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 643633 times)

TinselKoala

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 13958
Re: Claimed OU circuit of Rosemary Ainslie
« Reply #465 on: July 15, 2009, 02:46:03 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.

Yep, you are of course talking about basic calorimetry, long known to be the "right" way to test any OU claim. But good calorimetry has its own problems.

It's sad. Rosemary said she was having a cold winter. But I doubt if she's warming her hands over an Ainslie heater.

TinselKoala

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 13958
Re: Claimed OU circuit of Rosemary Ainslie
« Reply #466 on: July 15, 2009, 02:53:01 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

Thass wot i says too, mon.

Last week, iirc.
 ;)

TinselKoala

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 13958
Re: Claimed OU circuit of Rosemary Ainslie
« Reply #467 on: July 15, 2009, 03:06:07 PM »
Aaron, you are doing it again. Since I am being censored by you, through the use of prior restraint, I cannot respond directly to the slanders you are slinging.
Here are a couple links for you, since you seem to be "definitionally challenged" in addition to being scientifically so.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Prior_restraint
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Censorship

And if you think about it for more than an instant, you will realise that the mosfet duty cycle issue is at the heart of the energy calculations in the paper that Rosemary has repeatedly asked someone, anyone, to examine and criticize. Oh, no, that's what a scientist would do. What she actually asked for is that someone, anyone, PROVE her paper to be correct. Well, I have shown that there are so many holes in the paper that it is unlikely to be correct. When the holes are plugged, and only then, can the real claim even begin to be examined. If it survives that long. And it doesn't look good at this point.

How's that Ohmite resistor working for you? What's its inductance?

Quote
p.s.
For the real truth seekers and you know who you are - lets not forget that at a 95% duty cycle, you can still get gains. Please stay focused on the topic and the truth will prevail."

You know, I think I'm finally getting through. It sounds almost like you are acknowledging finally what I've been telling you for over a week, in increasingly simpler and simpler terms. I'm glad I finally reached a level that you could understand, when I moved to the living room floor to show you how YOUR circuit behaves. Thank you.

Now, perhaps we can get on to testing the "gains" issue. Because it's wrong as well, and when your mind clears up we can start examining why.

Hint: Calculus helps. It actually is good for something.

HeairBear

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 440
Re: Claimed OU circuit of Rosemary Ainslie
« Reply #468 on: July 15, 2009, 03:06:47 PM »
Yep, you are of course talking about basic calorimetry, long known to be the "right" way to test any OU claim.

LOL, where do you get this stuff? Is that penguin pecking at your brain when your not looking? When your mouth is closed, it keeps feet from entering.

TinselKoala

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 13958
Re: Claimed OU circuit of Rosemary Ainslie
« Reply #469 on: July 15, 2009, 03:12:49 PM »
LOL, where do you get this stuff? Is that penguin pecking at your brain when your not looking? When your mouth is closed, it keeps feet from entering.

Perhaps you would care to elaborate on just how my statement is in error.

Oh, and I sure would like to see some of your work, so I know what kind of troll I'm dealing with.

NerzhDishual

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 588
    • FreeNRG.info
Re: Claimed OU circuit of Rosemary Ainslie
« Reply #470 on: July 15, 2009, 03:18:23 PM »
>>> Personal message fot FuzzyTomcat,

I have received your personal message.
I cannot answer it as the forum 'send message' function
is not working for me ???

BTW the 'Spell Check'  is no working too.  :-\

So, here is my answer:
I'm a member of the Energetic Forum since a while and
aware of the Rosemary Ainslie's thread. Infortunately,
I'm not allowed to see the attached pictures and to post anything...

I had 'stolen', the wed page about the Zoltan Szili's FE circuit in
this famous (French) site : http://quanthomme.free.fr/
And more precisely here:
http://quanthomme.free.fr/qhsuite/circuitzolt.htm

I very rarely 'steal' web pages and if I do it, I, at least, give the
URL of the initial page. That was not the case about the Zoltan FE CCT page.
Shame on me...

