Free Energy | searching for free energy and discussing free energy

Solid States Devices => solid state devices => Topic started by: TinselKoala on June 17, 2009, 03:52:52 AM

Title: Claimed OU circuit of Rosemary Ainslie
Post by: TinselKoala on June 17, 2009, 03:52:52 AM
Ramset found this link to Rosemary Ainslie's work, and I found it interesting enough to fool around with. So I built a circuit, identical only with some different components, and started testing it. I haven't done nearly enough to give a final evaluation, but one thing I do see already: the input power signal is very spiky and so will be more or less underestimated by Ainslie's described technique.
That is, if my circuit behaves anything like hers.

http://www.feelthevibe.com/free_energy/rosemary_ainslie/transient_energy.pdf



Title: Re: Claimed OU circuit of Rosemary Ainslie
Post by: TinselKoala on June 17, 2009, 03:58:53 AM
So here's a picture of my "replication" of Ainslie's circuit. I couldn't find the IRFGP50 MOSFET locally, so I used a similar one, 2SK1548. And instead of using a 555 timer clock circuit I just used my trusty Interstate F34 function generator to make the gate drive pulses. And instead of using a .25 ohm current-viewing shunt I used a 2.5 ohm shunt. But the rest is as specified.
Title: Re: Claimed OU circuit of Rosemary Ainslie
Post by: TinselKoala on June 17, 2009, 04:06:55 AM
Here's the instrument stack. From the top, Fluke frequency counter (if it works, it's a "Fluke"!) showing 2.4 kilohertz. Next the F34, set on "pulse" mode with a DC offset to bring the baseline to zero volts and the peaks to about 10 volts, and the duty cycle cranked way down.
Next is the Tek scope, showing the pulse output from the F34. There are 5 minor divisions per horizontal cm, so one minor div would be 5 percent duty cycle if the entire wave takes 4 cm. You can see that this cycle is a bit over 4 cm, and the peaks are about half a minor division, so that's less than 5 percent and more than 2.5 percent. (Ainslie specifies 3.7 percent. How she got that precise with her equipment I'll never know.)
Next is the Philips scope with the current (input) waveform on top and the load (output) waveform on bottom. This is with the gate drive potentiometer turned down relatively low, so there isn't much distortion--that is, the device isn't yet operating in the Ainslie "OU" regime.
Title: Re: Claimed OU circuit of Rosemary Ainslie
Post by: TinselKoala on June 17, 2009, 04:17:11 AM
Now it starts to get interesting. The MOSFET is being operated way out of its normal operating regime. This circuit is actually a reasonably good amplifier, if you give it a sine input and moderate gate voltage. But with the short pulse input in this circuit the gate voltage has to be turned up higher than spec, so the circuit gets non-linear. I haven't been able to get mine to do the "random oscillations" that Ainslie talks about, but without seeing her scope trace I can't really tell what she's talking about. Things like that often occur from poor circuit layout, but this circuit shouldn't be too sensitive to that since it isn't really high frequency. (The MOSFET seems to do OK up to 2 MHz, which is where my equipment pretty much tops out).
So here's the result of increasing the gate drive to the point of non-linearity. Note the spikes developing in the current (input) trace.
Title: Re: Claimed OU circuit of Rosemary Ainslie
Post by: TinselKoala on June 17, 2009, 04:26:16 AM
Now, there can be a lot of power hiding in those leading and trailing spikes. My oscilloscopes at home aren't fast enough to reveal just how much power is in there, but you can get an idea from the following pictures. I cranked the gate drive up all the way and here's the result: the output waveform is still OK but there are some huge spikes on the input. There's a lot of power in those spikes. They are the inductive kickback from the inductances formed by the wirewound load resistor and the wiring. They represent energy, input from the battery over a "long" time, kicked back in a "short" time by the collapsing magnetic field.
I think.
The fact that the trailing spike is strongly negative may mean that the battery is self-recharging a bit. But regardless, it represents power that isn't being dissipated in the load resistor.

Now, Ainslie uses a calorimetric procedure to estimate her output, and since she saw her load resistor getting warmer than it should have, _given her input power calculations_, she makes the claim of COP > 17. It will be some time before I am able to repeat her output power measurements...
Since my load resistor has not perceptibly warmed up at all.
Yet...
 :'(

Leading edge spike:
Title: Re: Claimed OU circuit of Rosemary Ainslie
Post by: TinselKoala on June 17, 2009, 04:29:32 AM
Start and finish of trailing edge spike: (second picture has the area shown in the first picture, cranked a full screen up out of sight, to reveal the bottom of the spike.)

With a faster scope the spike would no doubt be seen to go even further. There's actually a lot of power in that skinny spike.
Title: Re: Claimed OU circuit of Rosemary Ainslie
Post by: also antlike on June 17, 2009, 04:58:55 AM
Interesting, I have never heard of Rosemary Ainslie before.
Title: Re: Claimed OU circuit of Rosemary Ainslie
Post by: fritznien on June 17, 2009, 06:04:39 AM
nice work TK, i wish my stuff was as neat.
just a couple of things you are using wire wound resisters, lots of inductance at 2.4 kHz. which explains the spikes.
a FET is just a switch so my money is on bad measurements. easy enough to make a filtered supply and measure DC on the input to
see what the real input is.
have fun
fritznien
Title: Re: Claimed OU circuit of Rosemary Ainslie
Post by: WilbyInebriated on June 17, 2009, 09:33:40 AM
any plan on doing it right? meaning getting proper components for the ones that you have that are not spec.
do you plan to use a calorimeter if/when you make the circuit to spec?

i am assuming you have a diode on the genny output? could you confirm?
Title: Re: Claimed OU circuit of Rosemary Ainslie
Post by: exnihiloest on June 17, 2009, 11:43:08 AM
Hi All,

The paper from Ainslie and Buckley is intriguing because the  output/input power ratio is enormous, near 20!
But the setup is very simple, so electronics engineers should have observed such anomalies long time ago.

1) the main source of errors is RF interferences. A temperature probe placed inside a heating resistance is capacitively coupled to the circuit. As the signal in the resistance has components at high frequencies, HF currents can flow to the "heatmeter" and completely pollutes the measurement. Ham radio operators know what I mean. I don't know the background of Ainslie and Buckley but if they are not familiar with HF, they may have been trapped.

2) we also should not forget that power is needed to control the FET switching. Normally it is weak and negligeable. Nevertheless if the signal amplitude goes beyond the linear limits and the FET spec, a non negligeable part of the switching control power can pass to the output.

Thus take great care when replicating this experiment. In particular, a RF wattmeter should be used.

Title: Re: Claimed OU circuit of Rosemary Ainslie
Post by: Liberty on June 17, 2009, 01:48:57 PM
nice work TK, i wish my stuff was as neat.
just a couple of things you are using wire wound resisters, lots of inductance at 2.4 kHz. which explains the spikes.
a FET is just a switch so my money is on bad measurements. easy enough to make a filtered supply and measure DC on the input to
see what the real input is.
have fun
fritznien

Well said, and I agree that it is most likely a measurement error.  If it was actually OU, what would be the source of the extra power?
Title: Re: Claimed OU circuit of Rosemary Ainslie
Post by: TinselKoala on June 17, 2009, 03:13:03 PM
OK, several points to address.
First, yes, when I can find them I will use identical components to Ainslie's circuit. Her MOSFET is kind of pricey and will have to be ordered; the one I'm using is...well, you can look up the data. It's pretty close, good enough for prelim testing. I will replace the shunt with .25 ohm today.
Second, yes, I know the inductances are causing the spikes. I think that's rather the point.
Third, there is no third thing.
Fourth, yes, in this circuit the pulse generator will be adding power. Ainslie's 555 pulser would most likely be even worse in this regard than my direct FG drive, but without details it's hard to tell for sure.
Fifth, yes, I have access to a proper water-bath calorimetric power meter, but first I want to see if I can get anything using Ainslie's method. So far my load isn't warming at all that I can tell.
More later.
Title: Re: Claimed OU circuit of Rosemary Ainslie
Post by: Paul-R on June 17, 2009, 03:15:10 PM
Ramset found this link to Rosemary Ainslie's work, and I found it interesting enough to fool around with.
You may find these useful. The first link connects to her patent
and other papers.

http://www.free-energy.ws/rosemary-ainslie.html

http://rosemaryainslie.blogspot.com/

Paul.
Title: Re: Claimed OU circuit of Rosemary Ainslie
Post by: ramset on June 17, 2009, 04:20:44 PM
TK
Quote.>Third, there is no third thing.

3rd is THANKS
You just can't put a price on this[priceless]!!
Chet

Title: Re: Claimed OU circuit of Rosemary Ainslie
Post by: qiman on June 17, 2009, 08:38:12 PM
If there is anything useful to you all here, feel free to
repost:
http://www.energeticforum.com/renewable-energy/4314-cop-17-heater-rosemary-ainslie.html

Title: Re: Claimed OU circuit of Rosemary Ainslie
Post by: TinselKoala on June 18, 2009, 12:40:26 AM
If there is anything useful to you all here, feel free to
repost:
http://www.energeticforum.com/renewable-energy/4314-cop-17-heater-rosemary-ainslie.html

Hmm. Interesting thread, full of ideas.
I do note one thing, though--those who are reporting lots of heat in the load seem to be using longer duty cycles. I like Stiffler's calorimeter setup, but I think I can do even better. And I guess I'll have to try Lindeman's circuit too.
Now, I have a question: In the original circuit in the pdf, Ainslie uses a 555 timer circuit, not specified, to drive the MOSFET gate. What voltage is being applied? I'm using as much as 10 volts, which is more than spec, but not enough yet to cause shoot-through. Could her drive voltage be even higher? I am having trouble getting my load to heat up, because of the short duty cycle.
Or is it possible that the 3.7 percent figure is a misprint?
It's hard for me to imagine that the MOSFET type itself would make that much difference. The one I'm using is an exact replacement for about 90 percent of all applications of the IRFPG50, has the internal diode and everything. But I'm ordering the IRFPG50 anyway, now that I don't think I'll smoke it (ten bucks!) right off the bat. No telling when it will arrive.

Anyway, I replaced my original 2.5 ohm shunt with a 0.25 ohm shunt as specified, and it made a lot of difference in the behaviour of the circuit. I'm uploading a video now, and I'll post a link when it's up.
Title: Re: Claimed OU circuit of Rosemary Ainslie
Post by: Groundloop on June 18, 2009, 01:21:43 AM
@TinselKoala,

She used 12 volt to drive the 555 circuit.

Groundloop.
Title: Re: Claimed OU circuit of Rosemary Ainslie
Post by: TinselKoala on June 18, 2009, 01:39:56 AM
OK, thanks, I'll build it and compare.
But can you explain the notations on the resistors like
 "[R]/50   k ohm/50%"
I don't understand what that means.

But from that, it certainly looks like my gate voltage isn't the problem. However the output of that circuit is likely to be less "clean" than my FG, which might be a good thing as it could help drive the MOSFET into the "O-zone", where the horizontal becomes vertical and the vertical goes ballistic...

So far:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=trip8gjoxMQ
Title: Re: Claimed OU circuit of Rosemary Ainslie
Post by: Groundloop on June 18, 2009, 01:58:08 AM
@TinselKoala,

Here is a cleaned up drawing of the circuit.

[EDIT] Added the Eagle CAD files. (For those of you that uses Cadsoft Eagle.)

GL.
Title: Re: Claimed OU circuit of Rosemary Ainslie
Post by: TinselKoala on June 18, 2009, 02:14:26 AM
It's so pretty! Thanks, much easier to work with. I get the resistor values now.
 :)
Title: Re: Claimed OU circuit of Rosemary Ainslie
Post by: Groundloop on June 18, 2009, 02:31:46 AM
@TinselKoala,

I have read the papers of RA. She noted that the frequency of the HEXFET was different (higher) than the oscillator frequency. Have you noticed such behavior in your circuit?

GL.
Title: Re: Claimed OU circuit of Rosemary Ainslie
Post by: poynt99 on June 18, 2009, 02:48:35 AM
The input Gate drive parameters are not critical. It's there only to elicit and maintain parasitic oscillation in the MOSFET.

.99
Title: Re: Claimed OU circuit of Rosemary Ainslie
Post by: TinselKoala on June 18, 2009, 03:22:07 AM
@TinselKoala,

I have read the papers of RA. She noted that the frequency of the HEXFET was different (higher) than the oscillator frequency. Have you noticed such behavior in your circuit?

GL.

Well, there's that ringdown frequency, which is quite a bit higher than the 2.4 kHz drive. But without seeing a scope trace I don't know if that's what she's talking about. So far, except for the spikes, my mosfet tracks the input frequency exactly, up to 2 MHz, which is where my FG tops out.
I don't quite understand what's happening in her circuit to produce the "random oscillations" that she talks about in the paper. She says she has to turn the gate drive down?? to get that? I guess I'll have to build the 555 portion to see what it introduces into the mix. That will be tomorrow, though.
Maybe the particular MOSFET does make a difference. I hate waiting for stuff. I wish I could find one locally.
Title: Re: Claimed OU circuit of Rosemary Ainslie
Post by: poynt99 on June 18, 2009, 03:49:58 AM
I don't quite understand what's happening in her circuit to produce the "random oscillations" that she talks about in the paper. She says she has to turn the gate drive down??

The Gate drive parameters may not critical in terms of frequency and duty cycle. In fact each device type and even between batches there will be variances. Again, the input is only a stimulus to excite parasitic oscillation natural to the MOSFET. This is of course the opposite effect one normally wants to achieve.

Parasitic oscillations come about when the MOSFETs are allowed to operate in their analog (or linear) region for a long enough time for a parasitic oscillation to get going. This region exists between the MOSFET gate threshold voltage and saturation voltage. MOSFETs have extremely high voltage gain, combined with very high capacitances, which makes the devices very prone to parasitics unless steps are taken to prevent them.

There is an optimum value of series gate resistance with all setups. Variance from optimum will result either in spiky edges as seen in your scope shots, or oscillation.

"Turning down the Gate Drive" means introducing more and more series gate resistance, Rg, until the things breaks into continuous parasitic oscillation.

Quote
Maybe the particular MOSFET does make a difference.

Almost all will oscillate, especially the higher voltage and current devices. Even obtaining the same part number she specified may not guarantee you'll get the same results. You may have to tweak the duty cycle, frequency, and Rg.

