Maybe that's OK--in circuit my mosfets seem to be quenching properly-- but in this case I'm not so sure.

And then, in the real circuit, there's the DC offset problem. If the FG is used, most FGs of course want to make a positive AND negative pulse train, with the zero voltage level being in the middle. The DC offset control of my Interstate F34 allows me to set the offset up==so that the bottom is at zero, not some negative value.
The 555 timer does not have this problem in its present configuration--it always generates a positive pulse and the baseline is at ground. Or zero, which may not be the same unless you take pains to make it so.
If one's FG cannot be set for a full 5 or 10 volts DC offset, you will have to use a diode or something to keep the negative going part of the pulse out of your gate drive.
(Not "you", point99. I know you know this stuff. I mean "you" all out there who are trying to replicate Ainslie's experiment.)

One big difference I have noted wrt mosfet type: the IRFPG50 is sslllooowwww in this circuit. The 2sk 1548 does much better in making spikes and turning off correctly, and it's only about 2.50, compared to 8 bux or so for the IRFPG50. The 2sk runs hotter--because of all that spikyness sloshing around in there, I imagine. But on a heat sink you can run the 2sk at full 96.3 percent ON, just don't touch it, you'll burn your fingers. The IRFPG50 runs cooler, so it's not making the intense spikes that the 2SK does--by taking it's own sweet time to turn off.

This effect is shown in the video from last night. I put in a 3-pole dt slide switch, and another mosfet socket and heat sink. So I can switch the mosfets with the circuit running and observe the effects.

2sk1548, I think your spice didn't have that one. You could also try 2sk1365, 2sk1120, or 2sk1934, to see the effect they have on spikyness and heat dissipation.

Thanks, poynt, I really appreciate your taking the time, you and Chet both, to communicate over there. My blood pressure would not take it at all. I come from a culture that sees facts more important than style or "politeness", and we try to give as good as we get, in the "diss" department.
If anyone wants to criticise me, I don't mind as long as the criticisms are supported with data and reasoned argument. I'm ugly, my feet smell and my nose runs, I park on a driveway and I drive on a parkway, but I do know how to use and interpret an oscilloscope, most of the time.

Speaking of time, did you know: Time flies like an arrow, but fruit flies like a banana.

 ;D

poynt99

  • TPU-Elite
  • Hero Member
  • *******
  • Posts: 3582
Re: Claimed OU circuit of Rosemary Ainslie
« Reply #454 on: July 15, 2009, 06:15:56 AM »
TK, all.

No flyback diode.

Spikes are up to about 540V. IRFPG50 is 1000V MOSFET, which may in fact be why it was chosen.

I can see now the possibility that with the Quantum circuit, they may have intentionally left out the flyback diode. If what you want is large spikes back into the battery, then it would appear leaving the diode out maximizes this effect.

A power dissipation measurement on the load and shunt resistors showed there is very little change with or without the flyback diode connected. Power from the supply had little change as well (but was not a precise measurement).

An analysis of the power spikes from and to the power supply is as follows (without the flyback diode):

RMS forward power from supply ~ 1.82W (15.2us/50W pulses)

RMS reverse power to supply ~ 27mW (277ns/-40W pulses)

PERIOD ~ 416us

That's about 1.5% power returned to the battery.

Note the displayed wave form is inverted  :P (i.e. + is- and - is +)

.99

TinselKoala

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 13958
Re: Claimed OU circuit of Rosemary Ainslie
« Reply #455 on: July 15, 2009, 07:05:42 AM »
Yup, I concur from reality with my analog scopes. The circuit does that. I don't get those extreme voltages but that could be due to "reality" (ie all that stray capacitance) as well as my scope bandwidth. Still, I get big spikes that are bigger and more impressive without the diode. I have also compared really fast diodes with the specified (or was it?) 1n4007. I don't see a whole lot of difference there; do you have the MUR1100E in your sim? Any "FR" series or HV Schottkys?

The transistor also makes a diff here. I am not impressed with the  1kV IRFPG50. The 2sk1548 is rated 900 V and guarantees a +/- 30 Vgss, where the IRF only promises 20 V, iirc. And the 2sk seems to encourage spikes because it switches faster.

Oddly, the 1GHz LeCroy didn't see any really big spikes either. I guess that's a good thing; I'd hate to have to pay the repair bill on that thing. The #2 channel has a DC offset issue; the repair and recalibrate from LeCroy is gonna be over 4 grand. If this nonsense is still happening in three weeks, maybe I'll be able to show simultaneous voltage and current capture, realtime trace multiplication, and the integration, on the 4 traces simultaneously, and display the parameters like duty cycle, rise and fall, frequency--the thing can show signal parameters that I've never even heard of. That would be fun. And it's got a built in thermal printer!

I have not been able to divert any visible charge onto a 900 mF filter cap; I wonder if I've inadvertently punctured it with the spikes--but wait, maybe I used the wrong end of the diode. Have to run that one again.