However, as I'm sometimes at phone with the Quanthomme site webmaster,
I guess that I could be forgiven :))

Very Best

TinselKoala

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 13958
Re: Claimed OU circuit of Rosemary Ainslie
« Reply #471 on: July 15, 2009, 04:09:41 PM »
Uh huh. Are you giving us the Zoltan story to illustrate yet another case of measurement and interpretation error? Sorry, it's got to take its place in the queue.

tagor

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 1333
Re: Claimed OU circuit of Rosemary Ainslie
« Reply #472 on: July 15, 2009, 04:20:19 PM »
>>> Personal message fot FuzzyTomcat,

I have received your personal message.
I cannot answer it as the forum 'send message' function
is not working for me ???

BTW the 'Spell Check'  is no working too.  :-\

So, here is my answer:

......


salut  NerzhDishual

i have posted your answer here

http://www.energeticforum.com/renewable-energy/4314-cop-17-heater-rosemary-ainslie-23.html#post60636


TinselKoala

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 13958
Re: Claimed OU circuit of Rosemary Ainslie
« Reply #473 on: July 15, 2009, 04:24:39 PM »
You know, it's really remarkable. I identified the duty cycle issue last week, or even longer ago, and pointed out how it affects the manual "integration" that was used to figure the energy balance in the originally cited documents of the experiment.

And yesterday I was finally required to put together the simplest possible mosfet circuit (that would work more than once!) in order to demonstrate in no uncertain terms that I was correct about that issue.

Aaron, the moderator of the thread on energeticforum, asked some questions concerning this circuit, which I answered unequivocally in the video for all to see. The circuit turns the mosfet ON when the gate drive is HIGH: therefore power is supplied to the load when the gate is HIGH. And the voltage at the Drain pin (where the load is normally connected) goes LOW when the gate drive is HIGH and power is being supplied to the load.
Load ON, Drain signal LOW. Load OFF, Drain signal HIGH.

That's now been demonstrated by now sufficiently enough that even Aaron will agree.

And the 555 circuit also behaves as I said. The output pulse goes HIGH for a long time wrt the LOW period.
And it cannot be adjusted to deliver a 3.7 percent ON duty cycle with the components specified. This has now also been conclusively demonstrated by many builders. Even some who still apparently do not understand the first point above.

THEREFORE, sorry to shout, the complete circuit turns the load ON for 96 percent of the time. Not for 4 percent.
This is deductive reasoning and it is correct, and has been confirmed by experiment over and over and over.

Now, logically, if the designer tells us to use a function generator to do what the 555 was doing, but herself makes the same error about duty cycles referred to above--the mosfet drain cycle, remember...it is almost certain that the same error about the load cycle will be made. THEREFORE again, the data in the paper, since they were probably generated using the wrong duty cycle figures, are invalid.

This is inductive reasoning...it could be wrong. It is up to Ainslie to show the error. With data, Rosemary. I believe you said you still have the original apparatus. Let's dig it out, hook it up to any scope you want, and see how it behaves.

TinselKoala

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 13958
Re: Claimed OU circuit of Rosemary Ainslie
« Reply #474 on: July 15, 2009, 07:17:35 PM »
We now have posts on the energeticforum that are saying that a 555 timer was NOT used in the Quantum experiment  and the EIT paper.

However,  Rosemary has said that she always used a 555 timer; the Quantum article gives the circuit; the EIT paper refers to the Quantum article as its only reference; the EIT paper specifically says that the experiment was done with a 555 timer, although its circuit is not given in that paper.

So once again the story is changing in an inconsistent manner. What, exactly, including the timer, was the circuit used? How the HELL are we supposed to replicate if the maker does not specify the circuit?

And it is abundantly clear that Rosemary used the wrong duty cycle--otherwise she would have instantly explained otherwise -- but since she does not understand that the load is OFF when the point A is ON or high, ...
oh, never mind.