.99
Title: Re: Claimed OU circuit of Rosemary Ainslie
Post by: TinselKoala on June 18, 2009, 05:10:27 AM
The Gate drive parameters may not critical in terms of frequency and duty cycle. In fact each device type and even between batches there will be variances. Again, the input is only a stimulus to excite parasitic oscillation natural to the MOSFET. This is of course the opposite effect one normally wants to achieve.

Parasitic oscillations come about when the MOSFETs are allowed to operate in their analog (or linear) region for a long enough time for a parasitic oscillation to get going. This region exists between the MOSFET gate threshold voltage and saturation voltage. MOSFETs have extremely high voltage gain, combined with very high capacitances, which makes the devices very prone to parasitics unless steps are taken to prevent them.

There is an optimum value of series gate resistance with all setups. Variance from optimum will result either in spiky edges as seen in your scope shots, or oscillation.

"Turning down the Gate Drive" means introducing more and more series gate resistance, Rg, until the things breaks into continuous parasitic oscillation.

Almost all will oscillate, especially the higher voltage and current devices. Even obtaining the same part number she specified may not guarantee you'll get the same results. You may have to tweak the duty cycle, frequency, and Rg.

.99
Yes, thanks for the review.
You will note that Ainslie uses a 100 ohm pot to vary the gate drive. I didn't know that when I put my circuit together, so I used 200 kilo ohms. So I can "turn down" my gate drive through her available range and much further. Plus I can vary the output attenuation of the FG.
The parasitic oscillations that she generates in her circuit are absent in mine. When I turn the gate drive down with short duty cycles, the MOSFET simply turns off and stays off. Did you watch my video? You can see me doing this several times. No wild parasitic oscillations evident. With longer duty cycles even the full 200K isn't enough (with 10V p-p on the FG output) to shut off the mosfet, and it happily amplifies, relatively cleanly, the 2.4 kHz input pulse. Still no parasitic oscillations. So I'll put more resistance in there, and I'll continue to wonder about the numbers in Ainslie's paper. 3.7 percent duty cycle? 100 ohms gate resistance? 2.4 kiloHertz? With these numbers I get no heating of the load. If I increase the duty cycle to 30 percent or more I get plenty heat of load and mosfet. But at 3.7 percent I get no parasitic oscillation, and no heat on the load.
So perhaps I have a "good" mosfet, or perhaps my circuit layout is "better", that is, less prone to oscillations, or perhaps her 555 driver is forcing the oscillations to happen.
I just can't get my circuit to misbehave properly, and yes, I've explored the parameter space, up to 2 MHz, as I said, and from 3 to 97 percent duty cycles, and 0 to 200K Rg (Vgs=10V)
Title: Re: Claimed OU circuit of Rosemary Ainslie
Post by: derricka on June 18, 2009, 10:29:13 AM
Another thing to consider here, is stray capacitance.  I'm not sure if Rosemary used a breadboard to wire her circuit or not, but you can easily get 12pF (I've seen 20 on some) of capacitance between contact strips.  By comparison, your clean, point to point wired circuit, may be too stable for the task at hand. You could try soldering a few centimeters of wire onto the MOSFET gate to act as an antenna. Sometimes it just takes a bit of outside noise to tickle a circuit into oscillation.

Title: Re: Claimed OU circuit of Rosemary Ainslie
Post by: ramset on June 18, 2009, 10:09:18 PM
TK
If I may ,I have a question[while you wait for parts][like you have nothing better to do]
As you know a few weeks ago I met with that fellow who filed a patent app
for a mag motor
I mentioned he had a levitation disc ,a 12 inch circle cut in a piece of 1/4 inch plywood, in the circle was a 11inch [approx] plastic disc hovering in the field
he claimed people could stand on this Disc and not free it from the field

That part I said in a post and yes I held it in my hand [not heavy}
This part I did not say
 It was partially disassembled [missing mags that had come out of the glue over time]but still hovering ,only to one side

It just occurred to me what I had in my hand
The disc was STUCK to one side [attraction] because the mags on the other side[that used to pull it back and center it] were missing
I know you have MUCH magnet experience
 Have you ever done this?
It was claimed to be the BIG piece of a motor concept
 Before I replicate this [Quite simple concept]
Will it be easier to turn/spin ,floating in attraction 
Is it possible that when he says magnets can shield themselves.
He meant, in a field like this??
I value your opinion tremendously and won't waste time replicating a paper weight
Did I describe this well enough for you to know what the hell I'm talking about?
Chet
PS
 in the motor, he said this same disc would be hovering about 4 inches[what ever that means]
Title: Re: Claimed OU circuit of Rosemary Ainslie
Post by: TinselKoala on June 19, 2009, 01:25:24 AM
Another thing to consider here, is stray capacitance.  I'm not sure if Rosemary used a breadboard to wire her circuit or not, but you can easily get 12pF (I've seen 20 on some) of capacitance between contact strips.  By comparison, your clean, point to point wired circuit, may be too stable for the task at hand. You could try soldering a few centimeters of wire onto the MOSFET gate to act as an antenna. Sometimes it just takes a bit of outside noise to tickle a circuit into oscillation.

Probably the first time I've ever been "accused" of being too neat.  :P
First I'll try the 555 gate drive circuit and the IRF mosfet. Then we'll see what else needs to be done.
I was finally able to get some chaotic oscillations out of my rig...by cranking the duty cycle past 40 percent and the pulse voltage past 10 volts...and disconnecting the 24 volt battery completely!
Title: Re: Claimed OU circuit of Rosemary Ainslie
Post by: TinselKoala on June 19, 2009, 01:34:43 AM
TK
If I may ,I have a question[while you wait for parts][like you have nothing better to do]
As you know a few weeks ago I met with that fellow who filed a patent app
for a mag motor
I mentioned he had a levitation disc ,a 12 inch circle cut in a piece of 1/4 inch plywood, in the circle was a 11inch [approx] plastic disc hovering in the field
he claimed people could stand on this Disc and not free it from the field

That part I said in a post and yes I held it in my hand [not heavy}
This part I did not say
 It was partially disassembled [missing mags that had come out of the glue over time]but still hovering ,only to one side

It just occurred to me what I had in my hand
The disc was STUCK to one side [attraction] because the mags on the other side[that used to pull it back and center it] were missing
I know you have MUCH magnet experience
 Have you ever done this?
It was claimed to be the BIG piece of a motor concept
 Before I replicate this [Quite simple concept]
Will it be easier to turn/spin ,floating in attraction 
Is it possible that when he says magnets can shield themselves.
He meant, in a field like this??
I value your opinion tremendously and won't waste time replicating a paper weight
Did I describe this well enough for you to know what the hell I'm talking about?
Chet
PS
 in the motor, he said this same disc would be hovering about 4 inches[what ever that means]

So the hovering plastic disk had some magnets on it, but some were missing, and the plywood was the outer frame and it had magnets on it too?
I think you are describing a sort of magnetic bearing, of the type that I call the "2-df magnetic trailer hitch".
It's tricky to get the stable position, and I've never seen one support that much weight, but I think the concept is good, and I know it's used in some commercial sophisticated high-speed magnetic bearings, like are used on some kinds of turbo-molecular high vacuum pump systems. They don't simply levitate but hold in attraction as well due to the configuration of the magnets. Of course these systems are generally hybrids of electromagnets and permanent magnets.
If you can find a strong donut magnet, a clear plastic tube that fits in the hole, and a rod or cylinder magnet that fits inside the tube, you can discover some interesting things including, I believe, the levitation/attraction configuration. But with just these few magnets you need the plastic tube to keep things stable.
The fact that you saw it offside, and stuck on one side, seems very normal to me. Getting it to center and remain stable is the trick, using only permanent magnets.
Title: Re: Claimed OU circuit of Rosemary Ainslie
Post by: ramset on June 19, 2009, 02:02:25 AM
TK
Thanks for the response,Yes held in "attraction' Does seem amazingly difficult.
That would explain all the layout lines he had crossing the disc every 1/4 inch
Thanks
Chet
 PS
and Bill seems to have learned something from this [his  comment that magnets can shield themselves??]
I will take your suggestion to do this and see what I can learn





Title: Re: Claimed OU circuit of Rosemary Ainslie
Post by: Kator01 on June 20, 2009, 02:00:26 AM
Hi TinselKoala,

now I am  watching a bit from the sideline and checking in once and awhile
to contribute my experience with switching MOSFET´s.
I was following the whole conversation in the energetic-forum and I must say that I really do not understand why all these people do a lot of blah blah - and do not mention this one thing I learned a month ago about switching MOSFET´s.

Before I take it upon myself to explain all this, please see attachment of MICREL´s Application note on this subject.

Be aware, that you have to charge up the full gate-capacitance which needs a total charge of 190 nanocoulomb. Not before the Miller-Capacity is charged up can the gate-to-drain-charge be filled up an be effective in switchting the MOSFET to its specified rds_on of 2 Ohm.
Second - if the MOSFET-driving Voltage of NE555 is cut of - this very charge at the gate must be removed as fast as possible for the MOSFET to shut down fast.
How can the charge in this circuit be removed ? There is no bypass-way  to escape. It even has an 100 Ohm resitor in its way.
I personally doubt that - if this setup published by Rosemary is for real - this circuit will work as described. There is a lot of information missing concerning these technical details ( driving MOSFETs )

I used a MIC4424 MOSFET-Driver in a different circuit which can take a backward-current resulting from the Gate up to 0.5 Ampere and it worked very well

TinselKoala , you see the point ?

Best Regards

Kator01
Title: Rosemary Ainslie as a loop system
Post by: jas_bir77 on June 20, 2009, 04:15:38 PM
 @all
hi, i am not a technical person at all. i was just wondering if Rosemary Ainslie circuit can be a looped system.
what i mean to ask is that can we get a loop system using Rosemary Ainslie circuit using the system described below.
1. we get a electric boiler and fill it with steam using electricity from the grid.
2. we use that steam generated to generate electricity, now using this circuit produce steam from the electricity generated in 1st step.
this steam should be 15 - 20 times more,since Rosemary Ainslie circuit is 15- 20 times more efficient.
3.now again using the steam generated in pt 2 (15-20 times more than in pt 1) we produce electricity using a steam generator.
now if the electricity produced at pt 3 stage is more we can loop the sys.

eg .(this is a totally hypothetical figures i am taking ).

1. we use 10 kWh (from grid) to produce lets say 10 kg of steam (1 kWh =1 kg of steam) .

2. 10kg of steam produces 8 kwh of power.(80 % efficient)

3. 8 kWh produces 136 kg of steam (8 * 1 * 17) using Rosemary Ainslie circuit.

4. 136 kg of steam produces 108.8 kWh

now we use 100.8 kWh as excess power and use the remaining 8 kwh back to produce 136 kg of steam and so on.

kindly comment on the calculations.

if any tecnical person reads this feel free to give the exact conversion numbers for electric to steam conversion and stem to electric conversion.

since we already have the rest of the things( boiler , steam generator) easily available all we need is Rosemary Ainslie circuit to work and all our energy problems could be solved very easily.
since i am not a technical person i do not have the ability to contribute in testing of this circuit, but i would be grateful if more and more people test and develop this circuit and give laymen like the easy to follow instructions to make this circuit work.
thanks
jasbir
Title: Re: Claimed OU circuit of Rosemary Ainslie
Post by: ramset on June 20, 2009, 04:38:15 PM
Jasbir
Nice ideas!!
This circuit is QUITE DIFFICULT to validate,very deceptively simple.
We have a gentleman here that goes by user name Tinsel Koala
He has been researching this circuit and attempting an exact replication
STAND BY
Chet
Ps
along with the help of the other amazing talent in this forum
Title: Re: Claimed OU circuit of Rosemary Ainslie
Post by: jas_bir77 on June 20, 2009, 04:40:07 PM
thanks for the reply
looking  forward for exact replication.
Title: Re: Claimed OU circuit of Rosemary Ainslie
Post by: TinselKoala on June 20, 2009, 08:04:12 PM
@Kator: Yes, of course I am aware of those facts about switching mosfets. I assure you that this is not the first circuit of this type that I have constructed! You will note that I have mentioned several times that the mosfet in this circuit is being operated out of its normal performance envelope and should be expected to behave non-linearly. I'm not trying to "improve" Ainslie's circuit, just yet--first I need to confirm (or not, as the case may be) her initial measurements on the circuit to see if they are valid and reproducible. So far, with the short duty cycles specified, I am not seeing heating of the load. Only when the mosfet duty cycle (triggered by whatever: the FG actual input, or the chaotic parasitic oscillations that I am finding difficult to induce) exceeds about 30 percent do I notice warming of the load.
Now that I have breadboarded up the Ainslie 555 timer trigger circuit I will be experimenting with that later today. So far, the 555 circuit is effective at producing a short duty cycle pulse at the appropriate frequency range, but the 100 ohm attenuator doesn't do much (or anything) at all to the signal.
Yes, I am coming to the opinion that either 1) some things are left out of the information available, and/or 2) there may be misprints in some component values and/or measurements.

@Jas_bir: Yes, certainly it would be "trivial" from an engineering standpoint to harness the COP>17 claimed for this device. Since the circuit has been around for many years, you'd think that someone would have done so by now. Of course, the answer could be as simple as this: No overunity performance is actually exhibited by this circuit. But we'll see what we shall see, won't we.
 :o
Title: Re: Claimed OU circuit of Rosemary Ainslie
Post by: jas_bir77 on June 20, 2009, 08:19:18 PM
@TinselKoala
best of luck
Title: Re: Claimed OU circuit of Rosemary Ainslie
Post by: Groundloop on June 20, 2009, 09:07:56 PM
@TinselKoala,

I have uploaded the Rosemary Ainslie patent. Can be found here:
http://www.overunity.com/index.php?action=downloads;sa=view;down=290

Also, I noted that she state in an article that she did add inductance to the heating resistor. See snip. If you read the patent then you can see in one of the drawings that she put the heating resistor (load) in parallel with the coil. I think there is more to this circuit than just the load resistor.

Groundloop.
Title: Re: Claimed OU circuit of Rosemary Ainslie
Post by: TinselKoala on June 21, 2009, 12:04:18 AM
Erp. Yesss....

I have found very interesting behavior using the 555 timer circuit as compared to the FG output.

The FG output, set to 10 V peak and under 5 percent duty cycle, gave no heating of mosfet or load.

The 555 timer circuit produces pulses that are, as I expected, not as "clean", that is, rectangular, as the FG pulses, but a casual inspection would say that they are very similar indeed.

