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 643712 times)

0c

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 278
Re: Ainslie OU Measurements?
« Reply #600 on: July 20, 2009, 09:49:42 PM »
Perhaps the easiest and fastest way, without the DAQ bs that Jibguy favors (but will not conduct himself) would be to rent a Clarke-Hess 2335, and measure the input and output power directly with no BS in between.

http://www.clarke-hess.com/2335.html

Thanks, TK. Now if you could write up an unambiguous test procedure (protocol?) that any dummy having access (jibguy maybe?) to a Clarke-Hess 2335 could follow, we can proceed from there. Please use a subject line like I have here so the posts will be easier to find. I didn't want to start a new thread to hold this.

For the moment, as far as I know, the circuit in the Quantum article (and the equivalent gotoluc diagram) is the only baseline we have. So any references to test points in the procedure should be made relative to that circuit. The procedure can be amended later if a modified or different circuit is found to be more appropriate.

I would appreciate it if MileHigh could post the details of his test protocol here. Again, it should be explained in a step-by-step fashion using simple english terms that any dummy (like me) could follow.

ramset

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 8073
Re: Claimed OU circuit of Rosemary Ainslie
« Reply #601 on: July 20, 2009, 10:15:37 PM »
TK,
More from the Boss

Ramset - abject apologies. I actually watched all the links. They were really interesting. Sorry about being shirty. I thought it was another attack at my own circuit.

May I add that I am really impressed that TK duplicated gotoluc's experiment. It seems that I may have underestimated his ability to be impartial. Just ask him to apply the same impartiality to my little circuit. It would be a welcome change. The circuit offers nothing new. It just shows a gain on the measurements of energy in/out that classicists can't refute. That's the only reason it's on offer.

Thank you - and, again, apologies.

jibbguy

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 352
Re: Claimed OU circuit of Rosemary Ainslie
« Reply #602 on: July 20, 2009, 11:30:22 PM »
The Clarke-Hess appears to maybe not  be "microprocessor calculation based"; therefor i do not know if the transient voltage capturing can be wholly trusted or not yet for this case. The reason on-board calc or PC analysis software is considered "better", is because it only looks at raw "DC" signal (meaning "unaveraged" by any actual circuit), then does an "area under the curve" -type math averaging using a constantly rolling time base (but please don't confuse this again with actual "Integration"; although the functions are done in similar ways). The advantage of this is, it does not rely on assumptions about repeatable waveforms like most "RMS'ing" circuitry does, and you can control the Sample Rate / Frequency Response at least up to the maximum value, to better insure there is no "Digital Signal Aliasing". Also, scopes nearly always have higher Frequency Response than traditional power monitoring gear; which of course can make a huge diff with fast transients. So generally i would say "go with the storage scope", since even the lowest price ones have at least "20 MHz" F response these days. Perhaps the cheapest way to go is a PC-based scope with a "USB box" Front End. These often have very nice sample storage features for much less money than any stand-alone DSO (or a least the capability to "sample and hold", or "freezing" a screen for calc measurements and "screen saves").

If there is any physical circuity for performing the "RMS'ing" internal to the device (like a DMM has when set to "AC/RMS", which actually physically conditions the signal into a DC representation first, then displays the value), they the device will almost certainly fall down when reading non-repetitive transient spikes (and their Frequency Response is usually rather poor to boot).

I can't really  tell yet if this is the case with that Clarke-Hess unit or not; but in my experience, we only trusted the on-board or PC software generated math-based calcs in these cases for the above important reasons.   

Regarding the limitations of the Fluke 199: It shouldn't matter if it can do "Integrations" on board or not (because it can do "Averaging").... And with the non-repetitive waveform, it can simply be used in "sample and hold" mode to read the calcs. It has some significant features of a DSO; which in this case could be very useful, as captured data could be sent to a PC for all kinds of later analysis. And it does have the battery operation which gives it the "Differential / Isolated" input. In many ways it is ideal for this application.

Now you could do classic "Integrations" as mentioned if you wish once the data is captured and stored for later analysis, but since they are generally  "reset-time-based"  you would probably have to arbitrarily choose a reset time factor: 10 mS? 1 second? 5 seconds? 10 secs? Which "reset" time for Integration would be best to choose in other words.. So the significance of the result could be a little hard to understand, as it will probably simply appear as a constantly rising slope representing "accumulated" voltage over time up until it "resets" back to zero and starts climbing again... although it really wouldn't hurt to try it. 