I just hope they get their story straight and at least specify the EXACT circuit used to make the Quantum and EIT paper data. I don't give a flying flimp about what other circuits were or are being used or recommended. My point is and continues to be that those papers are WRONG and it is extremely likely that, since a 555 timer WAS used according to Rosemary, the duty cycle was figured into the calculations incorrectly.

ddmdragon

  • Newbie
  • *
  • Posts: 3
Re: Claimed OU circuit of Rosemary Ainslie
« Reply #475 on: July 15, 2009, 07:37:57 PM »
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

Dear All, I've been viewing this thread any many like it for some time now with great interest. It would seem that we have become so blinkered on the goal post, we forgot all about the goal :'(
As EE's I'm sure we are all familiar with the lectures of Dr Lewin as a starting point in highlighting Kirchoff's Mesh Law violations, as most of our simulation tools uses this matrix models. This link to one still works. He makes a typo in the beginning though :-[
http://www.whatsontv.co.uk/youtube/search/lewin/video/eqjl-qRy71w/1
Furthermore I'm sure that we are in agreement that any controlled sharp gradient into a system most likely causes an interaction within itself and it's local environment or resonance(for visualization clarity). As for me I do think that we are emersed in a stressed mechanical universe which responds to these sharp impulses.
Also if you have the time, investigate "Negative luminescence  "(Not the wikipedia definition ;)) as used in many of the designs, when doing caloric measurements.

My Two cents worth (not forgetting the recession of course). I wish I had the time to explore as many of you are able to, however still involved and audited ever so often by certain organizations.

fuzzytomcat

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 676
    • Open Source Research and Development
Re: Claimed OU circuit of Rosemary Ainslie
« Reply #476 on: July 15, 2009, 08:43:54 PM »
>>> Personal message fot FuzzyTomcat,

I have received your personal message.
I cannot answer it as the forum 'send message' function
is not working for me ???

BTW the 'Spell Check'  is no working too.  :-\

So, here is my answer:
I'm a member of the Energetic Forum since a while and
aware of the Rosemary Ainslie's thread. Infortunately,
I'm not allowed to see the attached pictures and to post anything...

I had 'stolen', the wed page about the Zoltan Szili's FE circuit in
this famous (French) site : http://quanthomme.free.fr/
And more precisely here:
http://quanthomme.free.fr/qhsuite/circuitzolt.htm

I very rarely 'steal' web pages and if I do it, I, at least, give the
URL of the initial page. That was not the case about the Zoltan FE CCT page.
Shame on me...

However, as I'm sometimes at phone with the Quanthomme site webmaster,
I guess that I could be forgiven :))

Very Best

Hi NerzhDishual,

I sorry your having trouble and Aaron is aware of the problem and I'm sure he's working on it to get you in on the project.

As far as you stealing I would never say that, any web page not having "copyright" or "All Rights Reserved" is pretty much fair game to copy excerpts or parts of the page as long as you "Quote" it as is and refer where it came from with a link.

I wouldn't worry so much as I heard from the author of the paper today in a e-mail I recieved

Quote

Hello Glen xxxxxxxxxxxx.


Thank You for your e-mail.


My name is Zoltan SZILI. ( born in Hungary )
My english is not to good, but I understend and I can write it
a little bit.


I am a canadian private researcher. ( Near Montreal, Qc. )
My work is 99% simulation, using a computer program ( MICROCAP ).
This program include the Giles-Atherton physical model of electro-magnetism.


I have some experimental results in the electronic laboratory.


Actually, I have more than a thousend simulated electronic circuit of ZPE or
free energy. After 12 years of simulation, I have a good idea, what is the physical
processus of zero point energy extraction ( from vacuum energy fluctuations ).


I can also calculate the value of extracted energy using a simple formula.
E extr. = F * L * ( I max. * I max )/2
E extr. is the extracted ZPE energy.
F is frequency.
L is inductance.
I max. is the maximum current.