However they produce radically different behaviours in the Ainslie oscillator.

I'm still playing with it, but I can definitely say this much: the mosfet and load resistor/inductor do definitely get quite warm at short duty cycle (load resistor went up to 76 C quite rapidly); the major spikes are now on the leading edge of the pulse, and there may be more peculiarities of interest as well.

The 100R pot in the 555 circuit has miniscule effect on anything, until you look really closely at the spikes on a fast timescale.  It might be possible to induce false triggering with setting this pot, but it sure doesn't induce anything like random oscillations or parasitic ones either.
The 200K pot in my original circuit still has the greatest effect on waveform.

Also some power leaks through from the battery powering the timer circuit, but it really doesn't look like much, just off the cuff.

I will make a video showing what I mean later on tonight, unless the MIB get here first.
 ;)

(I'm still not seeing anything like chaotic or random behaviour though...I have seen false triggering or non-triggering of the scopes due to the complexity of the spikyness...could she be referring to false triggering? I mean, even parasitic oscillations are usually regular enough to be resolved on the scope...)
Title: Re: Claimed OU circuit of Rosemary Ainslie
Post by: TinselKoala on June 21, 2009, 12:08:26 AM
(light bulb goes on over head)

Is it possible that my FG is making the device operate at a duty cycle of 3.5 percent "on" and the 555 is making it operate at a duty cycle of 3.5 percent "off" ??
This would move the apparent position of the spikes, and would account for the vast heating discrepancy...

(runs off to check polarities, yet again....)
Title: Re: Claimed OU circuit of Rosemary Ainslie
Post by: TinselKoala on June 21, 2009, 12:22:15 AM
WHOLLY CRAP!!!

The Ainslie 555 timer circuit as posted above produces a duty cycle that is from 0 to 10 percent or so OFF, and CANNOT be adjusted to make a duty cycle that is 3.5 percent ON.
When I was testing the circuit I inadvertently had the scope's "polarity invert" switch for the 555 channel in the invert position, and I compared the waveforms of the FG and the 555 and they looked alike--but of course since the 555 waveform was inverted, what represented "ON" peaks from the FG corresponded with OFF peaks from the 555 circuit.

So the complete circuit as specified in the above posts from ramset and groundloop generates what I would call a 96.5 percent duty cycle, NOT a 3.5 percent one. The mosfet is ON most of the time, the spikes are still on the trailing edge of the pulses, the heating is not unusual at all, and all the power calculations in Ainslie's papers are, shall we say, "in error" because of this mistake in duty cycle.

Can anybody confirm this with a quick build of the 555 circuit and an oscilloscope?
Title: Re: Claimed OU circuit of Rosemary Ainslie
Post by: TinselKoala on June 21, 2009, 12:39:16 AM
@TinselKoala,

I have uploaded the Rosemary Ainslie patent. Can be found here:
http://www.overunity.com/index.php?action=downloads;sa=view;down=290

Also, I noted that she state in an article that she did add inductance to the heating resistor. See snip. If you read the patent then you can see in one of the drawings that she put the heating resistor (load) in parallel with the coil. I think there is more to this circuit than just the load resistor.

Groundloop.

That patent application (not patent!) says completely different things wrt "duty cycle" than does the original pdf that started this whole thing, and also makes much more conservative claims as to efficiency. In the cases cited in the application the margin is so small that measurement error is the first suspect, and the devices described in the application are intended to work at completely different frequencies and duty cycles than the circuit in the pdf. As far as I can tell, that is.

In the pdf she represents the load symbolically as an inductor in series with a resistance because she uses a wirewound resistor of significant inductance. I'm using the same total inductance as far as I can tell.

Title: Re: Claimed OU circuit of Rosemary Ainslie
Post by: TinselKoala on June 21, 2009, 02:09:50 AM
Grrr. See what happens when you open these cans of worms?

In the pdf of the EIT paper, on page 8, she describes a "control" experiment where she just hooks the 10 ohm wirewound load resistor up to a battery. And she calculates 17.7 watts as the average power dissipation here.
Then she cites and tabulates the results of an experimental run where she estimates the power dissipated in the load resistor, over the 997 minutes of the experiment to average 17.5 watts and total power 1.22 Megajoules.
And then that figure is compared to the calculated 67.6 kiloJoules calculated to have been delivered by the battery.
And this is where the COP>17 comes from.

BUT:

She states in the pdf that the circuit is ON for 3.7 percent duty cycle. However I have determined that the 555 circuit posted here produces a 96.3 percent ON duty cycle, and that it appears that she may be mistaken about what the true ON duty cycle is in her experiments.

Just roughly looking at the input parameters using this circuit, I get a 600 mV, nearly rectangular pulse shape, representing the voltage drop across a 0,25 ohm shunt. Ignoring the spikyness for the moment just to get ballpark values: that gives a current of 2.4 Amps, and times 24 volts that's 57.6 Watts, times 0.963 (actual duty cycle) gives about 55.5 Watts average power drawn from the battery. No wonder my load and mosfet heat up so quickly.
55.5 Watts times 997 minutes times 60 minutes per second gives about 3.3 MegaJoules input energy.

So the effect of the duty cycle mistake, if it is such, is to bring the COP down from >17 to about only 37 percent or so (COP<1/2), which is just what is expected in this kind of circuit. A substantial portion of the input power is going to the mosfet as heat, and some more is being radiated as EM waves, and some is even being reflected back into the battery.

What's not happening is "more energy out at load than in from battery".


Title: Re: Claimed OU circuit of Rosemary Ainslie
Post by: fritznien on June 21, 2009, 02:19:40 AM
well done TK!
Title: Re: Claimed OU circuit of Rosemary Ainslie
Post by: poynt99 on June 21, 2009, 02:23:24 AM
Wow I certainly hope it wasn't this little "innocent" mistake that caught Rosemary, although it would not surprise me.

Many people invert their scopes or swap the scope leads around to make the wave form "look better" only to later fail to realize that all their measurements will be inverted as well, as TK has just shown can easily happen.

.99
Title: Re: Claimed OU circuit of Rosemary Ainslie
Post by: TinselKoala on June 21, 2009, 02:27:16 AM
well done TK!

Thanks, but we need confirmation of several things before we can put the issue to bed.

First, did I build and connect my 555 circuit correctly, and am I right about its performance?
Second, did Ainslie really make the same error that I did at first? That is, is she really using 3.7 percent OFF instead of 3.7 percent ON?
And third, does her power calculation method (which seems a bit screwy from the outset) come up with the same input figures, proportionally, if the duty cycle correction is made?
Title: Re: Claimed OU circuit of Rosemary Ainslie
Post by: BEP on June 21, 2009, 03:20:58 AM
WHOLLY CRAP!!!

The Ainslie 555 timer circuit as posted above produces a duty cycle that is from 0 to 10 percent or so OFF, and CANNOT be adjusted to make a duty cycle that is 3.5 percent ON.
When I was testing the circuit I inadvertently had the scope's "polarity invert" switch for the 555 channel in the invert position, and I compared the waveforms of the FG and the 555 and they looked alike--but of course since the 555 waveform was inverted, what represented "ON" peaks from the FG corresponded with OFF peaks from the 555 circuit.

So the complete circuit as specified in the above posts from ramset and groundloop generates what I would call a 96.5 percent duty cycle, NOT a 3.5 percent one. The mosfet is ON most of the time, the spikes are still on the trailing edge of the pulses, the heating is not unusual at all, and all the power calculations in Ainslie's papers are, shall we say, "in error" because of this mistake in duty cycle.

Can anybody confirm this with a quick build of the 555 circuit and an oscilloscope?

Consider your solution confirmed. At least as far as your description of the real circuit behavior.

This circuit is not at all uncommon. In fact, I have one in-use for quite some time. I had to put a 2N2222 follower on the 555 pin 3 to invert the output so the 'REAL' ON cycle was the -short- part of the cycle. Using the CMOS flavor of the 555 you can have some very short pulses, once inverted.

The 100 ohm pot on pin 3 would just allow adjustment to a cleaner square wave out - or more sloppy. Whatever your preference. It does make a cleaner wave around 500 ohms with a 12V supply on the 555 while driving an IRF510.

The part values on the RC side would make it easy to push the 555 into La-La land. And yes, my sacrificial scope, an old 100meg Tektronix, can't keep up with the 555 when it goes ballistic with total cycle times less than off+on.

Attached is a way to fire the MOSFET with the shorter 'OFF' part of the 555 output.

Title: Re: Claimed OU circuit of Rosemary Ainslie
Post by: ramset on June 21, 2009, 04:24:45 AM
TK
Does this mean I have to cut your grass for the rest of my life?
If your findings are true ,you've saved this community a lot of wasted time.


Chet
Title: Re: Claimed OU circuit of Rosemary Ainslie
Post by: TinselKoala on June 21, 2009, 03:34:32 PM
@BEP: yep, I also have used similar circuits for years. I consume 555s and 2222s like candy. (My, they're crunchy.) And over the years I've learned to wear safety glasses around 555s that are hooked up to inductances. A liberal sprinkling of good fast diodes in the circuit will often keep the smoke in, but it is amazing how loud that little chip can be when it blows up. Tends to startle the landlord.

@ramset: lol, I neither sow nor do I reap, I just let it grow...
But before we consider the issue completely closed it would be nice to hear from someone (Rosemary? Are you out there somewhere?) who can confirm or deny that her research actually suffers from this problem. Although at this point it seems increasingly likely.

For your amusement:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=18raNyVTL6g
Title: Re: Claimed OU circuit of Rosemary Ainslie
Post by: Kator01 on June 21, 2009, 07:15:44 PM
Hi TinseKoala,

why not report your findings here in order to stop all the blah-blah of the so called experts and save time and energy of innocnet members of this group:

http://www.free-energy.ws/rosemary-ainslie.html (http://www.free-energy.ws/rosemary-ainslie.html)

and ask Rosemary the relevant question her at her Blogsite

http://rosemaryainslie.blogspot.com/ (http://rosemaryainslie.blogspot.com/)

As I stated before, you can save blowing your 555-chips by using the MIC4423-24-25.

NE555 can blow because of the huge reverse-current originating from the charge in the gate. It does not have anthing to do with inductance in this case.

Despite these facts, the low Inductance of 8 to 10 Myko-Henry does not store much energy at this frequency.
In another circuit where I was testing ( Cap recharge project byuser null_points ) I used a 2 Milli-Henry coil from an old speaker-filter. It had a inner resistance of 0.7 Ohm and I switched one fully charged cap with a BUZ11 via this coil to another cap. Here I found a very long off-ringing oscillation the frequnecy of which did not change much even if I used half of the inductivity ( 1 Millihenry ). Attached some the pics I made of this circuit including the damped oscillation. You have to adapt the frequency so the oscillation ends just before the next puls ( which i had not done yet in this pic set_ocill_01.jpg ) The red circled area is the time the flyback-diode is active. If it shuts of the rest of the flyback-energy oscillates between C1- and C2. Without the diode the oscillation was absolutly weird and the recharge efficiency very bad. I was able to regain the energy with this ultrafast diode so I had only a loss of 20 % at the end of the discarge-cycle. The discharge-cycle ended when the voltage-Level C2 and C1 was almost equal.

Frankly speaking : I think that especially if I observe the way, this is discussed in the above mentioned forum, this is jet another game of some known desinformation-agents acting in the free-energy.ws-forum in order to destract the attention of people.

Best Regards

Kator01

Title: Re: Claimed OU circuit of Rosemary Ainslie
Post by: ramset on June 22, 2009, 01:32:26 AM
Tk
All
In regard to this circuit,I believe its  real purpose is to prove the following.

posted by User Skywatcher [and agreed upon by P. Lindemann]
Quote<
And that is that we can charge a coil, make a magnetic field and use the field in a non-impeding manner such as an attraction motor or other setup and then we can reuse most of the field when it collapses.
>end Quote

Chet
PS
See this type of claim seems feasible to me,but I am unschooled  in these matters
Title: Re: Claimed OU circuit of Rosemary Ainslie
Post by: TinselKoala on June 22, 2009, 03:32:48 PM
Sure, all that's fine, but let's not forget the specific nature of the claim, in the magazine article, the pdf of the paper, the patent application, and elsewhere: the circuit as published is alleged to produce 17 times as much energy output as heat, as it receives as input from the batteries. COP>17, for a specific set of circuits.
I believe that I have shown that the circuit AS PUBLISHED and as I built it, does not perform as claimed, and in fact could not do so, since the 555 timer circuit CANNOT be set to provide a short ON duty cycle. And in fact, as I have shown, the numbers she obtained and cited in the pdf paper can be accounted for precisely, by computing power using her incorrect figure of 3.7 percent ON, but using the correct 96.3 percent ON duty cycle that her timer circuit provides, the true energy supplied by the battery is in the neighborhood of 3 MegaJoules, and thus the circuit's COP is in reality <1/2, far from the >17 that has been claimed.
This fact is independent of the MOSFET used, of course, so the fact that I am using the 2SK1548 instead of the specified IRFPG50 should be irrelevant here.

Now, as to the issue of chaotic, random, or parasitic oscillations caused by "turning down" the 100R potentiometer in the published circuit: It ain't happening, folks. Not for me. What IS happening, is false triggering of the oscilloscope, which can certainly look like random oscillations. And of course parasitic oscillations can be induced by means cited in previous posts by others: poor circuit layout, stray capacitances, improperly meeting the demands of the MOSFET's gate capacitance, dirty gate drive pulses, and so forth. Unfortunately (!?!) my build does not seem to suffer from these "features".

I am prepared to consider arguments that the MOSFET I am using is not the exact one Ainslie uses, and so my results could be invalid for that reason. But please, if you are going to make that argument, read the data sheets for the two MOSFETS first and please provide some hard reasoning for your stance.

I am also prepared to repeat the experiment, if Ainslie or somebody else can refute my finding that her duty cycle, as stated in the paper, is reversed, that is, not what she says it is. This finding alone calls into serious question her OU claims and, by extension, her entire theoretical structure, so I should hope that it is taken seriously.
Title: Re: Claimed OU circuit of Rosemary Ainslie
Post by: BEP on June 22, 2009, 03:49:10 PM
Is there any chance her load on the source pin is creating an inversion of the 555 output or causing some nonlinear state?

Then there is the 555. Output can go to what I term 'a garbage state' when you try for a <50% duty cycle, with this circuit and many other 555 circuits.