But the diode issue: Rosemary seems really attached to this diode. Yet, as you say, it was left out of the Quantum article and not even mentioned; instead the mosfet's internal diode is discussed.
So once again: we are getting more and more puzzled as to just what Rosemary did or did not do.
You'd think she would be able to recall a little thing like a 1n4007, or its absence, especially since it's the key to overunity.
I'm feeling a bit over-untied myself. Must freshen beverage. I made a vid of the LeCroy comparing the transistors. Did you see?
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=F8TCOS7VYlw

poynt99

  • TPU-Elite
  • Hero Member
  • *******
  • Posts: 3582
Re: Claimed OU circuit of Rosemary Ainslie
« Reply #456 on: July 15, 2009, 07:42:50 AM »
TK,

That's actually a scope shot of power, not voltage, which may explain the big numbers.

.99

Good job on the videos ;)

henieck

  • Newbie
  • *
  • Posts: 29
Re: Claimed OU circuit of Rosemary Ainslie
« Reply #457 on: July 15, 2009, 11:44:51 AM »
Today Rosemary gave the speech so it felt like in church again. “The measurements on our circuit, notwithstanding .99's attestations to the contrary - prove that efficiency or overunity is only constrained to the limit of one's courage to find new levels of such efficiency. It is, indeed an infinite supply source.”

She is 60 – so most probably she is going to pass away in paranoid state thinking that everybody has mental blockage, has suspicious motives, or that the other personalities on the forum are anonymous so they can hide the same TinsenKoalas’s, heniecks and other returning debunkers behind it.


Why nobody is doing the easy battery tests like I did and she did as well??? Are you holding back because of the fact that it is not the most exact method available? But it is fool proof instead, and very easy to implement. A little laborious perhaps but very reliable just to get the whole picture. Even if in the worst case this method allows for few % disparity (which I doubt and can be narrowed by running multiple tests) – it should be enough to see instead of COP=17 – just COP=16 or 18, or COP=0.95 or something…

beware! - behind Nerzdishual may be somebody else hiding ;) She needs fresh members and get rid of the skeptic ones to keep her illusion going.

I believe that in this case psychological close up of this entire story is equally important as the electro-engineering one.
« Last Edit: July 15, 2009, 12:29:00 PM by henieck »

tishatang

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 296
Re: Claimed OU circuit of Rosemary Ainslie
« Reply #458 on: July 15, 2009, 12:25:45 PM »
Hi All,

I try to follow this thread, but it gets too technical for my electronically challenged mind.  Is it or is it not OU?  I found a post by user bolt that seemed elegant in its simplicity  here:

http://www.overunity.com/index.php?topic=455.0

" Another way is find a value resistor on the input that just gets hot then take that out and put the same value in the output. If the output one goes up in smoke you have OU "

Can this simple test end this argument once and for all?

tishatang

henieck

  • Newbie
  • *
  • Posts: 29
Re: Claimed OU circuit of Rosemary Ainslie
« Reply #459 on: July 15, 2009, 12:46:24 PM »
I try to follow this thread, but it gets too technical for my electronically challenged mind.  Is it or is it not OU?

- Hi, to me it looks like the more knowledge one has and the more closely examines the circuit - the more skeptical he is (lightly said). For now only Rosemary seems to be deeply convicted about its over unity. Others are perplexed, like you are, but trying to get educated first so they know what they are trying to measure and how. In my opinion the more time goes by - the more number of skeptics you see. Rosemary says - it is just the mental blockage- which if laughable to me – but I am not any prophecy either. It has been shown many times on the forums, and she herself confirms it as well - that she doesn't have basic knowledge about physics, electronics, battery chemistry - nothing. One can only observe a lot of faith. Lots of it... I tried to be objective – but you know – it is just my point of view.

Cloxxki

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 1083
Re: Claimed OU circuit of Rosemary Ainslie
« Reply #460 on: July 15, 2009, 02:05:44 PM »
This is all so damaging for the OU community. OU exist, in theory, but probably even the inventor makes her tea with a normal water heater from the store, using 1000W+.

Why not settle this in a simple contest.
- An impartial jury determines the capacity of standard big-brand batteries.
- Contestents get to boil a substantial amount of water off said batteries. Standardized water container, hang heating elements over the side.
- (S)he who gets the most water boiled with the least battery capacity, wins.

I'll be impressed when someone makes us all a good cup of tea from one AA battery.
Duty cycles, voltage readings, coils, loops, etc, it says so little. Take a fresh battery from the supermarket, hook it to your circuit, and boil some water.

TinselKoala

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 13958
Re: Claimed OU circuit of Rosemary Ainslie
« Reply #461 on: July 15, 2009, 02:20:34 PM »
TK,

That's actually a scope shot of power, not voltage, which may explain the big numbers.

.99

Good job on the videos ;)

Thks, got that. I meant the bigger spikes that you mentioned earlier, talking about the Vdss of the transistors.

(Edit: I made a guess at your puzzler, but I don't know if it was a hallucination or not so I removed it.)

