Language: 
To browser these website, it's necessary to store cookies on your computer.
The cookies contain no personal information, they are required for program control.
  the storage of cookies while browsing this website, on Login and Register.

GDPR and DSGVO law

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

Google Search

Custom Search

Author Topic: Claimed OU circuit of Rosemary Ainslie  (Read 585163 times)

Offline skcusitrah

  • Newbie
  • *
  • Posts: 25
Re: Claimed OU circuit of Rosemary Ainslie
« Reply #2790 on: January 16, 2010, 05:35:37 AM »
He needs to read a lot, and then do his own experiments AND publish his results.

Bill

You've done all the above, and you're still off base.

Offline fuzzytomcat

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 676
    • Open Source Research and Development
Re: Claimed OU circuit of Rosemary Ainslie
« Reply #2791 on: January 16, 2010, 05:48:10 AM »
Quote from: Pirate88179 on Today at 05:26:43 AM
He needs to read a lot, and then do his own experiments AND publish his results.

    Bill



You've done all the above, and you're still off base.


skcusitrah,

I suggest you do what one of Over Unity's finest senior members "Bill"  has to say .... also ..... or read the thread ..... or have all your comments removed by me ..... and possibly banned !!!!


Fuzzy
 

Offline Vortex1

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 518
Re: Claimed OU circuit of Rosemary Ainslie
« Reply #2792 on: January 16, 2010, 06:56:43 PM »
Fuzzy

Your tabular data for the temperature rise above ambient vs power input of your nicely hand wound resistor is a starting point. You used your bench power supply for this.

 Now using the same  power supply, run the Ainslie circuit  and note the power being used on the same meters .

No need for batteries and a DSO and all that number crunching and cherry picking of "preferred data" out of the noise.

You could also do a number of control experiments using non "Ainslie" resistors, such as pure carbon tubular rods of the same size,shape, and resistance. don't forget to take into account "emissivity differences".

There are special paints you could use in an attempt to normalize the differences in resistor surfaces so that your IR thermometer gives consistent readings.

My main point is that you are using one piece of equipment (a power supply) to measure power input to the device under test, then switching to a battery and DSO, cherry picked and crunched data readings for your "proof".

This would lead to suspicion in a scientific test.

Get rid of the battery. If necessary, put a large filter cap on the output of your power supply to simulate the low impedance and high peak current capacity of a battery.

This would be convincing to me, not hours of live broadcasts of a DSO in operation.

You could also double check by putting a Kill-O-Watt meter on the line side of your power supply.

To switch instrumentation from the power supply to the DSO is a little slight of hand and suspicious.

I am not against DSO's, and have a few that I use, but a more down to earth and less noise sensitive approach would be more meaningful to me.

For Rosemary to imply that a simple test setup may be acceptable to simple people like myself but never to academia is a bit of an insult, considering I've had over 40 years of temperature and power measurement skills and would like to believe I am rather good at it.

Throughout the history of science, researchers have devised very simple and excellently crafted devices to make extremely fine measurements. This is way before DSO's were available.

Granted a DSO in the hands of a highly experienced individual can give excellent results, but that individual should also have lots of savvy in proper breadboarding techniques so that his "noisy" setup does not skew the DSO data.

I find it difficult to fathom that the "Ainslie team" believes in a COP>6 for the device. If that is so you should be scaling this up and taking over the world in the home heating industry....far better than heat pumps. I don't see anyone having enough faith to jump on this.

Kind Regards....V

Offline WilbyInebriated

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 3141
Re: Claimed OU circuit of Rosemary Ainslie
« Reply #2793 on: January 16, 2010, 07:11:17 PM »
For Rosemary to imply that a simple test setup may be acceptable to simple people like myself but never to academia is a bit of an insult, considering I've had over 40 years of temperature and power measurement skills and would like to believe I am rather good at it.
if you have a skill why don't you apply it instead of implying it? there is no one restraining you from running the experiment and publishing your data...

Offline Vortex1

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 518
Re: Claimed OU circuit of Rosemary Ainslie
« Reply #2794 on: January 16, 2010, 07:23:00 PM »
Quote
if you have a skill why don't you apply it instead of implying it? there is no one restraining you from running the experiment and publishing your data...

It is being done at this time......BTW...how is your test setup coming?
What instrumentation will you be using? What will be your approach to your test method?

Regards....V

Offline WilbyInebriated

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 3141
Re: Claimed OU circuit of Rosemary Ainslie
« Reply #2795 on: January 16, 2010, 07:32:54 PM »
It is being done at this time......BTW...how is your test setup coming?
What instrumentation will you be using? What will be your approach to your test method?