I think you are correct, TK. If there is such a measurement mistake the usual response from academia is to ignore the claim.
Title: Re: Claimed OU circuit of Rosemary Ainslie
Post by: TinselKoala on June 22, 2009, 04:17:24 PM
I don't see how, with the specific component values, that there could be instability of the 555 or "flipping" of its output cycle. But sure, those things can behave strangely sometimes. And I am always prepared to admit that I may have made some weird error in my build--but I don't think I have. That's why I've asked for some independent confirmation of the 555 circuit, at least, and it appears we've gotten that.
(EDIT to add: I even went back and checked --again-- to make sure my 2sk1548 and her irfpg50 are both N-channel mosfets--)

Is Ainslie still around? I think that if I were she, I'd be whipping up circuitry, photographing scope traces, and all kinds of other stuff, in order to refute that fool skeptic TK who can't even put a circuit together properly to oscillate wildly.

What about it, Rosemary? Can you tell us, one way or the other: Does YOUR circuit give YOU a 96.3 percent ON duty cycle, as I believe, or does it really give you a 3.7 percent ON duty cycle as you claimed in several published places?
I can't really see going further in this research (calorimetry, etc.) until this question is resolved.

Inquiring minds want to know...
Title: Re: Claimed OU circuit of Rosemary Ainslie
Post by: TinselKoala on June 22, 2009, 04:43:21 PM
I just checked the thread on energeticforum. Nobody seems concerned at all that her claims of excess energy are completely invalidated, IF her circuit in the pdf, which is the only one with reported test results, is doing what I found. They are happily theorizing and going off on tangents, while ignoring my work completely (except for ramset--thanks, Chet...)
When they should be seeking information from Ainslie, or building their own damn replications, or at least telling me why I'm full of crap.
Title: Re: Claimed OU circuit of Rosemary Ainslie
Post by: ramset on June 22, 2009, 07:05:13 PM
TK
may i post a summary
perhaps a very brief # 3
Chet
Title: Re: Claimed OU circuit of Rosemary Ainslie
Post by: TinselKoala on June 22, 2009, 08:13:19 PM
TK
may i post a summary
perhaps a very brief # 3
Chet

Absolutely, please do.
I've been trying to get on that forum myself. Register, wait for email validation, disable browser security, first try doesn't work, second validation number received, validation accepted, now I must be "moderated" before I can post. Since Friday I've been trying.
Title: Re: Claimed OU circuit of Rosemary Ainslie
Post by: ramset on June 22, 2009, 08:17:13 PM
PM
Jibbjuy [member here and there]He got me on in ten minutes[slight exaggeration ]
Chet
PS
I also put in a request on the Thread
Title: Re: Claimed OU circuit of Rosemary Ainslie
Post by: ramset on June 23, 2009, 04:21:33 AM
TK
Aaron says your good to go

Chet
BTW when you have a moment,whats a scalar wave?[besides dangerous]
Ive heard these are the longitudinal waves Tesla spoke of?
nothing can shield them?
There making them in the Ed Gray tube thread over there.
Title: Re: Claimed OU circuit of Rosemary Ainslie
Post by: TinselKoala on June 23, 2009, 08:42:07 PM
TK
Aaron says your good to go

Chet
BTW when you have a moment,whats a scalar wave?[besides dangerous]
Ive heard these are the longitudinal waves Tesla spoke of?
nothing can shield them?
There making them in the Ed Gray tube thread over there.

Thx, chet, discussion in progress over there now.

Scalar waves...mostly misunderstood. You will even hear people talk about "scalar vectors" which always cracks me up. A vector, of course, is a quantity with both a definite magnitude and a definite direction, like a force for example. A scalar is just a magnitude, with no direction associated with it. So a "scalar vector" is sort of like a "jumbo shrimp" only worse--a contradiction in terms. Like saying "free" and "energy" in the same breath.
But anyway, the idea seems to be that EM can come in two flavors--second, like the transverse and orthogonal E and M oscillations from normal radio systems, and first, like what Tesla and others have called "longitudinal waves" or perhaps scalar waves. While the transverse waves can be viewed like a vibrating string under tension, with nodes, a plane of oscillation, and so on, the longitudinal waves are more like sound itself--that is, a "compression and rarefaction" of the medium, so the oscillation is not at right angles to the direction of propagation like in transverse waves, but is in the same direction--longitudinal--as the propagation.
Shielding? The experiments that I have done myself indicate that longitudinal waves are indeed very difficult to shield by normal RF shielding means. I was able to transmit a longitudinal signal into a Faraday screen room, using a circuit I found on JLN's site.
Dangerous? I would imagine that given enough power and at the right frequencies they could be dangerous. So could anything else.
Reality: I think what most people are referring to as scalar or longitudinal waves (even Tesla) are really wide powerful broadband bursts of simple RF.
Title: Re: Claimed OU circuit of Rosemary Ainslie
Post by: allcanadian on June 23, 2009, 10:58:20 PM
@TinselKoala
Quote
I just checked the thread on energeticforum. Nobody seems concerned at all that her claims of excess energy are completely invalidated, IF her circuit in the pdf, which is the only one with reported test results, is doing what I found. They are happily theorizing and going off on tangents, while ignoring my work completely (except for ramset--thanks, Chet...)
Completely Invalidated you say,LOL, I do not think one minor attempt qualifies as "completely invalidated" in any sense of the word. You should understand that many real inventors can spend months or years to perfect a device, then some yahoo throws together a bunch of crap in a single day and yells "Ah-ha it's all a lie" and the cycle of ignorance continues. I would suggest you actually try to understand the circuit process before you go off judging anyone.
Regards
AC
Title: Re: Claimed OU circuit of Rosemary Ainslie
Post by: ramset on June 23, 2009, 11:15:20 PM
AC
In the context of TK's findings [replicating the published circuit]
He has valid questions ,his replication did not produce the published result,
And the lack of interest in" THAT"fact was curious ,and I felt the basis of his remark[at least thats how I took it after reading all his posts ]
In no way has he intimated he has shot this down ,on the contrary he's looking for answers [joining the forum]
hopefully they [the answers ]will come
Chet
Title: Re: Claimed OU circuit of Rosemary Ainslie
Post by: allcanadian on June 24, 2009, 12:33:28 AM
@ramset
What I found offensive was his statement "that her claims of excess energy are completely invalidated", I don't think he has a clue what the term validation means. I spent two months on a simple circuit (Teslas ozone patent 568177) before I could validate Tesla's claims and this circuit is hardly more complex than the Ainslie circuit. Validation is making every effort to prove a device using the exact same materials and components in exactly the same manner, validation is not throwing whatever crap you may have on hand together in a few hours, this is not replication nor validation of anything.
My validations start with reading all know literature by the author in question, next I study all known devices in detail to establish a timeline of technology. This research could take weeks or months alone, then based on these endless hours of research I build the device to exact specifications if they are available. If specs are not available then the device "CANNOT" be validated---period, you can only make an effort to validate it based on incomplete information, based on nothing more than opinion.
Regards
AC
Title: Re: Claimed OU circuit of Rosemary Ainslie
Post by: ramset on June 24, 2009, 12:49:51 AM
AC
Your point is well made [and taken],Rosemary seems to be begging for replication and challenge from the status quo.
I take TK's comment as a shot across the bow[permission to ask questions about your findings Rosemary?] Bought on by his initial findings in his attempt at replication
He asked Her to comment in this thread ,perhaps she will in the other.

AC ,I just sweep the floors around here ,but I have admired your posts and work for quite some time.

Chet
Title: Re: Claimed OU circuit of Rosemary Ainslie
Post by: TinselKoala on June 24, 2009, 05:09:55 PM
@TinselKoala Completely Invalidated you say,LOL, I do not think one minor attempt qualifies as "completely invalidated" in any sense of the word. You should understand that many real inventors can spend months or years to perfect a device, then some yahoo throws together a bunch of crap in a single day and yells "Ah-ha it's all a lie" and the cycle of ignorance continues. I would suggest you actually try to understand the circuit process before you go off judging anyone.
Regards
AC

Who am I judging? Who are you judging? Who are you calling names?

I suggest that you actually try to understand the English sentences in my post, before you go off judging someone.

Perhaps you, in all your vaunted wisdom, can tell us just what it means to her claims of overunity, IF (there, I even capitalized it AGAIN so that you might notice it) her duty cycle, as generated by the circuit SHE PUBLISHED, is actually making a 3.7 percent OFF cycle instead of the 3.7 percent ON cycle she claimed.

Did you build the circuit yourself? I am waiting eagerly for your report of your results.
Title: Re: Claimed OU circuit of Rosemary Ainslie
Post by: allcanadian on June 24, 2009, 10:59:28 PM
@TK
It is settled then, both of us agree my comments were out of line and I apologize for my behavior. Regarding Rosmary Ainslie's claims, as far as I can tell a printing error in the published circuit diagrams would have no bearing on her claims or her technology. Unless of course this mischievous printing error could somehow stop all of her circuits from working as stated and erase her patents from history by some divine intervention in which case I would be mistaken.
Regards
AC
Title: Re: Claimed OU circuit of Rosemary Ainslie
Post by: TinselKoala on June 25, 2009, 03:27:29 AM
@TK
It is settled then, both of us agree my comments were out of line and I apologize for my behavior. Regarding Rosmary Ainslie's claims, as far as I can tell a printing error in the published circuit diagrams would have no bearing on her claims or her technology. Unless of course this mischievous printing error could somehow stop all of her circuits from working as stated and erase her patents from history by some divine intervention in which case I would be mistaken.
Regards
AC
Accepted, and I also apologize for my sarcastic tone. It's in my nature, but that's no excuse.
(gee I hate the mushy parts)

 My point is simply that her theory (I have read her blog articles) seems constructed to explain certain observed phenomena under certain conditions, and if it turns out that the observations are incorrect because the conditions are other than as specified, it really does put the status of the theory in question.
In the "real world" of academia and peer-review, entire careers have been "tubularized" for similar errors.
But I'm really not too concerned about theories, anyway. I'm with Feynman as far as theories go:
"It doesn't matter how beautiful your theory is, it doesn't matter how smart you are. If it doesn't agree with experiment, it's wrong."

And I'm trying to clear up just that issue: Is it a printing error? Or is the error deeper than that?

Curious, isn't it, that the "printing error" circuit gives the exact inverted duty cycle at the exact freq range specified, instead of not working or producing some random frequency and duty cycle...I wish I could be that lucky.
And also curious that the "printing error" circuit behaves rather like the claimed circuit, as far as heating the load resistor goes, while function-generator driven versions (where the duty cycle is set at 3.7 percent ON) do not...and I'm not talking only mine, here. Others using FGs have also not been able to show load heating at short duty cycles, according to reports.

Of course, after all these years I am sure that the original tested apparatus that produced the COP>17 is no longer in existence, or cannot be found, or...something.

Down the rabbit hole...

(Oh, and what's this talk of "patents" and working circuits? All I've seen is a patent application and some diagrams, but I have not seen any circuits that do what she claims as far as being overunity in performance.)
Title: Re: Claimed OU circuit of Rosemary Ainslie
Post by: Groundloop on June 25, 2009, 08:12:21 PM
@TinselKoala,

Attached is a snip from the article.

I have highlighted the part where she say:

"This article describes the precise circuit, as"
"depicted in Figure 1, that is used to expose this"
"benefit in transient energy. This is to enable and"
"urge others to duplicate the experiment and"
"determine the measurements independently."

Groundloop.
Title: Re: Claimed OU circuit of Rosemary Ainslie
Post by: TinselKoala on June 26, 2009, 12:30:43 AM
Yes,  I see that, and I built the exact circuit (with the exception of the MOSFET, but that's not where the problem lies.)
If you want to see what I am talking about, check out that other thread, where I am trying to deal with DrStiffler saying that the 555 circuit is a misprint or has been "inserted"...Stiffler's position seems to be that it doesn't matter what was published, replicators can make up their own circuits rather than testing the published one--which he says is wrong, but he won't explain HOW it's wrong or WHY the paper has been out since 2002 with a WRONG circuit diagram...

The problem that I have identified is that the circuit in the above article Does Produce Heat in the load. It also has a 96.3 percent ON duty cycle, NOT the 3.7 percent ON that the authors of the paper claim. But a 3.7 percent ON duty cycle does NOT produce heating of the load.

So the conclusion is pretty clear to me.

Unless somebody can show me that Ainslie's circuit actually does produce the 3.7 percent ON duty cycle that is claimed in the above paper, I must conclude that the data and calculations based thereon are erroneous and that paper should be retracted.

And meanwhile I am coming to certain conclusions about the cognitive ability and style of certain OU researchers.

Let me review: I was presented with a circuit that Ainslie says is overunity. I built the circuit exactly as specified from Ainslie's publications. I found an inverted duty cycle, which invalidates the power calculations based on using the circuit. And now I am being told that the circuit is some unspecified misprint, even though it makes heat in the load and makes the correct frequency and makes the correct but inverted duty cycle...but the overunity claims in the paper are not wrong, so the circuit (which circuit, now?) is still worth investigation.

I've got to say, it's really hard to figure out how to do replications under these conditions. I mean, if the published diagrams are wrong but even so they produce the OUTPUT behaviour correctly...and correct diagrams are unavailable, and FG pulse drives at the specified duty cycle do NOTHING but FG pulse drives at the inverted duty cycle make things behave just as the "wrong" published circuit does...

Oh, well, what did I expect....
Title: Re: Claimed OU circuit of Rosemary Ainslie
Post by: ramset on June 26, 2009, 03:21:06 AM
TK
quote<

Oh, well, what did I expect....
end quote

RESPECT !!
For taking the time and money to do exactly as Rosemary requested.[replication]
Hopefully she will show up.
Chet

Title: Re: Claimed OU circuit of Rosemary Ainslie
Post by: Groundloop on June 26, 2009, 07:37:02 AM
@TinselKoala,

I found the other forum and did read the posts. LOL

I personally think you have done a good job replicating the circuit. The only person
that can clear up the "misprint" circuit is the inventor of the circuit. So far this has
not happen, so I must assume that until she decide to post the correct circuit, then
we are left with your conclusions that she got the math wrong because of the
duty cycle error.