Simple "Average" calc's should be sufficient for all this i think; and might be easier to interpret.

LeCroix' are very good scopes, imo (and used to be one of the most expensive on the market). As long as you keep the probe ground lead from any "floating" location: The problem with this issue is (mentioned a couple days ago), we do not yet know how tieing the whole circuit to Ground through the Wavetek's Signal Low, the scope's ground lead, or anywhere else affects it yet (...because this ground through one of the instruments might somehow keep the MOSFET from going into astable oscillation, who knows).   

And as far as me doing this myself lol; i would be happy to IF I HAD ANY OF THAT COOL STUFF ;)

I realize that in our American consumer-based society, "Poverty" is a serious crime ;) Well i'm guilty then, hehehe. No more fun toys to play with (except an old "Fluke 79" and a seriously broken Gould DSO that needs a CRT), i generally spend what cash i can get on stupid stuff like fixing the roof these days... But that doesn't mean i forgot how to use this stuff yet. Maybe some millionaire who wants to see "Free Energy" finally realized for Humankind, will help out and send me a well-stocked bench, lol. Or more likely, maybe my next job coming up will allow some after-hours testing with the project's equipment ;) 

TinselKoala

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 13958
Re: Ainslie OU Measurements?
« Reply #603 on: July 20, 2009, 11:43:43 PM »
Thanks, TK. Now if you could write up an unambiguous test procedure (protocol?) that any dummy having access (jibguy maybe?) to a Clarke-Hess 2335 could follow, we can proceed from there. Please use a subject line like I have here so the posts will be easier to find. I didn't want to start a new thread to hold this.

For the moment, as far as I know, the circuit in the Quantum article (and the equivalent gotoluc diagram) is the only baseline we have. So any references to test points in the procedure should be made relative to that circuit. The procedure can be amended later if a modified or different circuit is found to be more appropriate.

I would appreciate it if MileHigh could post the details of his test protocol here. Again, it should be explained in a step-by-step fashion using simple english terms that any dummy (like me) could follow.

You take the Clarke-Hess and hook it up to the Ainslie circuit on the input side, like an ammeter, in series. It sits there and measures realtime current and voltage and power factor while your circuit is working. So it reads the input power with low insertion loss. Then you take it and put it on the output between the Ainslie circuit and its load. The Clarke-Hess sits there with low insertion losses and measures the voltage and current and power factor coming out--hence being dissipated by the load. You take the second measurement and subtract it from the first. If the number is positive, that is the power loss in the circuit itself. If the number is negative, you have just discovered overunity performance.
It is done with smoke and mirrors--very tiny ones--which is why the unit costs so much. And I believe it would do a sufficiently good enough job in this case. The stuff jibguy is worried about might account for a couple percent inaccuracy. Not 1700 percent.

Now, Jibbguy.
About Aaron's video.

First, he is using a higher driving frequency and a 50 percent or so duty cycle. So his inductive ringdown with that Ohmite resistor--which I estimate between 160 and 200 microhenries--is much closer to the driving frequency than in the true Ainslie circuit like mine.

Bearing that in mind, please look at Aaron's video at 6:43, and in the region around 7:25.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Z84u7--u3Qw

Aaron's scope is losing trigger on a perfectly normal signal. The voltmeter reading drops because the slow irfpg50 is not fully on before it is being told to turn off.

I show a true parasitic oscillation riding on the mosfet drain signal here:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=igRqMU2r-v0

When you are done there, the video of my build of Aaron's circuit is uploading.

ramset

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 8073
Re: Claimed OU circuit of Rosemary Ainslie
« Reply #604 on: July 21, 2009, 12:14:47 AM »
Well...
''When you are done there, the video of my build of Aaron's circuit is uploading''

This is VERY benevolent and above and beyond the call.
TK You are a Gem A pearl AAA.......One cool Dude ,and it helps that you can use the smarts God gave you, so well
Please post a link.
PS
TK
I don't know if you noticed but Rosemary is being denied access to the forum
I told her I would PM Stephan [perhaps you can][more appropriate]
this could have nothing to do with OU,, but still needs attention after all ,she is the Boss 
Chet

TinselKoala

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 13958
Re: Claimed OU circuit of Rosemary Ainslie
« Reply #605 on: July 21, 2009, 12:31:56 AM »
Well...
''When you are done there, the video of my build of Aaron's circuit is uploading''

This is VERY benevolent and above and beyond the call.