This formula is a degenerated formula.
The original physical formula is more complicated.


Can You communicate me the e-mail address of Rosemary Ainslie ?
Thank You for all.


Best regards,                       Zoltan SZILI.



Hopefully we can be enlightened by this fine academic and scholar .....

Best Regards,
Fuzzy
 :) 


fritznien

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 294
Re: Claimed OU circuit of Rosemary Ainslie
« Reply #477 on: July 15, 2009, 08:46:30 PM »
Dear All, I've been viewing this thread any many like it for some time now with great interest. It would seem that we have become so blinkered on the goal post, we forgot all about the goal :'(
As EE's I'm sure we are all familiar with the lectures of Dr Lewin as a starting point in highlighting Kirchoff's Mesh Law violations, as most of our simulation tools uses this matrix models. This link to one still works. He makes a typo in the beginning though :-[
http://www.whatsontv.co.uk/youtube/search/lewin/video/eqjl-qRy71w/1
Furthermore I'm sure that we are in agreement that any controlled sharp gradient into a system most likely causes an interaction within itself and it's local environment or resonance(for visualization clarity). As for me I do think that we are emersed in a stressed mechanical universe which responds to these sharp impulses.
Also if you have the time, investigate "Negative luminescence  "(Not the wikipedia definition ;)) as used in many of the designs, when doing caloric measurements.

My Two cents worth (not forgetting the recession of course). I wish I had the time to explore as many of you are able to, however still involved and audited ever so often by certain organizations.

huh? the only thing i understood was typo.
 fritznien just an EET

TinselKoala

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 13958
Re: Claimed OU circuit of Rosemary Ainslie
« Reply #478 on: July 15, 2009, 09:00:41 PM »

@ddm dragon
I applaud efforts to achieve the "goal" to which you refer.

I am not an EE (although I sometimes play one on YT  ;D  ); I see myself in the position of a qualified anonymous reviewer of a submitted scientific article. Rosemary pleaded for someone to examine her papers, her patent applications, and her theories. I am dealing with the published reports of one claimed experiment only--the one described (rather differently) in both the Quantum article and the "EIT" paper (which for some reason she calls the IET paper--but the .pdf file is as I call it, so who knows.)

Since you've been reading this thread for a while, you know that I have found and unambiguously demonstrated several severe problems with the design and execution of the experiment and its interpretation.

Regardless of the "goal", this particular "play" needs to be severely penalized, as it is a classic example of "pathological science" and cannot be trusted to be an accurate report or analysis of even a poorly performed experiment.

We are dealing with someone who likely would not understand a single word of any of Professor Lewin's excellent lectures (many of which are available on YT.) After all, she does not have the basic math background demanded of even a freshman EE guppy, so Lewin might as well be speaking Basque for all the good it would do.

When I think of the struggles I went through, in the RLM building at UT Austin in the 1980s, trying to get through the Differential Equations and Boundary Value Problems course...and then to have a high-school dropout who thinks in "patterns" tell me that my analysis is wrong or faked or misinfo or disinfo without providing any evidence, it makes me rather irate. It is indeed ironic that most of what is actually known about the Ainslie circuit's behaviour (other than what is found in the basic Circuits, Devices, and Systems texts, that is) was found out IN SPITE OF Rosemary's "cooperation" and was found and posted by the most educated, experienced, and skeptical workers.

The goal is fine, but with players like these, you really don't need to wonder why the field is considered "amateur" by the pros.

TinselKoala

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 13958
Re: Claimed OU circuit of Rosemary Ainslie
« Reply #479 on: July 15, 2009, 09:16:54 PM »
As far as Zoltan Szili is concerned, I am aware of his work and have been for some time.

Let's let him speak for himself:

"My work is 99% simulation, using a computer program ( MICROCAP )."

I believe this is quite enough information to evaluate his claims, at least until we see that remaining 1 percent.