Regards,
Groundloop.
Title: Re: Claimed OU circuit of Rosemary Ainslie
Post by: alan on June 26, 2009, 04:42:52 PM
Quote
The problem that I have identified is that the circuit in the above article Does Produce Heat in the load. It also has a 96.3 percent ON duty cycle, NOT the 3.7 percent ON that the authors of the paper claim. But a 3.7 percent ON duty cycle does NOT produce heating of the load.
quite logical dont you think, more current flows, thus more heat is wasted.

ask yourself why you would want a small dutycycle?

MY 2 CTS, havent studied the circuit very much, so my view could be wrong:

The dutycycle must correlate/compensate the time constant of the coil, the time it takes for current to rise.

at one instant, you get potential difference over the coil - this is felt by the load, without current going through it - call it static electricity, or scalar wave, or radiant energy.

I think you can even up the frequency, while keeping the same dutycycle in units of time, not percentage.

While the FET is low or non conducting, a displacement current flows, inducing a magnetic field and all, and voltage is built up, current stops flowing [contrary to a closed loop] but voltage stays there, just like a regular wire, and the field collapses because current changes to zero amps.

Now introduce ground to the coil, current starts flowing through the coil but gets inhibited by the reactance, while the potential over the coil remains.
After a short pulse duration, when FET gets low again, the voltage on the ground side gets replenished.

I don't know if you have done this, but analyze this:
measure with a scope the voltage over the coil while pulsing, but also when switching on the power.
see if it gets magnetized when switching power on, but while fet stays in non conducting state.

You can conclude that a bigger coil is better, because current will rise slower.
Title: Re: Claimed OU circuit of Rosemary Ainslie
Post by: TinselKoala on June 26, 2009, 05:14:00 PM
Hi Alan
Thanks for taking a look. But I suggest you spend a moment and look at the Quantum article and the EIT pdf paper (links above in the thread somewhere.)
The heating of the load is the "output" of this circuit as claimed, and as far as I can tell the overunity claim depends on the true duty cycle that was fed to the mosfet. The heating of the load isn't in question, but rather what duty cycle was actually used to produce the heating shown in Rosemary Ainslie's paper.
I've built the circuit exactly, with the exception of the MOSFET--the one that I'm using is the 2sk1548 which has similar parameters to the IRFPG50. However the mosfet isn't the issue for me--but rather, the duty cycle of the 555 timer circuit.

One possible reason for the "mistake" if there is one, is the fact that the voltage at point "A", where she monitors the load, is high (that is, at battery voltage) when the MOSFET is OFF. This might make some think that the duty cycle at this point is short, when actually the load is OFF when the voltage here is high. So the load is ON (current flowing through it, causing heating) when the voltage at "A" is LOW, which means the circuit shown here is making a LONG duty cycle not a short one.  Current is flowing in the load (and being drawn from the battery) for 96.3 percent of the time, not 3.7 percent as the papers state.
Hence the OU calculations are in error.

UNLESS:::Unless I have made some really embarrassing mistake. So I have been trying to get people to build the 555 timer portion of the circuit at least, using the Quantum paper (or the cleaned-up diagram from Groundloop) to verify or deny that it makes the duty cycle that I found.

If I've made a mistake I would really like to know, because I'd like to continue on with output measurements, as it's an interesting project. But if what I've found re duty cycle is true (and I don't consider it confirmed yet) then there isn't much point in continuing, that I can see.

As far as the magnetic measurements that you suggest Alan, I'll position a Hall sensor in the appropriate place and see what it does, the next time I fire up the system, which will probably be later this evening. I think I've already looked at the voltage drop across the load, looking for power injection from the FG or timer circuit...but I can't really remember right now, so I'll repeat those measurements as well. Thanks for the suggestions...I don't know what to do with the findings but maybe you will.

--TK

(EDIT I don't know why you removed your comment; it made perfect sense to me...)
Title: Re: Claimed OU circuit of Rosemary Ainslie
Post by: alan on June 26, 2009, 05:22:38 PM
-
Title: Re: Claimed OU circuit of Rosemary Ainslie
Post by: alan on June 26, 2009, 08:45:41 PM
I made it some more readable  :)
I've read the article

my comments wasn't really relevant to the circuit, I had something different in mind, remembered the circuit incorrectly.
I thought the load was placed parallel over the coil, but the load is the inductive resistor itself.

Have you done any temperature measurements?

anyway, I saw your vid's and you did a great experiment, I give it a thought later again.
Title: Re: Claimed OU circuit of Rosemary Ainslie
Post by: WilbyInebriated on June 27, 2009, 10:06:40 AM
tk

i see you tossing the word 'exact' or 'exactly' out in a few of your posts. maybe you need a refresher?
http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/exactly

did you drop the $10! for the correct fet yet? i should think after your $1000 U.S. equiv. offer to mylow? and your own admission that you spent $900 and 80hrs of your time on it (mylow's wheel) you wouldn't be so pompous as to expect us to think you can't cough up the $10! for the correct fet for this 'debunking'. i should also think you wouldn't want to leave this fet issue open for contention whatsoever. nice work as usual.

Title: Re: Claimed OU circuit of Rosemary Ainslie
Post by: TinselKoala on June 27, 2009, 06:22:20 PM
tk

i see you tossing the word 'exact' or 'exactly' out in a few of your posts. maybe you need a refresher?
http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/exactly

did you drop the $10! for the correct fet yet? i should think after your $1000 U.S. equiv. offer to mylow? and your own admission that you spent $900 and 80hrs of your time on it (mylow's wheel) you wouldn't be so pompous as to expect us to think you can't cough up the $10! for the correct fet for this 'debunking'. i should also think you wouldn't want to leave this fet issue open for contention whatsoever. nice work as usual.

What I do with my time and money seems to be, last time I checked, My Business.
And even you should be able to tell that the problem I identified has NOTHING to do with the choice of MOSFET, as long as all are N-channel. And all the ones I used are.

If you are so concerned, why don't YOU build the circuit, or just send me any MOSFET you would like me to test.

But I can tell you this: ANY mosfet of the correct voltage and current ratings will produce heating of the load that looks just like what Ainslie reported, if the duty cycle used is 96.7 percent ON.

Once again, it seems that people who refuse to go out and assemble any components on their own are attempting to criticize the work of those who actually do build and test things.

So, at this point, I would be glad to hear explanations, even from you, wilby, as to the cause and effect of the DUTY CYCLE ERROR in Ainslie's work that I found. Until this issue is resolved the question of the MOSFET is irrelevant.

(Your hero DrStiffler is cracking me up, over on that other forum. His "replication" is wrong in every respect, every post he's made since I've been looking has contained severe errors and absolute asinine reasoning--"I'm not even going to try her 555 timer circuit because..." for totally invalid reasons. He's using wrong voltages, regulated supplies instead of batteries, wrong captions on his scope shots, wrong monitoring points, mistaken reads of the circuit diagram, and he doesn't even seem concerned when it's pointed out to him. It's pretty hilarious when an English-speaking reader reads his posts and mine, looking for real information on a "replication" of Ainslie's published work.)
Title: Re: Claimed OU circuit of Rosemary Ainslie
Post by: ramset on June 27, 2009, 07:06:30 PM
Tk
It does not seem like Stiffler is replicating the circuit [or even trying to].
He seems to be trying to replicate or enhance an" effect" .

Chet
PS he refers to "interesting findings" in the first 10 minutes of a test he performed.
_____________________________________________________________________

HERE
 Run with oscillation
This is of course not what I should be doing, but I wanted to see if that 50V hash would do something that would not make sense.

Anyway as it turns out it is 'ho hum', here is the data from the run, 31.4% eff. is what one might expect, but more to come that we do not expect.

Tmin qa qc Vs Is Q = c m dq ein (J) CEC
0 26.4 28.50 12.00 0.022
10 26.3 29.90 12.00 0.020 117.236 151.200
20 26.3 30.02 12.00 0.018 10.049 136.800
30 26.5 31.00 12.00 0.018 82.065 129.600
40 25.8 31.90 12.00 0.018 75.366 129.600
50 26.3 32.00 12.00 0.018 8.374 129.600
60 25.6 32.00 12.00 0.018 0.000 129.600
70 26.0 32.50 12.00 0.018 41.870 129.600
80 25.4 32.50 12.00 0.018 0.000 129.600

334.960 1065.600 0.314339339

Gate pulse was 37uS and the Drain pulse was 72uS

Sorry the Greek symbols do not come across, but qa is the ambient temp, qc is the cell temp and of course Vs and Is need no further. What is so very interesting is that first 10 minutes.

 
Title: Re: Claimed OU circuit of Rosemary Ainslie
Post by: TinselKoala on June 27, 2009, 08:00:33 PM
Yes, Chet, I saw that post, thanks for putting it here, where some discussion might actually happen.

Feel free to explain the post. All I can get out of it is that his MOSFET's turn-off time is unusually long and his load warmed up some.

Oh, and the "ho-hum" part, I got that.

But what it's doing in a thread that is supposed to be about replicating a specific Ainslie circuit, that I don't get.
Title: Re: Claimed OU circuit of Rosemary Ainslie
Post by: WilbyInebriated on June 27, 2009, 08:15:45 PM
What I do with my time and money seems to be, last time I checked, My Business.
And even you should be able to tell that the problem I identified has NOTHING to do with the choice of MOSFET, as long as all are N-channel. And all the ones I used are.

If you are so concerned, why don't YOU build the circuit, or just send me any MOSFET you would like me to test.

But I can tell you this: ANY mosfet of the correct voltage and current ratings will produce heating of the load that looks just like what Ainslie reported, if the duty cycle used is 96.7 percent ON.

Once again, it seems that people who refuse to go out and assemble any components on their own are attempting to criticize the work of those who actually do build and test things.

So, at this point, I would be glad to hear explanations, even from you, wilby, as to the cause and effect of the DUTY CYCLE ERROR in Ainslie's work that I found. Until this issue is resolved the question of the MOSFET is irrelevant.

(Your hero DrStiffler is cracking me up, over on that other forum. His "replication" is wrong in every respect, every post he's made since I've been looking has contained severe errors and absolute asinine reasoning--"I'm not even going to try her 555 timer circuit because..." for totally invalid reasons. He's using wrong voltages, regulated supplies instead of batteries, wrong captions on his scope shots, wrong monitoring points, mistaken reads of the circuit diagram, and he doesn't even seem concerned when it's pointed out to him. It's pretty hilarious when an English-speaking reader reads his posts and mine, looking for real information on a "replication" of Ainslie's published work.)

i don't care what you did or said on who... it's not really EXACT or EXACTLY until you get the right fet, REGARDLESS OF THE SPECS SHEET OR KNOWN FET BEHAVIOR. why would you even leave it open for discussion or debate by 'believers' unless you're nothing but an internet 'tick' that feeds on such juvenile drama? why not get the right fet and put it all to rest. why use words like EXACTLY when IT'S NOT EXACT? i would expect better, even from you...

why do you always avoid the explicit point being made with some bullshit excuse?  i've asked you this before, are you mental?

once again, it seems one of our members here who thinks he runs in more 'erudite' circles, is making ee101 mistakes and bitching and crying about others not building, all the while talking about how his non-exact build is exact...

you're missing the point. i agree with you on the fet issue. THE POINT IS, (read slow and careful here so you can comprehend this) you can tell me whatever you want, just don't tell me it's exact until it is...
so at this point i would love to hear your explanation of how your circuit is exact.

stiffler isn't my hero. which is one of the reason i asked you to do one of your 'debunkings' on his circuit. if i recall, when i did ask you that, you went off on some tirade about stalkers and trolls, etc.
 then you made up some bullshit about how he was scared of you and so you couldn't put up a youtube video on your own channel 'debunking' him for some asinine reason...
i can find the posts if you need me to. i know you're really busy being a pompous ass that makes EE 101 mistakes like forgetting about the invert switch.  ::)


Title: Re: Claimed OU circuit of Rosemary Ainslie
Post by: WilbyInebriated on June 27, 2009, 08:22:11 PM
Oh, and the "ho-hum" part, I got that.

if you're referring to the correct fet, about time...  ::)
was that so hard? and now you are 'bulletproof', barring anymore of those ee101 mistakes.  ;)

if you were not referring to acquiring the correct fet, all i can say is "damn, it's like pulling teeth or something."
Title: Re: Claimed OU circuit of Rosemary Ainslie
Post by: ramset on June 27, 2009, 11:59:21 PM
Well whatever the DOC meant by the above, its getting better

 Moving closer
From ~1.5'C in 10 min to 1'C in four minutes, now it starts to look a bit better.

Included is a scope shot of the last run.
Attached Thumbnails
cop-17-heater-rosemary-ainslie-aosc002.jpg 

http://www.energeticforum.com/renewable-energy/4314-cop-17-heater-rosemary-ainslie-5.html
Title: Re: Claimed OU circuit of Rosemary Ainslie
Post by: TinselKoala on June 28, 2009, 08:16:23 PM
if you're referring to the correct fet, about time...  ::)
was that so hard? and now you are 'bulletproof', barring anymore of those ee101 mistakes.  ;)

if you were not referring to acquiring the correct fet, all i can say is "damn, it's like pulling teeth or something."

Build the circuit as shown in the Quantum paper. Look at the duty cycle produced by the timer portion.
Then, tell me who has made the ee101 mistake.

Then, once you've done that, tell me logically why I should bother to do any more testing, since the ORIGINAL Ainslie circuit produces the WRONG duty cycle.

And while you're at it, tell me why Stiffler has made ee101 mistakes in every post he's made over there.
Title: Re: Claimed OU circuit of Rosemary Ainslie
Post by: TinselKoala on June 28, 2009, 08:21:16 PM
Well whatever the DOC meant by the above, its getting better

 Moving closer
From ~1.5'C in 10 min to 1'C in four minutes, now it starts to look a bit better.

Included is a scope shot of the last run.
Attached Thumbnails
cop-17-heater-rosemary-ainslie-aosc002.jpg 

And as I said in an apparently unread reply to one of Stiffler's posts over there: his mosfet isn't turning off properly and so his duty cycle, once again, is LONGER by far than the 3.7 percent specified AS PRODUCING THE OU EFFECT by Rosemary Ainslie.

But this seems to be OK, as far as the "replication police" are concerned.

But there has still been no explanation of the fundamental issue: the Ainlsie paper is WRONG--the heating produced was not accomplished with a short ON duty cycle as claimed.


http://www.energeticforum.com/renewable-energy/4314-cop-17-heater-rosemary-ainslie-5.html
Title: Re: Claimed OU circuit of Rosemary Ainslie
Post by: TinselKoala on June 28, 2009, 08:31:17 PM
Well whatever the DOC meant by the above, its getting better

 Moving closer
From ~1.5'C in 10 min to 1'C in four minutes, now it starts to look a bit better.