Please post a link

.
PS
TK
I don't know if you noticed but Rosemary is being denied access to the forum
I told her I would PM Stephan [perhaps you can]
this could have nothing to do with OU,, but still needs attention after all she is the Boss 
Chet

Yes, I noticed her "saying" that, but I never have known Stefan to put anyone on "no read", and how could she be denied if she hasn't applied?

She will have to take that up with Stefan, I guess. Do you really think that I would ask Stefan to let her in, after the way she's treated me? Uh-uh. She can figure it out for herself. I doubt if it is a problem on this end.

But she is not tough enough to play in this 'hood, I'm afraid. Homies eat that girl fo breakfast.
She was crying and moaning by the fourth page of the NakedScientists thread. And they are Nice, not at all like me!

I would like everybody to take a look at Aaron's video at the times I mention above. Look at the waveform when the scope does catch it. See the shape? See the inductive ring portion on the trailing edge? You are looking at a mosfet that is running at such a high frequency with so little gate voltage that it is not fully turned on before it is being turned off. Hence the volt meter drop. Hence the triggering dropout. The waveform during dropout is not substantially different--you can still see the bands of contrast moving past--it is simply not locking in. When it does, several times, you can see the ordinary waveshape. As he changes the gate voltage and the duty cycle, the features of the shape change and at some point the scope is unable to trigger. The mosfet is NOT oscillating any more or less at these points.

My Philips scope has an especially good trigger circuit, and since it is a true 2-beam scope (not a 2-trace scope like the Tek) there is no finagling with the trigger signal by the beam chopper. It is hard to fool the Philips, but I managed it for a few seconds.

(The digital scopes like the Fluke and even the LeCroy divide their bandwidth between the traces sort of like a 2-trace analog. But the true 2-beam scopes like the Philips and really expensive full-BW DSOs don't. It is like having 2 complete oscilloscopes using a single CRT, whereas the Tek and similar 2-trace scopes chop a single beam to display the 2 traces. And hence introduce artifacts that must be understood. )

Jibbguy can explain that, I'm sure he knows what I mean.

Still processing, the title and description aren't there yet either...

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=m9F4kqesrds

ramset

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 8073
Re: Claimed OU circuit of Rosemary Ainslie
« Reply #606 on: July 21, 2009, 12:51:49 AM »
TK
please describe what it is you do to cause the false trigger
BTW you don't have the ability to do a sloppy build [Ain't in yah]
You say you can do it at will '' THE effect"""
i need it in print in your words

TinselKoala

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 13958
Re: Claimed OU circuit of Rosemary Ainslie
« Reply #607 on: July 21, 2009, 01:04:16 AM »
TK
please describe what it is you do to cause the false trigger
BTW you don't have the ability to do a sloppy build [Ain't in yah]

I figured it out, after watching Aaron's vid again. (I need a drink, out of booze, ohno...)
He is using a much higher driving freq from his 555, and a long duty cycle of 50 percent or more. This, plus the high inductance of that load, results in the inductive ring being a substantial portion of the pulse duration, not just a little spike like at 2.4 kHz drive.
So now, you just turn the gate drive down (increase the resistance of that pot) until the scope's trigger is being shown the garbage in the very first little piece of the ringdown. And since the trigger circuit is not so good, or it's set on the wrong coupling, or just because it is a 2-trace scope in "vertical mode" trigger, it can't keep up and the waveform slips past in the time dimension. You can see from the contrast bands that the waveform is nearly the same when it's slipping as when it's caught. Plus, since the mosfet isn't turning fully on before you turn it off and start the ringing, the current draw goes down and the batt voltage goes up.
Now turn the gate up or the duty cycle longer. The mosfet turns on fully so the current goes up and the batt voltage goes down. And the scope's trigger sees a cleaner rising portion  of the wave and locks it in.