I'm glad you liked the demos. You know when I  have to move to the living room floor the situation is serious.
 ::)

TinselKoala

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 13958
Re: Claimed OU circuit of Rosemary Ainslie
« Reply #462 on: July 15, 2009, 02:37:33 PM »
Today Rosemary gave the speech so it felt like in church again. “The measurements on our circuit, notwithstanding .99's attestations to the contrary - prove that efficiency or overunity is only constrained to the limit of one's courage to find new levels of such efficiency. It is, indeed an infinite supply source.”

She is 60 – so most probably she is going to pass away in paranoid state thinking that everybody has mental blockage, has suspicious motives, or that the other personalities on the forum are anonymous so they can hide the same TinsenKoalas’s, heniecks and other returning debunkers behind it.


Why nobody is doing the easy battery tests like I did and she did as well??? Are you holding back because of the fact that it is not the most exact method available? But it is fool proof instead, and very easy to implement. A little laborious perhaps but very reliable just to get the whole picture. Even if in the worst case this method allows for few % disparity (which I doubt and can be narrowed by running multiple tests) – it should be enough to see instead of COP=17 – just COP=16 or 18, or COP=0.95 or something…

beware! - behind Nerzdishual may be somebody else hiding ;) She needs fresh members and get rid of the skeptic ones to keep her illusion going.

I believe that in this case psychological close up of this entire story is equally important as the electro-engineering one.

Hi henieck
I'm not holding back on battery testing at all. I'm just dealing with one issue at a time. Believe me, I can obtain excellent measurements of battery capacity, discharge rate, and whatever other parameters are necessary to monitor performance in real time. But look how much trouble and pain it's been just to explain how to read an oscilloscope or integrate a power curve.  Once there is recognition that the duty cycle issue, itself, calls into question the validity and reliability of the original energy calculation itself--that is, the input error...Then I am fully prepared to address the output error: the measurement of output energy (NOT power ffs) versus the true input energy, properly calculated from accurate measurements.

One big psychological problem has to do with the difference between inductive reasoning and deductive reasoning. I believe Rosemary is a brilliant but sadly undereducated inductive reasoner, and it is this that has led her astray. Inductive reasoning is fine, as far as it goes, and in fact leads to great creativity and advancement. But it must be properly applied, and applied to good data, and even then it is fallible. Deductive reasoning also must be correctly applied to good data, but it is much more reliable.

(EDIT I forgot to mention that next on my schedule is dealing with the "random chaotic resonance" issue, that I think was probably false triggering of the Fluke-O-Scope 199. Because, after all, there is no such thing as random chaotic resonance, and this circuit at these low frequencies (Why does she keep calling 2.4 kHz a high freq? It's audio...) is very well behaved. I haven't even seen anything "bad" after I sprinkled in some trimmer caps randomly between leads in the circuit.)

TinselKoala

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 13958
Re: Claimed OU circuit of Rosemary Ainslie
« Reply #463 on: July 15, 2009, 02:42:43 PM »
Hi All,

I try to follow this thread, but it gets too technical for my electronically challenged mind.  Is it or is it not OU?  I found a post by user bolt that seemed elegant in its simplicity  here:

http://www.overunity.com/index.php?topic=455.0

" Another way is find a value resistor on the input that just gets hot then take that out and put the same value in the output. If the output one goes up in smoke you have OU "

Can this simple test end this argument once and for all?

tishatang

Is it OU? A resounding NO. Or at least, the work being discussed is so full of holes that it is very questionable, and most certainly the main claims, of perpetual battery recharging and vastly greater energy out than in, have not been replicated, not even close. Does the load get warm? Sure. Anomalously so? No.

Can your test tell us what we want to know? NO. Unfortunately with electronics, it's not that simple. If we were concerned about power, your test would work. But we are concerned about energy, which is power over a period of time. Consider the fuse in your computer's power supply. That's only rated a couple amps at most. So that fuse is like a little low-resistance resistor sitting in series with the input power. Now take a fuse of that same rating and put it across the 12 volt output leads of the same power supply. Which fuse blows?

Yucca

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 884
Re: Claimed OU circuit of Rosemary Ainslie
« Reply #464 on: July 15, 2009, 02:43:05 PM »
When people are insecure in their assertions then they will not allow their mind to entertain logical thoughts that contradict their beliefs, in effect their minds are closed in order to protect the ego boosting charade that allows them to feel bigger.

It is so simple, if you scope the drain of an N channel FET, as specified in Ainslees papers then you WILL observe this:

When the FET switches OFF then Rload pulls the probe UP to the positive rail.

When the FET switches ON then the low Rds (relative to Rload) will pull the probe DOWN to ground.

It´s an inverted version of the gate signal. And you can´t ever switch an inductive load by placing it between ground and source, to get correct duty cycle readings, because backspikes will kill the FET. Anyone who has any experience with N channel FETs knows this, you can only scope inverted, interestingly many forget this because they´re interested in inductive backspikes which appear positive and are much taller (of course they are really neg).

This coupled with the fact that the specified 555 circuit gives 97% on duty tells us that this whole COP17 heater idea is just so much poppycock! Anyone who "believes" and argues against these facts is (in my opinion) a complete moron! :D