Included is a scope shot of the last run.
Attached Thumbnails
cop-17-heater-rosemary-ainslie-aosc002.jpg 

http://www.energeticforum.com/renewable-energy/4314-cop-17-heater-rosemary-ainslie-5.html

Stiffler's frequency: 239 kHz
Ainslie's frequency: 2.4 kHz
Stiffler's gate drive duty cycle: about 18-20 percent
Ainslie's CLAIMED duty cycle: 3.7 percent
Ainslie's ACTUAL duty cycle: 96.3 percent
Stiffler's MOSFET effective duty cycle: around 30-40 percent
Stiffler's gate drive from FG
Ainslie's gate drive from specified 555 circuit
Stiffler's mosfet source power 12 volts from regulated supply
Ainslie's mosfet source power 24 volts from batteries


So I ask again: what does Stiffler's work have to do with Rosemary Ainslie's circuit and the claims made in her paper?

Title: Re: Claimed OU circuit of Rosemary Ainslie
Post by: TinselKoala on June 28, 2009, 11:42:20 PM
Here's some more information, for whatever it's worth.

I have been testing the circuit with, in addition to my Philips and Tek oscilloscopes, a FLUKE ScopeMeter 199, as reportedly used by Ainslie.

Here's what I found: In addition to the "trace invert" setting, the "duty cycle" display function also may be set to read percent high or percent low. And the 3.6-3.7 percent value is about as low as it will go. In fact when I first hooked up the scope to my Ainslie circuit, using the FG setting "eyeballed" as I have been, it immediately read "3.7 %" .

Very suspicious, that I was able to "accidentally" set my duty cycle, by eye, exactly to the tenth of a percent (one part per thousand). This number is simply the shortest that the Fluke will report under these conditions. It may not be accurate at all.
Also, with trace invert and duty cycle polarities set properly, monitoring Channel B at the point indicated by Ainslie, the 555 timer circuit driving---the FLUKE scopemeter indicates 3.7 percent ON.

But of course, since it is indicating HIGH or battery voltage at this 3.7 percent ON duty cycle, what it really is indicating is that the LOAD is ON, conducting current, for 96.3 percent of the time.
At monitoring point A, the current-viewing resistor, the FLUKE isn't getting enough signal to lock onto a duty cycle or frequency value at all. So I must conclude that her Duty Cycle and Frequency information came from "B", the load--where "HIGH" or battery voltage means that the load is OFF, not conducting...

Just like I said.

And, just like I said, the FLUKE exhibits false triggering and gets the frequency and duty cycle wrong, in response to those inductive ringdown spikes and complex waveforms induced at HIGH (not low) gate drives.
This accounts for the reports of "random chaotic" oscillations and changes in duty cycle and frequency READINGS that were reported.

Sometimes you need a digital storage oscilloscope, and sometimes you don't. They have their advantages and their limitations.

So, the Ainslie paper is wrong; her misunderstanding of her own circuit and the use/abuse of the Fluke 199 ScopeMeter are contributing factors; the load heats plenty, just as the papers claim, but the calculation of input energy is flawed because the wrong duty cycle was used in the calculations.
Title: Re: Claimed OU circuit of Rosemary Ainslie
Post by: S.Roksund on June 29, 2009, 02:54:37 PM
Re: Claimed OU circuit of Rosemary Ainslie

I am a Novice member in this forum, but a retired electronic engineer with some 35 years of experience. I take the chance that my posting is a little bit beside what is discussed in this tread.

In the last one and a half year or so I have done research on capturing energy from the inductive back spike from transformers. I use my own kind of circuit and use a microcomputer to control the switches. Experimentally I have several times – and with different duty cycles - obtained  2 - 5  times electrical energy output relative to the input.

I have read a lot in this forum and other forums - of similar circuits to the Rosemary Ainslies, and I am worried of the fact that she and Peter Kevin ASHBY has obtained a patent on a circuit which seem to operate in  similar - or quite similar ways, that many  other publizised circuits do. In my oppinion it should not be possible to get a patent on a system or circuit that have been discussed openly for such a long time.

Here is the link to the patent:
http://www.wipo.int/pctdb/en/wo.jsp?wo=1999038247&IA=IE1999000005&DISPLAY=STATUS

Do any of you have comments to this.

Regards from S.Roksund - Norway.
Title: Re: Claimed OU circuit of Rosemary Ainslie
Post by: Groundloop on June 29, 2009, 03:41:10 PM
@S.Roksund,

wrote: <obtained  2 - 5  times electrical energy output relative to the input.>

Can you post the information on how you managed to do that? If you do not want to
post the information here, please PM me and will give you my email address.

Regards,
Groundloop, Norway.
Title: Re: Claimed OU circuit of Rosemary Ainslie
Post by: TinselKoala on June 29, 2009, 04:03:45 PM
Isn't that a patent APPLICATION, not a patent?
Has an actual patent been granted?


Title: Re: Claimed OU circuit of Rosemary Ainslie
Post by: S.Roksund on June 29, 2009, 05:35:32 PM
To me it look like an issued patent. It is even shown that it was patented in most countries of the world. If I am wrong on this, it is the first time I see someone applying for worldwide patentents before they have got the original patent accepted. But - I am not an expert on patent laws, I just know that one can not patent something that has been discussed and shown openly. Just trying to get things right here.
 
SR
Title: Re: Claimed OU circuit of Rosemary Ainslie
Post by: S.Roksund on June 29, 2009, 05:37:38 PM
To Groundloop
I will contact you.

Regards
SR
Title: Re: Claimed OU circuit of Rosemary Ainslie
Post by: Cloxxki on June 29, 2009, 06:24:21 PM
It has a WIPO number, so looks like a granted patent to me, too.

The patent is obviosuly rather dated, 1998/1999. Are you aware of significant prior art before 1998 where Back EMF was attemptedly captured using a similar circuit? I suppose it would be your duty to contact its inventor, and WIPO with such information.

If little has been accomplished in real life with such circuits, it's at best costing the patent holders a lot in patent maintainance fees. Within a decade, it will be free for anyone to use.
Or is this a commercial product today?
Title: Re: Claimed OU circuit of Rosemary Ainslie
Post by: S.Roksund on June 29, 2009, 06:39:18 PM
Cloxxki, thank you for answering to my posting.
I will see what I can do to dig up similar circuits from time before 98/99.
It may take some effort though. I am not aware of a commercial product.
Else -  I agree with you.

To Groundloop;
I guess it is you that must contact me first. My mail is in the profile.

Rgds
SR
Title: Re: Claimed OU circuit of Rosemary Ainslie
Post by: TinselKoala on June 29, 2009, 10:53:00 PM
Well, I've looked in the USPTO database, and as far as I can tell that is a patent application, not a patent. Certainly Rosemary Ainslie has no US patent in her name that I can find. But when searching for applications the WIPO application comes up.

Title: Re: Claimed OU circuit of Rosemary Ainslie
Post by: ramset on June 30, 2009, 01:31:49 AM
S.Roksund

You are in good company here ,men of like mind looking for answers.
you mentioned a circuit cop< 2-5
This is not common here ,can you share?
I hope so
Chet
Title: Re: Claimed OU circuit of Rosemary Ainslie
Post by: S.Roksund on June 30, 2009, 08:12:09 PM
It is good if no patent has been issued.
I will post my electronic schema and a component list - as
well as the measurement methods I have used, here in this forum.
My intention is  that someone (hopefully) will make a replicate and test.
When I get the circuit and measurements confirmed, I will start making
units that can be tested in practice - before I start the production.
If all fails, - well it has been exciting all the way, and I have learnt a lot.
I am leaving to celebrate my mother (98), so no posting until next week.
Rgds
Sigvald
Title: Re: Claimed OU circuit of Rosemary Ainslie
Post by: rensseak on June 30, 2009, 09:42:48 PM
Well, I've looked in the USPTO database, and as far as I can tell that is a patent application, not a patent. Certainly Rosemary Ainslie has no US patent in her name that I can find. But when searching for applications the WIPO application comes up.


http://v3.espacenet.com/searchResults?locale=en_EP&IN=Rosemary+Ainslie&ST=advanced&compact=false&DB=EPODOC&submitted=true


Title: Re: Claimed OU circuit of Rosemary Ainslie
Post by: TinselKoala on June 30, 2009, 10:21:40 PM

http://v3.espacenet.com/searchResults?locale=en_EP&IN=Rosemary+Ainslie&ST=advanced&compact=false&DB=EPODOC&submitted=true

Thank you. Those all look like Applications, not issued patents. There are no "B" documents, they are all "A" or "A1" as far as I can tell.

From the FAQs:

"What does A1, A2, A3 and B stand for after an EP publication number in the "Also published as" list?
   
     When a European patent application is published together with the search report, it is known as an A1 publication. When this application is published without the search report, it is an A2 document. The search report is then published later as an A3 document. When the patent is granted, it is published as a B document."
Title: Re: Claimed OU circuit of Rosemary Ainslie
Post by: Groundloop on June 30, 2009, 10:45:47 PM
@S.Roksund,

I'm glad you decided to open source your circuit. When you are ready to post you information, please ask Stefan Hartmann, Moderator of overunity.com forum, to make you a new thread. Then ask him to make you the moderator of your new thread.

Looking forward to your information.

Regards,
Groundloop.
Title: Re: Claimed OU circuit of Rosemary Ainslie
Post by: rensseak on July 01, 2009, 09:04:05 AM
Thank you. Those all look like Applications, not issued patents. There are no "B" documents, they are all "A" or "A1" as far as I can tell.

From the FAQs:

"What does A1, A2, A3 and B stand for after an EP publication number in the "Also published as" list?
   
     When a European patent application is published together with the search report, it is known as an A1 publication. When this application is published without the search report, it is an A2 document. The search report is then published later as an A3 document. When the patent is granted, it is published as a B document."

i think it then never reached the status B1
Title: Re: Claimed OU circuit of Rosemary Ainslie
Post by: Groundloop on July 01, 2009, 11:35:10 PM
@ramset,

I saw you post over at Energetic Forum where you said:

"One good thing ,a fellow from Holland showed up on the thread at OU".

If you are referring to S.Roksund (Retired electronic engineer with some 35 years of experience.) then he is from Norway, not Holland.

I'm in email contact with him and will cooperate with him to be able to replicate his circuits.

Regards,
Groundloop.
Title: Re: Claimed OU circuit of Rosemary Ainslie
Post by: ramset on July 02, 2009, 01:08:39 AM
OOpppss....
Thanks Groundloop
Sorry Mr Roksund
Chet
Title: Re: Claimed OU circuit of Rosemary Ainslie
Post by: WilbyInebriated on July 02, 2009, 02:02:16 AM
Build the circuit as shown in the Quantum paper. Look at the duty cycle produced by the timer portion.
Then, tell me who has made the ee101 mistake.

Then, once you've done that, tell me logically why I should bother to do any more testing, since the ORIGINAL Ainslie circuit produces the WRONG duty cycle.

And while you're at it, tell me why Stiffler has made ee101 mistakes in every post he's made over there.
so i take it that is a no then. you still don't have the "exact" fet.

rosemarie did. then you did also.

as i said before, i agree with you about the duty cycle (only because you failed to get the fet into self oscillation...) and i don't care what you do on who, just don't tell me it's "exact", or you replicated it "exactly" here or on any other forum until it is "exact".

why are you bringing stiffler into it? did he help you pick out the wrong fet? did he put the words "exact" or "exactly" in your posts? misdirection and ad hominem...
Title: Re: Claimed OU circuit of Rosemary Ainslie
Post by: ramset on July 02, 2009, 02:26:06 AM
Wilbynice?
Or Wilby Not nice?
TK was just getting there attention[seems pretty hard to do!!]
Can anything be exact ?
What I would like to know is, why so much off time?
Why so many hours to accumulate the "EFFECT'

Chet
PS
and Stiffler threw some low blows [made fun of the penguin[mascot]
Title: Re: Claimed OU circuit of Rosemary Ainslie
Post by: WilbyInebriated on July 02, 2009, 02:35:04 AM
Wilbynice?
Or Wilby Not nice?
TK was just getting there attention[seems pretty hard to do!!]
Can anything be exact ?
What I would like to know is, why so much off time?
Why so many hours to accumulate the "EFFECT'

Chet
PS
and Stiffler threw some low blows [made fun of the penguin[mascot]
i dont care what stiffler did or didn't do, it's irrelevant.
no, nothing can be exact. obviously semiconductor components have a inherent variation even from the same batch, but for the love of zeus get the right fet before one calls it "exact". i should hope you can see this self evident truth and not have issue with that.
i asked TK a simple question at the beginning of this thread and all he has done is beat around the bush. if it's not exact don't use the word exact... and furthermore, if it's not exact don't be a pompous ass while using the word exact and expect not to get called on it, especially after someone asked you on page 1 of the thread if you planned on doing it "exactly".

PS i think TK does great work, he just never quite does it exactly ;)
PPS i agree with stiffler, stuffed animals are for children...
Title: Re: Claimed OU circuit of Rosemary Ainslie
Post by: WilbyInebriated on July 02, 2009, 02:47:06 AM
it's not TK's madness that i have issue with, it's his method.

if TK is not willing to retract/correct his erroneous statement about his circuit being "exact" why should rosemary retract/correct her paper?
Title: Re: Claimed OU circuit of Rosemary Ainslie
Post by: ramset on July 02, 2009, 02:51:49 AM
Wilby
I appreciate TK's efforts ,without men like him this forum would be all talk
He takes action gets to the point [no BS] ,can take on almost any job
,skills in many areas

TK I SALUTE YOU AND THE BIRD
Chet
Title: Re: Claimed OU circuit of Rosemary Ainslie
Post by: WilbyInebriated on July 02, 2009, 02:59:40 AM
Wilby
I appreciate TK's efforts ,without men like him this forum would be all talk
He takes action gets to the point [no BS] ,can take on almost any job
,skills in many areas

TK I SALUTE YOU AND THE BIRD
Chet

so taking action by "replicating" a circuit and NOT using the correct/exact mosfet on the build and then saying it's "exact" ISN'T BS?

huh? well you and i seem to have a differing definition of BS i guess...

yes i agree on the almost any job statement, he is surely a "jack of all trades, master of none."
Title: Re: Claimed OU circuit of Rosemary Ainslie
Post by: TinselKoala on July 02, 2009, 03:16:03 AM
OK, if it will make you happy, my replication is "nearly exact" since I did not use the IRFPG50 Mosfet.  Obviously. Shame on me.
However it certainly is more "exact" than anything anybody else has done--and the fact remains:
THE PROBLEM IN THE AINSLIE CIRCUIT HAS NOTHING TO DO WITH THE MOSFET.