This is a lot easier to do on the other scopes. My Philips has rock-solid triggering and no beam chopper stuff to get in the way of the trigger. But I was able to fool the Philips, even at the low 2.4 kHz used by Ainslie, and me (but not Aaron.)

poynt99

  • TPU-Elite
  • Hero Member
  • *******
  • Posts: 3582
Re: Rosemary Ainslie heater replication
« Reply #608 on: July 21, 2009, 01:35:33 AM »
Explains my circuit:
http://www.feelthevibe.com/free_energy/rosemary_ainslie/ainslieheater.pdf

Youtube video demo:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Z84u7--u3Qw

When the circuit is setup, it is common sense how to get the mosfet to go into high frequency self oscillation. Duty cycle is irrelevant as Rosemary said because it can happen at 99% duty cycle, which I have done and it still sends power to the front battery.

This group is too hard on Aaron. You just don't understand him.

Isn't it evident that Aaron has already learned all there is to know about basic electronics and electrical theory?

When are you guys going to finally learn that despite 40 years of extensive design and use of the common buck-boost converter circuit, that there is more there than meets the trained eye? Yes, indeed, your formal training is what is preventing you from seeing the truth. You must also know by now that ALL well-established "laws" in science are simply just poppycock! They can not be valid, even after millions of hours of study and use.

And for goodness sake, how many times do you need to be told that inductive kickback is a free energy effect, unbeknown to even the likes of Tesla, who by the way was only a mechanical engineer, and had no formal training in electricity! But I digress. Use the force Luke! It is there for the taking if only you would forsake the laws of nature.

Of course do not be afraid of using your test equipment in the utmost unconventional manners. You DO know that this is the real intended use and operation of this equipment don't you? It is 100% valid to unknowingly obtain "good" results, as long as everything "looks" the way you have so desired it to be.

You have so much to learn, you learned folks of norm. Let the man teach you because he knows a great deal not commonly known by your common electrical technician. For example, USE that energy so freely supplied by the "environment", it is a free gift from the cosmos. You only pay for it once, and it does work for, not once, but TWICE! Yes, you can believe your eyes this time...TWICE! All that energy obtained from your battery is only half of what you get out. Are you beginning to understand now?

You guys would be so lucky to have Aaron (qiman) join us here, for we have so much to learn you and I. We can only keep our fields crossed that he will.

Until then, please try to erase most of the common sense and logic form your brain, you know that it is only holding you back from your next great "discovery!".

.99

ramset

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 8073
Re: Claimed OU circuit of Rosemary Ainslie
« Reply #609 on: July 21, 2009, 01:53:45 AM »
99
unfortunately you are right !!
This is how Aaron comes across,equally unfortunate ,is they don't recognize the opportunity of having men that sincerely search for the same things, but with better understanding and equipment
You guys save a lot of wasted time at this forum and are worth your weight in GOLD
Just the facts
Chet

ramset

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 8073
Re: Claimed OU circuit of Rosemary Ainslie
« Reply #610 on: July 21, 2009, 01:57:56 AM »
User Ren offers help
Hi Aaron,

In regards to variable duty cycle/on time I have a schematic here that drives a TL494 PWM and allows for complete control of pulse width and frequency, as well as dead time, which may or may not be needed in this case. Anyway, it will directly trigger a mosfet from the output, or it can be sent through an opto coupler and the output transistor can drive the fet or transistor etc.

Will go up to 600kHz plus by simply changing the cap off pin 5. Lower the value for higher frequency.

Pulse width can be varied from 0 on time, to 100%, I think it would be perfect for this circuit.

If you are interested I can email it to you, I need to check with the author who gave it to me whether he is happy for it to be posted in the thread, I dont think he will mind at all, but best to be sure.

Anyway let me know if you are interested and whether you can source the TL494 locally, I will check with the author in the mean time.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Ahhh the smell of burning mosphets
I know its not AM or RA circuit anymore
I wonder if Ren knows the peace love light show me the PATH to money ,I copy wright bowel movements deal
Chet
f

jibbguy

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 352
Re: Claimed OU circuit of Rosemary Ainslie
« Reply #611 on: July 21, 2009, 02:19:59 AM »
Get over the "triggering". It's just not happening for you. Put a triggered waveform on and turn the Trigger Level until it breaks lock: It will ROLL like a "Horizontal Hold" problem. NOT A SOLID ENVELOPE... In order to look "all white" like that, the F will have to rise considerably first (...so the time base is now set way too slow). Otherwise, it will just look like a quickly moving around representation of the original waveform.... Not a solid band.