Regards....V
great! look forward to the full disclosure of your data... still waiting on poynty's too, has he posted any experimental data yet on that farce of a forum he has? btw, i'm not the guy telling people what the 'proper' way to do it is... that's you, remember? you're the one that needs to put your money where your mouth is, not i.

Offline Vortex1

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 518
Re: Claimed OU circuit of Rosemary Ainslie
« Reply #2796 on: January 16, 2010, 07:51:20 PM »
Quote
great! look forward to the full disclosure of your data... still waiting on poynty's too, has he posted any experimental data yet on that farce of a forum he has? btw, i'm not the guy telling people what the 'proper' way to do it is... that's you, remember? you're the one that needs to put your money where your mouth is, not i.

Sorry Wilby. but I lack the requisite low self esteem to pursue further correspondence with you. Find another more willing prey.

....V


Offline WilbyInebriated

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 3141
Re: Claimed OU circuit of Rosemary Ainslie
« Reply #2797 on: January 16, 2010, 07:54:44 PM »
Sorry Wilby. but I lack the requisite low self esteem to pursue further correspondence with you. Find another more willing prey.

....V
or is it because you have no logical ground to stand upon with your strawman request to see my 'test setup'? just walk your talk is all i'm saying.

so that's a no then? poynty hasn't posted anymore data whatsoever has he... imagine that. ::)

Offline guruji

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 470
    • http://andyborg.tripod.com
Re: Claimed OU circuit of Rosemary Ainslie
« Reply #2798 on: January 16, 2010, 08:09:47 PM »
Hi guys today I tried this circuit but no heat came.  ??? I have to say that my 24v batteries are low about 18v :-\ I am not using a shunt cause a guy told me you can eliminate that.
Any help please?
Thanks

Offline skcusitrah

  • Newbie
  • *
  • Posts: 25
Re: Claimed OU circuit of Rosemary Ainslie
« Reply #2799 on: January 16, 2010, 08:32:21 PM »
Quote from: Pirate88179 on Today at 05:26:43 AM
He needs to read a lot, and then do his own experiments AND publish his results.

    Bill



skcusitrah,

I suggest you do what one of Over Unity's finest senior members "Bill"  has to say .... also ..... or read the thread ..... or have all your comments removed by me ..... and possibly banned !!!!


Fuzzy
 

where did that come from man? look around you you'll see the same thing everywhere.  he's wrong, and anyone can see that ken and vortex1 have tons more background and experience than this guy with 3000 posts, which isn't impressive btw. vortex is right on the money and pirate man 3000 is making comments way out of his own league. relax man, he had his opinion and i had mine.

Offline WilbyInebriated

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 3141
Re: Claimed OU circuit of Rosemary Ainslie
« Reply #2800 on: January 16, 2010, 08:49:56 PM »
skcusitrah, ken, vortex, milehigh, poynty... not a one of you self proclaimed 'experts' is going to step up and help guruji with his question?

imagine that...


funny that milehigh and poynty still troll this thread... must be slow over at yOUR, or maybe they are looking for new topics and/or acolytes? who knows, maybe they just miss us?

Offline Vortex1

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 518
Re: Claimed OU circuit of Rosemary Ainslie
« Reply #2801 on: January 16, 2010, 09:04:07 PM »
Hi Guruji

Quote
Hi guys today I tried this circuit but no heat came.

When you say "no heat came" do you mean

1)"no excess heat over expected heat"

or

2) "absolutely no temperature rise above ambient"

from your resistor.

If the first then you have some proof the "Ainslie" circuit may be "ordinary" and does not meet advertised claims.

You also may not be supplying the "chaotic oscillation" supposedly required.

If the second, then I suspect you have an error in your wiring. You should be getting some heat in the resistor based on the duty cycle of the FET and the voltage level. You can calculate this based on your 18 volt supply.

As for the 0.25 ohm shunt, it is for measurement purposes of instantaneous loop current and supposedly not required.

There is more but lets see what you say about this first.

Regards...V


Offline jibbguy

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 352
Re: Claimed OU circuit of Rosemary Ainslie
« Reply #2802 on: January 16, 2010, 09:44:58 PM »
Regarding the above ideas, as "baselines" to show "conventional" non- Ainslie Effect figures they could be useful.

But i never understood why you guys always want Fuzzy to do stuff that ruins the efficiency and kills the effect that is required for it to work in the first place ;)

No one has yet reported the effect to WORK without the battery, it appears so far, to be a required ingredient. This is not so "outrageous"; if you consider that the re-charging from the pulses appears to be a significant part of the total energy efficiency (probably the higher output impedance of a batt as well). Hell, it may prove in the future that there IS a way around it, but at present it appears there is not.