Since I stated that from the beginning, and I asked people to compare specifications and tell me logically why the choice of mosfet should make a difference--which nobody, including Wilby, has done--I would have thought it to be a non-issue.

However, I have now used 4 different MOSFETS now and they all behave similarly, with exceptions that I have noted. None of them are capable of re-inverting the duty cycle mistake that led Rosemary Ainslie to publish the wrong COP claim. And I have offered to test any mosfet that anybody will send me.
(The IRFP450 shows the long turn-off times, and I see from the data sheet that the IRFPG50 also has a long turnoff time. What this means for the inverted duty cycle is that the MOSFET Ainslie actually used will stay ON NEARLY 100 PERCENT of the time when driven by the 555 circuit she published.)

Now, as to my mastery or lack of it. There are one or two things that I have come close to mastering. They don't have anything to do with the issues here on this forum. In these issues, I am a dabbler, a dilettante. That's what makes it so embarrassing, when I am right and the "experts" are wrong.

And I'm still waiting for that retraction from Ainslie.



Title: Re: Claimed OU circuit of Rosemary Ainslie
Post by: ramset on July 02, 2009, 03:25:23 AM
The Dude has skills
As far as Rosemary goes he's just Coasting [not breaking a sweat]

Chet
Title: Re: Claimed OU circuit of Rosemary Ainslie
Post by: TinselKoala on July 02, 2009, 03:28:24 AM
it's not TK's madness that i have issue with, it's his method.

if TK is not willing to retract/correct his erroneous statement about his circuit being "exact" why should rosemary retract/correct her paper?

The answer to that, of course, is that I say what I say on a discussion forum, and she says what she says in published articles, the EIT paper, and patent applications. Her claim is false, mine is a slight exaggeration. My claim can be corrected simply by switching out the mosfet. Hers cannot be corrected so easily--her claim depends on an erroneous data input into calculations and would require re-running the experiment.

Would you care to make a little wager, Wilby?

If you can show a significant difference between the performance of the IRFPG50 mosfet used by Ainslie, and the 2SK1548 mosfet that I used in my replication, using the published circuit and parameters of Ainslie, I will gladly make a public apology to you. On the other hand, if the performance is substantially the same, you get off my back.

If you really think the mosfet makes a difference, you should take the bet.


(EDIT I was going to offer to bet money at odds, but I realised that would be unethical--like taking candy from a baby--. Sorry.)
Title: Re: Claimed OU circuit of Rosemary Ainslie
Post by: TinselKoala on July 02, 2009, 03:37:51 AM
Thanks for the support, Chet. Sometimes it feels like nobody cares.
 :'(
Title: Re: Claimed OU circuit of Rosemary Ainslie
Post by: WilbyInebriated on July 02, 2009, 03:59:22 AM
OK, if it will make you happy, my replication is "nearly exact" since I did not use the IRFPG50 Mosfet.  Obviously. Shame on me.

thanks. as i said before, a couple times i think, that's really the only thing i had issue with. nice that you tried 4 others though  ;)
damn, it's like pulling teeth...

i meant the "jack of all trades" as a compliment tk... ie:polymath

"jack of all trades, master of none, though oft times better than master of one."
i thought you ran in erudite circles?  ;) all that jumping must keep you in good shape?

edit: offering bets? after i twice said i agree with you (mostly) about the duty cycle? i have to again ask, are you mental? what's with your reading comprehension?
Title: Re: Claimed OU circuit of Rosemary Ainslie
Post by: poynt99 on July 02, 2009, 04:46:51 AM
Thanks for the support, Chet. Sometimes it feels like nobody cares.
 :'(

TK I have a lot of respect for you and your methods.

My advice to you is to ignore folks like this. Sometimes their only aim is to entice you into battle. Usually it's not worth the time or effort.

Regards,
.99
Title: Re: Claimed OU circuit of Rosemary Ainslie
Post by: Groundloop on July 03, 2009, 12:04:40 AM
@TinselKoala,

Rosemary Ainslie has joined the energetic forum.

Groundloop.
Title: Re: Claimed OU circuit of Rosemary Ainslie
Post by: ramset on July 03, 2009, 02:23:22 AM
TK
The big man in the house
Rosemary said
TinselKoala - I viewed your Utube on our circuit. It was interesting but my first point is that the waveform on both the first and the second are nothing like our own. It did not go into resonance and it is nowhere near as complex as the one's we generate across the load. Something between your circuit and ours is out of synch.

I'm so sorry I can't get a picture of our waveform. I'll ask my co-author if he can perhaps organise something but suspect that it will take a little time. Michael John Nunnerley was bang on in pointing out that we were probably using a resonating frequency. Indeed we are. We sweep the duty cycle until it first goes into oscillation. That is the point that we usually get the best results. The waveform is not periodic - which makes for some tricky calculations of power - hence the need for that Fluke scopemeter and for those calorimetric values.

The other thing I did not see was the diode return to the positive teminal of the battery? I presume this was included? But I have a real problem in watching the battery voltage collapse on the second video. The load is light - and with the best will in the world, even with a 90% on duty cycle, I cannot understand how a fully charged 24 volt lead acid battery can deplete within the first 10 minutes of running. Were you using a flat battery? Certainly one would expect that it's capacity would enable a current flow of a resistor at 10 ohms (was it?) - therefore not more than 2.4 amps for longer than 10 or even twenty minutes even without any applied switching cycle. I also noticed at one stage that the battery seemed to lose it's voltage entirely - then go into a negative voltage value and then spring back to 24 volts. I can only say that such is really strange and in the years that I've been testing our circuit have never seen the like. I am reasonably certain that your battery was nearly flat or that its rated capacity may be somewhat questionable.

I am also concerned that you used a different mosfet. Not that it needs to be identical to the one that we used - but I am just not sure of the properties of the one that you used.

Regarding the 555 switch as opposed to the function's generator. There really should be no real difference between the two. However it is easier to adjust the 555 switch to enable that resonance which is both the object of the circuit and the main object of the thesis. Why you are not able to get the circuit into oscillation I do not know. Perhaps you must vary the frequency better. Incidentally I could not make out the frequency you applied on that demo.

The niceties regarding the actual published switch and the one that you built - here I cannot comment. What I do know is that if the switch is set at 5% on and the load shows 5% on then it cannot default to 90% on. It is that simple. I could not make out the positioning of the probes in relation to the load resistor. Again. Your questions seem earnest - but your references not so easily detected on that video.

In any event, the other problem I have is with the value of that spike which your referenced in the second video - I think it was. Our spike is generally far higher, upwards on 120v but is largely dependant on the applied duty cycle. In any event the amount of energy in the on cycle is always marginally more than the amount delivered by the spike. The value to the energy gain is in that this energy is repeatedly returned to the battery and to the load. This can be seen if you use 2 x 12 volt batteries as we did. If you run the test on the one battery and connect the second to the first with a common negative rail - then feed the diode to the positive of the second battery, you will see an immediate recharge to that second battery. That test was done to prove that the returning energy does, in fact recharge the energy source.

So it is that we justify the value of the energy delivered by the battery as the sum of the on and off cycles. The energy dissipated is the product of both cycles. Therefore is there a gain. And at this fast resonating frequency the gain is really substantial.

I do hope this addresses those points that you repeatedly refer to through these threads

Incidentally, TinselKoala - there's another point. We actually ran our tests with a control. The reason the published article and the paper deal with a test period of 10. something hours is because that is how long it takes the control battery to deplete its energy. For some reason, both in the quantum article and the paper I was specifically advised that any reference to battery duration was essentially irrelevant. Apparently battery draw down rates are subject to too many vagaries?

In any event, the actual draw down rate of the tested batteries is consistent with the energy measured to be delivered by the battery as the difference between the energy measured and calculated from the two cycles of each waveform being above and below zero. At the end of that test period the test batteries are more or less the same as at the start of the test period. The control is entirely flat.

We then recharged both battery sets (always used typical 12 volt car batteries) and swapped the control with the test. Variations of this was called for by BP to enable their accreditation of the tests. It was exhaustive and painfully repetitive.

CHET
PS
TK thank God you showed up ,or they wouldn't have had anything to talk about
You make us proud !!
Title: Re: Claimed OU circuit of Rosemary Ainslie
Post by: ramset on July 03, 2009, 04:32:03 AM
Finally the question

Thanks for the reply, Rosemary.
Without going into the further points you made, let's just get back to the issue of the circuit in the Quantum article and what kind of duty cycle it generates.
For some reason, I seem to be the only one who has been willing to build the 555 portion of that circuit for testing. Could you, or your colleague, please confirm that the circuit shown in the Quantum article was, or was not, used to do the experiment described?

If it wasn't, what was the correct circuit?
If it was, what about the duty cycle?

Thanks very much.
--TK
Title: Re: Claimed OU circuit of Rosemary Ainslie
Post by: TinselKoala on July 03, 2009, 05:01:15 PM
I'll reply to some of these points here.



Rosemary said
TinselKoala - I viewed your Utube on our circuit. It was interesting but my first point is that the waveform on both the first and the second are nothing like our own. It did not go into resonance and it is nowhere near as complex as the one's we generate across the load. Something between your circuit and ours is out of synch.

Scope traces can show very different features depending on the scope settings. It is possible that I am emphasizing different features than you are. It's hard to reproduce a scope signal...if there isn't a model to work from. I hope you can show us what your scope traces look like. It does not mean that "something is out of synch."

Quote
I'm so sorry I can't get a picture of our waveform. I'll ask my co-author if he can perhaps organise something but suspect that it will take a little time. Michael John Nunnerley was bang on in pointing out that we were probably using a resonating frequency. Indeed we are. We sweep the duty cycle until it first goes into oscillation. That is the point that we usually get the best results. The waveform is not periodic - which makes for some tricky calculations of power - hence the need for that Fluke scopemeter and for those calorimetric values.

It's hard for me to see how this circuit could achieve any kind of real resonance at the frequency used. I have been able to reproduce what LOOKS like aperiodic waveforms but this is due to false triggering of the Fluke 199 ScopeMeter. The analog scopes are not as sensitive to this.
Also, the idea of aperiodic waveforms and resonance are, shall we say, oxymoronic. Like jumbo shrimp.
And I have swept both duty cycle and frequency through the entire range allowed by the 555 circuit as shown in the Quantum article.

Quote
The other thing I did not see was the diode return to the positive teminal of the battery? I presume this was included?

Please take a closer look.

Quote
But I have a real problem in watching the battery voltage collapse on the second video. The load is light - and with the best will in the world, even with a 90% on duty cycle, I cannot understand how a fully charged 24 volt lead acid battery can deplete within the first 10 minutes of running. Were you using a flat battery? Certainly one would expect that it's capacity would enable a current flow of a resistor at 10 ohms (was it?) - therefore not more than 2.4 amps for longer than 10 or even twenty minutes even without any applied switching cycle.

Yes, those batteries were depleted at the start of the video. And they are 2 Amp-hour, whereas according to your article yours are 20 A-h. And they are surplus pulls from decomissioned UPS units. No, the load is not light, it's heavy, at 10 ohms and 96 percent ON, as produced by the published 555 circuit.

Quote
I also noticed at one stage that the battery seemed to lose it's voltage entirely - then go into a negative voltage value and then spring back to 24 volts. I can only say that such is really strange and in the years that I've been testing our circuit have never seen the like. I am reasonably certain that your battery was nearly flat or that its rated capacity may be somewhat questionable.

As I thought I demonstrated in the video, cheap digital multimeters (and midrange scopemeters like the Fluke 199) are confused by spiky inputs and will read all kinds of strange things. It does not mean that is what's really going on in the circuit. Many of the folks doing this kind of research have, in the years they've been testing, seen the like many times.
And yes, as I said before, and in the video, the batteries were flat, but that doesn't have anything to do with the wild and sometimes negative DMM readings.

Quote
I am also concerned that you used a different mosfet. Not that it needs to be identical to the one that we used - but I am just not sure of the properties of the one that you used.

You can look up the data sheets and compare the properties. The main difference is in gate capacitance and turn-off times--the latter is a significant difference, because it means that, driven by the 555 timer in the published circuit, the IRFPG50 mosfet will be ON even LONGER than 96.3 percent of the time when driven by the 96.3 percent ON duty cycle that the timer generates. On even longer.
But don't you say in your papers and patent applications that the mosfet isn't critical? (And I now have tested and compared 4 different mosfets in the circuit: 2SK1548, IRFP450, 2SK1603, and 2SK5138. All behave substantially the same with the exception of the IRFP450 which has by far the longest turn-off time. My supplier does not stock the IRFPG50, and I would have to order a minimum of 10, and they are a bit expensive. If someone wants to send me one, PM me and I'll give address details.)

Quote
Regarding the 555 switch as opposed to the function's generator. There really should be no real difference between the two. However it is easier to adjust the 555 switch to enable that resonance which is both the object of the circuit and the main object of the thesis. Why you are not able to get the circuit into oscillation I do not know. Perhaps you must vary the frequency better. Incidentally I could not make out the frequency you applied on that demo.

The top instrument in the stack, with the little red numbers that say 2.404 or so, is a Fluke frequency counter, monitoring the output of the Interstate F34 sweep function generator. It is indicating the frequency of the pulse output of the FG. It is saying 2.404 kiloHertz. I agree that there SHOULD be no difference between the FG and the 555 output--but due to the duty cycle inversion, there is actually a HUGE difference. The 555 circuit as published in the Quantum article CANNOT be adjusted to provide a 3.7 percent ON duty cycle.

Quote
The niceties regarding the actual published switch and the one that you built - here I cannot comment. What I do know is that if the switch is set at 5% on and the load shows 5% on then it cannot default to 90% on. It is that simple. I could not make out the positioning of the probes in relation to the load resistor. Again. Your questions seem earnest - but your references not so easily detected on that video.