As as for the MOSFET not having enough time to turn on, and that being the actual reason for raising the charging V and not the oscillations themselves... If that is true then when he gets it to oscillate at different F's and duty cycles, it should make a measurable difference in this charge voltage change amount then, as compared to before. Because this effect you suggest can only happen at certain "Lucky" combo's of F and duty cycle... Since we NOT talking about reaching the maximum rise times of the MOSFET itself (which should be several orders of magnitude faster than the operating F's we are concerned with here).

In your vid, i am not convinced at all that this is the same effect Aaron is seeing, or that Rosemary described.

For one thing, i do not think what we are concerned here with are actually "Parasitic" as you described, but another effect all together that has to do with forcing the MOSFET into an unstable state somehow (which has nothing to do with what we saw there).
 
Secondly, you said you are triggering on it "just fine" , but you were NOT triggering on it at all, you were still triggering off the "normal" waveform which had been magnified off the screen. You are trying to sell us oranges and we want apples ;)

The usual "M.O." of these astable runaway oscillations, as i was familiar with since they happened a lot with op-amp and discrete transistor instrumentation differential amplifier circuits, is that they tend to obliterate the main waveform and can't be triggered on, as they are essentially a mass of mostly random transient spikes. That's why i was glad to see Aaron's waveform band because it closely matched what i have seen in the past. 

But not to worry folks, the study of this circuit will be done carefully and diligently, by many good peeps. What we may find, who knows yet: What we do know is, that pissing on it can't put out the fire hehehe ;)

ramset

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 8073
Re: Claimed OU circuit of Rosemary Ainslie
« Reply #612 on: July 21, 2009, 02:20:21 AM »
Comment from Jolt [I don't think he means any disrespect with the last sentence]

Ramset for a quick reply from me.
I did try to replicate it now, what i did at the Vid, and i couldnt,
maybe i still did not arrange it right now, because i did change all again.

Anyway, Arron did use a 10K Pot at the Gate?
He mentinoned, that maybe a 1k is enough, for the Gate Pot.
Seems for me anyhow, the 100Ohm Resistor at the Article is to low,
for wich Reason ever, maybe its was a different Element.


And my other Thinking, that the Shunt and the Resistor must match in a Way too.

Thats what i had at my Setup.
Plus ->Timer - 50kPot - Gate Transistor
Plus -> 600Ohm/10WPot - Coil - Drain - Source - 5kPot - Minus.

Where the 50K was very low set.
The 600Ohm should replace for me the Resistor at the Circuit, what is around the 24 V Batt.
The 5k Pot and the Coil was for the Shunt other Side.
Now i have actually 5 Pots, 2 at the Timer, 1 for the Gate, and 2 at the 24V Circuit.

Maybe he can get it into Oscillation when he use a higher Pot, otherwise, i can only think of, that he put some more Pots into the Circuit from the recover Part in Serie
and try to match the Parts to eachother.

But thats just in case, he has nothing else to do, as to play with it.
__________________

TinselKoala

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 13958
Re: Claimed OU circuit of Rosemary Ainslie
« Reply #613 on: July 21, 2009, 03:12:03 AM »
Come on, Jib, you are ignoring the evidence of your own eyeballs. At 6:40 -6:51 in Aaron's vid, where he is fooling with the timebase and voltage, the scope is clearly rolling, just as you say, and when it rolls nice and fast you see the bands.  And when it locks you can see the waveform clearly.  And in my vid at 3:54 you see the same stuff, rolling bands, but not at a fast time base.

Am I going to have to switch to the Tek and make the exact same bands?

Haven't we been here before? It's like Deja Vu all over again.

If what I do looks like his and quacks like his, why isn't it the same as his?

(Oh, and re the maximum rise time of the irfpg50 mosfet: this sucker is "slow". Especially if you don't give it enough gate charge. Read the data sheet and compare it to the 2sk1548, and look at my hot-swap mosfet comparisons in my videos.)
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=F8TCOS7VYlw

ramset

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 8073
Re: Claimed OU circuit of Rosemary Ainslie
« Reply #614 on: July 21, 2009, 03:53:11 AM »
delete