> What happens when you pump pulses back into the "minus" plug of a REGULATED calibrated DC supply?... Does the total current usage of the supply go down (as, for instance measured by a watt meter inline with the power cord), by the same amount as the pulses would provide with a batt?

> And even if it would (which i seriously doubt), can those pulses exist the same and at the same amplitude in the first place when the much lower output impedance Calibrated Supply is used instead of a battery? Would not the impedance of the circuit change dramatically, not allowing the effect to be seen (remember this takes careful tuning of pots to get it into the desired condition, it is what we used to call "balanced on the head of a pin".. something i've seen old cascaded instrumentation op amp circuits be many times in the past in conventional commercial electronics).

> What would be the effect of the "Single Ended to Ground" grounding scheme of the supply on the circuit (...they are not "Input to Output Isolated", at least not the ones i have seen)? Could this Ground, going eventually to Earth through the internal power supply components of the unit "ruin" the effect completely? I've seen this affect circuits more times than i can remember, unless the rest of the circuit is then taken to ground as well...And again, when "balanced on the head of a pin" such effects have greater possible importance. 

This is not the first device to show a similar effect with lead-acid batteries; and no one ever complains that "cars" are pretty much useless without a battery, and that they are not "single ended to ground" and should require a wall plug to operate ;)


So in review,

Issue One: The battery is "needed" , at least as far as we know so far, to absorb the pulses as "charge".

Issue Two: The pulses and effect need a very specific impedance and fine tuning to exist at all.

Issue Three: Grounding this circuit through a supply could "kill" the effect altogether.

I would agree that it would be nice and very useful for verifying through a separate means of simple current calcs if the effect COULD work the same with a power supply as the Source (or a bank of capacitors too). But when it cannot, should we just walk away from it and refuse to study it then, because some folks "don't like batteries"?

That is not logical thinking. We understand the problems with battery charge calcs, Fuzzy certainly does.

But we do not have the luxury of "choosing" how it works.

So perhaps the suggestions, which are welcome when they are positively offered in the interest of seeing this studied in the best possible method, should be on measuring "battery charge" or "expended heat energy" the most effective ways using the restrictions present.

Offline guruji

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 470
    • http://andyborg.tripod.com
Re: Claimed OU circuit of Rosemary Ainslie
« Reply #2803 on: January 16, 2010, 10:14:45 PM »
Hi Guruji

When you say "no heat came" do you mean

1)"no excess heat over expected heat"

or

2) "absolutely no temperature rise above ambient"

from your resistor.

If the first then you have some proof the "Ainslie" circuit may be "ordinary" and does not meet advertised claims.

You also may not be supplying the "chaotic oscillation" supposedly required.

If the second, then I suspect you have an error in your wiring. You should be getting some heat in the resistor based on the duty cycle of the FET and the voltage level. You can calculate this based on your 18 volt supply.

As for the 0.25 ohm shunt, it is for measurement purposes of instantaneous loop current and supposedly not required.

There is more but lets see what you say about this first.
A...V
Hi Vortex thanks for response it's the second one absolutetly no temperature rise
maybe something with the wiring I will recheck everything.
Thanks

Offline Vortex1

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 518
Re: Claimed OU circuit of Rosemary Ainslie
« Reply #2804 on: January 16, 2010, 11:00:47 PM »
jibbguy:

Quote
Regarding the above ideas, as "baselines" to show "conventional" non- Ainslie Effect figures they could be useful.

They could also be the death knell of an imaginary effect which has yet to be successfully demonstrated or replicated by other than the Ainslie team.

Quote
But i never understood why you guys always want Fuzzy to do stuff that ruins the efficiency and kills the effect that is required for it to work in the first place ;)

If supply impedance is an issue, it is a quantifiable parameter and should be a component of the specification, and included specifically in the documentation

Quote
No one has yet reported the effect to WORK without the battery, it appears so far, to be a required ingredient. This is not so "outrageous"; if you consider that the re-charging from the pulses appears to be a significant part of the total energy efficiency (probably the higher output impedance of a batt as well). Hell, it may prove in the future that there IS a way around it, but at present it appears there is not.

From my observations, no one  succeeded in making it work with the battery.The data supplied reflects a faulty measurement technique.

Additionally, you are making generalizations about the impedance of batteries, which is dependent on plate area and electrolyte density. Further, a power supply can be higher or lower impedance than a given battery based on either's design.

Quote
> What happens when you pump pulses back into the "minus" plug of a REGULATED calibrated DC supply?... Does the total current usage of the supply go down (as, for instance measured by a watt meter inline with the power cord), by the same amount as the pulses would provide with a batt?

You should not even have to ask this, but I'll give you a hint: it depends on the design of the supply...generally it will be reflected in a reduction in power supply drain, but if it is a full op-amp type output versus single ended, this may not be true. This is because full op-amp power supply will expend some energy trying to smooth the incoming pulse in order to keep the output precisely regulated. I have a few HP 6823A's that will do this.

Quote
> And even if it would (which i seriously doubt), can those pulses exist the same and at the same amplitude in the first place when the much lower output impedance Calibrated Supply is used instead of a battery? Would not the impedance of the circuit change dramatically, not allowing the effect to be seen (remember this takes careful tuning of pots to get it into the desired condition, it is what we used to call "balanced on the head of a pin".. something i've seen old cascaded instrumentation op amp circuits be many times in the past in conventional commercial electronics).

Once again you have made an assumption that a regulated supply always has a lower output impedance than a battery. Which battery? Which regulated supply? All are different and you cannot make such generalizations.

Quote
> What would be the effect of the "Single Ended to Ground" grounding scheme of the supply on the circuit (...they are not "Input to Output Isolated", at least not the ones i have seen)? Could this Ground, going eventually to Earth through the internal power supply components of the unit "ruin" the effect completely? I've seen this affect circuits more times than i can remember, unless the rest of the circuit is then taken to ground as well...And again, when "balanced on the head of a pin" such effects have greater possible importance.

I do not know what type of power supplies you are talking about. I own maybe ten HP supplies as well as a handful of others and they all have line isolation and the output floats with respect to "earth" ground.

Again if the "effect" is this sensitive, it should be part of the build specification.

Quote
This is not the first device to show a similar effect with lead-acid batteries; and no one ever complains that "cars" are pretty much useless without a battery, and that they are not "single ended to ground" and should require a wall plug to operate ;)

Most portable devices such as cars require batteries. Capacitors do not yet have the kW/Hr density but they are getting close. A large capacitor as part of a power supply can mimic battery impedance and allow for the recharge effect.


Quote
So in review,

Issue One: The battery is "needed" , at least as far as we know so far, to absorb the pulses as "charge".

A capacitor can receive and store charge and be selected to have the same impedance as a battery.

Quote
Issue Two: The pulses and effect need a very specific impedance and fine tuning to exist at all.

This is not an engineering problem

Quote
Issue Three: Grounding this circuit through a supply could "kill" the effect altogether.

If it could be positively demonstrated in the first place.

Quote
I would agree that it would be nice and very useful for verifying through a separate means of simple current calcs if the effect COULD work the same with a power supply as the Source (or a bank of capacitors too). But when it cannot, should we just walk away from it and refuse to study it then, because some folks "don't like batteries"?

There are simple calculations for power using batteries, but so far the Ainslie team is preferring noisy data crunching.

Quote
That is not logical thinking. We understand the problems with battery charge calcs, Fuzzy certainly does.

I agree with you here, batteries can obfuscate.

Quote
But we do not have the luxury of "choosing" how it works.

But we can exercise critical thinking before believing that "it works"

Quote
So perhaps the suggestions, which are welcome when they are positively offered in the interest of seeing this studied in the best possible method, should be on measuring "battery charge" or "expended heat energy" the most effective ways using the restrictions present.

I outlined a very simple test which I will soon perform that will determine without a doubt if there is any excess heat. It will involve a non-inductive "control" resistor driven at the same pulse rate and duty cycle. I will look for excess heat over the "control". I will use batteries to get that red herring out of the way.

Quote
No one has yet reported the effect to WORK without the battery, it appears so far, to be a required ingredient. This is not so "outrageous"; if you consider that the re-charging from the pulses appears to be a significant part of the total energy efficiency (probably the higher output impedance of a batt as well). Hell, it may prove in the future that there IS a way around it, but at present it appears there is not.

Again the mantra of it "working" based on a set of faulty data.

More generalizations about battery impedance.

Sorry if I sound a little blunt, but I get a little nervous when I see so many generalizations thrown around as fact.

Bear in mind that I would be very pleased if the effect is real, because I won't have to stoke my wood stove anymore!

Lets use our critical thinking to insist on a test that includes a non-inductive "control" resistor of the same physical size and rating as the "Ainslie" resistor and drive them both side by side at the same pulse rate and see if any differential heating is produced.
No need to do any power calculations in this approach.

The proof of the pudding will be in the (H)eating

This is the direction I will take.

Kind Regards....Vortex1


« Last Edit: January 16, 2010, 11:45:05 PM by Vortex1 »