And yet, these "niceties" as you call them, call into question your entire experiment. And the probes are positioned and labelled exactly as in your diagrams in the Quantum article and the EIT pdf paper. The problem seems to be this: at point A, where the load is being monitored by the oscilloscope, when the voltage goes HIGH the load is actually OFF, that is, non-conducting. So if you are looking at this point with the Fluke-o-Scope set properly, it will report a 3.7 percent ON duty cycle--but in this case it means the load is OFF 3.7 percent of the time, allowing the voltage at point A to go HIGH.
Conmffsuing? Appraently.

Quote
In any event, the other problem I have is with the value of that spike which your referenced in the second video - I think it was. Our spike is generally far higher, upwards on 120v but is largely dependant on the applied duty cycle. In any event the amount of energy in the on cycle is always marginally more than the amount delivered by the spike. The value to the energy gain is in that this energy is repeatedly returned to the battery and to the load. This can be seen if you use 2 x 12 volt batteries as we did. If you run the test on the one battery and connect the second to the first with a common negative rail - then feed the diode to the positive of the second battery, you will see an immediate recharge to that second battery. That test was done to prove that the returning energy does, in fact recharge the energy source.

Again, experimenters here can tell you that pulse charging a lead-acid battery with HV pulses will cause the battery to indicate high no-load voltages even when its energy store is mostly depleted. I do not dispute that your circuit returns HV spikes back into the powering battery, so that this battery will indicate a no-load voltage that makes it seem to be fully charged. This is a well-known phenomenon around here.
As to the magnitude of the spike, it is here that the faster Fluke ScopeMeter does outperform my slower analog scopes at home. I have no doubt that the magnitude of the inductive spike is greater than what my 10 MHz scope could resolve.

Quote
So it is that we justify the value of the energy delivered by the battery as the sum of the on and off cycles. The energy dissipated is the product of both cycles. Therefore is there a gain. And at this fast resonating frequency the gain is really substantial.

And of course this entire claim depends on the correctness of the duty cycle numbers that went into your calculations. Nobody, under any circumstances, has been able to produce anything like the "really substantial" gains you have claimed--and I believe the reason is that your calculations are in error. Until we can resolve the issue of the actual duty cycle you used, this has to be the most likely reason.

Quote
I do hope this addresses those points that you repeatedly refer to through these threads

Not really.

Quote
Incidentally, TinselKoala - there's another point. We actually ran our tests with a control. The reason the published article and the paper deal with a test period of 10. something hours is because that is how long it takes the control battery to deplete its energy. For some reason, both in the quantum article and the paper I was specifically advised that any reference to battery duration was essentially irrelevant. Apparently battery draw down rates are subject to too many vagaries?

That's right. I have no issue with your control experiment. It is in line with my own. And you are right, batteries are difficult to measure in terms of energy content and "draw down rates" as you say. But with some understanding and the right equipment, useful measurements can be made.

Quote
In any event, the actual draw down rate of the tested batteries is consistent with the energy measured to be delivered by the battery as the difference between the energy measured and calculated from the two cycles of each waveform being above and below zero. At the end of that test period the test batteries are more or less the same as at the start of the test period. The control is entirely flat.

We then recharged both battery sets (always used typical 12 volt car batteries) and swapped the control with the test. Variations of this was called for by BP to enable their accreditation of the tests. It was exhaustive and painfully repetitive.

In the paper you say the batteries used were rated 12 volts, 20 Amp-hours. Most automotive batteries are rated in the hundreds of amp hours. So there is a discrepancy here. (EDIT: should read 80-100 Amp-hours for car batteries. Sorry. Still a discrepancy with Ainslie's report.)
And I gather you are attempting to measure the state of charge of your batteries by measuring the no-load voltage. Typically, a fully charged 12 volt lead-acid battery will read 13 or even 13.5 volts no-load. If it's only reading 12 volts no-load, it isn't charged fully. And in addition, if it has been subjected to HV spikes during charging it may indicate 13 volts even when its true charge state (energy content) is low. Only repetitive full-load high current discharge tests can truly indicate the energy content of a lead-acid battery.

Quote
CHET
PS
TK thank God you showed up ,or they wouldn't have had anything to talk about
You make us proud !!

Thanks, Chet, we shall see what we shall see. It seems from Rosemary's response that she may not be the electronics specialist in her research group. I hope that whoever was helping her can still reproduce the original circuit, or reconstruct it according to the directions they gave in the Quantum article and the EIT paper, because there are several issues that seem to need resolving...
Title: Re: Claimed OU circuit of Rosemary Ainslie
Post by: 0c on July 03, 2009, 09:56:25 PM
Would one of you with an account on the EnergeticForum please copy the following text over there? Thanks.
==============================
Rosemary,

I have a suggestion for you and TinselKoala. Let's turn things around. You can critque his work. Take the time to review his circuit, have your assistant help if necessary, study his circuit and his procedures and point out his mistakes. Make sure you have references to back up what you say.

He has asked several questions. So why not start asking some in return, but keep them relevant. He's an experimentalist, so stay focused on the experiment. Let's get things resolved.

I think you will find TK will admit to any errors he might have made. He may argue about procedure. After all he is a highly qualified and thorough researcher and he has his own ideas about how things should be done. Then again, he might just shut up and ignore you in the future.

I probably know TK better than most, and I have my own differences with the guy (if you do some digging on the Internet or just ask around in these forums, you will discover what some of our differences might be), but it does not have anything to do with his knowledge, competence, or the quality of his work. He is a multi-talented and very capable person.

Regards,
Overconfident
Title: Re: Claimed OU circuit of Rosemary Ainslie
Post by: TinselKoala on July 03, 2009, 10:56:04 PM
" witsend  wrote:
Tinselkoala - I have no intention of answering any further posts. In truth I'm not sure that you wrote the last post as your standard of language is different to the previous. I think Gauss answered in your name. How do you do that? Do you share computers?"

So, there you have it. "My" 555 problem, according to her in another post, is "extraordinarily irrelevant".

Which says to me that she may have some cognitive difficulties--because the 555 problem completely invalidates the overunity claim, if the incorrect duty cycle figure goes into the calculations.

But she has refused, or dodged, all specific questions about the circuit.

She claims the batteries were car batteries--but the publications say they were 12 volt 20 Amp-hour rated--a far cry from a car battery around here.

She claims resonance and aperiodic oscillations--simultaneously.

She apparently does not understand that instrument readings sometimes are inaccurate, and some of her reported findings sound exactly like instrument artifacts, that I have reproduced in her circuit with my Fluke 199 ScopeMeter. But no scope traces from her experiments, showing the "aperiodic resonance",  seem to exist. And, of course, NOBODY using a short duty cycle has seen heating of their load, nor have there been any reports of resonance or especially simultaneous aperiodic oscillations with resonance.

Now, I've tried to play nice here. Anybody reading my posts, who is familiar with me, like 0c, can tell you that I am being quite polite and restrained, compared to my usual response to bullshit. But seeing the flack I am getting, from people who cannot even be arsed to assemble seven dollars worth of components to see how they behave...that's starting to piss me off.

And I am coming to the conclusion that Rosemary Ainslie is another one of a type that we know all too well. She's got a theory, and refuses to be distracted by facts, and whoever challenges the theory, based on correct experimentation, is by definition part of the suppression conspiracy and is evil. Never mind the new experimentation that shows that the original data from which the theory was derived is wrong... it is extraordinarily irrelevant.



Title: Re: Claimed OU circuit of Rosemary Ainslie
Post by: Cap-Z-ro on July 03, 2009, 11:41:39 PM

A lot of us are watching the progress from the sidelines, and trying to stay out of the way.

Having said that, please do continue without letting feelings of exasperation get in the way of the development of this discussion.

As long as one maintains a respectful level of decorum toward others, things will unfold with the best possible outcome for all concerned.

Remember, its not how you feel...its how you look.

As you were.

Regards...

Title: Re: Claimed OU circuit of Rosemary Ainslie
Post by: TinselKoala on July 04, 2009, 03:12:35 AM
I like that, it's not how you feel it's how you look. That's a good saying.
Fortunately nobody can see me...
 :D

But you are right--I even sort of feel like this might be some kind of deliberate trap to get me to commit to a position that is designed-in to be wrong. That's why I really really want somebody else to build the circuit, from the Quantum diagram or Groundloop's cleaned up version, to confirm or reject what I (believe I) have found. I find it really strange that the believers haven't come out and put me down by showing my build is incorrect. Unless, of course...they have built it and know I'm right.

But research continues:
Today I got hold of two each 12 volt 20 Amp-hour batteries, Ritar RT 12200, brand new and fully charged to 12.8 volts no-load. They do make a difference in the Ainslie circuit. The input current (voltage drop across the 0.25 ohm resistor, point B in the diagram) looks pretty much the same, but the load voltage (point A) doesn't sag nearly as much as it did with my old worn out 2 A-h batteries (duh...) and there's a lot more power in the inductive spikes--both of which makes it harder to notice the inverted duty cycle. In fact, if you are just looking at the inductive ringdown spike at high time magnification, you don't even notice the difference between the FG 3.7 percent duty cycle and the 555 96.3 percent duty cycle. But the load sure notices--when the unit is running on the true 3.7 percent from the FG, the load does not heat up noticeably over the time period tested. But when it's switched to the 555 , the nearly 100 percent ON mosfet causes the load to heat up fast.

Again, with the stronger batteries, the inverted duty cycle is harder to detect on the oscilloscopes, but it still has full effect wrt heating the load. No heating of load at short (FG) duty cycles, ample heating of load in line with Ainslie's reported heating with long (555, Ainslie circuit) duty cycles.

I still don't detect resonant phenomena or non-periodic waveforms, at any gain or duty cycle settings, in the frequency range available from the 555 timer. But I can certainly make the Fluke 199 ScopeMeter go psychotic and report all kinds of things that aren't really happening.

The inductive spikes and the nice ringdown at the trailing edge (going off edge) do not depend at all on duty cycle. I can vary the FG cycle from zero on to zero off, full range, and one doesn't even see it affecting this portion of the waveform. And within the frequency range of the 555 timer, freq doesn't affect it either. This is because this spike doesn't have anything to do with the freq or duty cycle!!! It is a result of the rapid switching off of the load, allowing the stored energy to slosh back and forth between inductances and capacitances until it's lost to Joule heating. As long as the edges of the gate drive pulse are reasonably square, it doesn't matter the freq or duty cycle, the mosfet will switch more or less cleanly and the inductive spike and ringdown will occur.

Some really interesting spikes can be observed on the output (load, point A) when the main 24 volt batterypack is Disconnected Completely and the circuit is allowed to run just on the FG or 555 timer input. To me, these are more interesting than the powered spikes. But of course these do not heat the load, they represent only milliwatts of power leaking past the mosfet.

Now, it would help me immensely if I could access the report on the Ainslie tests from the ABB laboratory in North Carolina. Has this information been made available, and where can I see it?

Thanks, friends.
--TK
Title: Re: Claimed OU circuit of Rosemary Ainslie
Post by: ramset on July 04, 2009, 03:40:00 AM
Tk
Thats a very good question ,If Rosemary payed for the tests she owns them
Chet
Title: Re: Claimed OU circuit of Rosemary Ainslie
Post by: ramset on July 04, 2009, 03:22:23 PM
Rosemary didn't pay

Hello RAMSET - I was never given the results of any of the tests conducted by those accreditors. It was not from want of trying. But I was given their permission to use their names as accreditors in the Quantum article. The reason we simply used that precise experiment for the paper submitted to the IET was to reference their names. I do have the report for BP because we had to conduct those experiments on battey duration. But the context of that report is just on the effect as it relates to battery delivery - and it has got to be the single most boring exercise in all of history. It's object impeccable - but the testing exhausting.

I think the truth is that these companies allocate a certain amount of funding to research. And having found their answers they do not make it public. Presumbaly having paid for their own lab time they rightly regard the results as being their property - or their company's property. We did try and get the results - but failed - miserably.
Title: Re: Claimed OU circuit of Rosemary Ainslie
Post by: TinselKoala on July 04, 2009, 04:04:05 PM
OK, I have more data.
I have for the moment stopped using the 555 timer circuit, giving Ainslie the benefit of the doubt, as they say, and so I'm just trying to examine the behaviour of the circuit at a true 3.7 percent ON gate drive cycle.
(This is not to say that the 555 issue is unimportant or that it is resolved--I still see a big problem here.)

I've been testing using the new batteries I obtained, the 12V20Ah ones, and I can report that I have finally gotten substantial heating in the load, but still not of the magnitude Rosemary has reported.

This set of data is very much "pilot experiment" stuff--the numbers are rough estimates from my reading of my analog oscilloscopes. (I have the Fluke 199 here and will be comparing its numbers later.)

Running from the FG at 3.7 percent ON and 2.4 kHz, 12 ohm load.
Looking at the input scope trace and calling the top of the flat part of the pulse the instantaneous voltage drop across the 0.25 ohm shunt, ignoring the spikes and whatnot, and figuring in the duty cycle, I get around 1.1 watt average input power. That's around 0.3 volts drop across 0.25 ohms for 3.7 percent of the time at 25 volts battery supply.

This produced heating in the load that went from 28 degrees at 0 minutes, up to 37 degrees at 37 minutes, and remained at 37 degrees until 60 minutes when the power was disconnected and the system allowed to cool down. Load temp returned to 26 degrees at 24 minutes after shutdown.

I was surprised to see this much heating from a measly 1.1 watts input. It's not the 50 degrees above ambient that Ainslie saw but it's not negligible.

Now, the control experiment. I found Ainslie's control experiment to be kind of backwards. She used an adjustable power supply to achieve the same temperature in the load, and then used the voltage and current settings of the supply to calculate the instantaneous power (and for DC that's the same as average power) needed to maintain the load at that temperature, and then looked at a long time period.

I'll do it that way too, but for now, I think the more appropriate measure is to supply the same DC power to the load, as the circuit does in the experiment, and see how warm the load gets. I think the rate of temperature rise is more important than the eventual stable temperature, but that's just my impression at this point.

So I used a regulated, current-limited supply -- unfortunately not quite powerful enough to give the necessary 3.6 volts, 0.3 A in the load to make the full 1.1 watts -- my supply maxxed out at 0.25 A at 3 volts, for an average power of 0.75 watts in the load.

This, too, produced a surprising amount of heat in the load. From 27 degrees at 0 minutes, the load rose to 33 degrees at 21 minutes, and at 60 minutes was at 34 degrees.

Meanwhile ambient temp in the room dropped from 22 degrees at the start to 21 degrees at the end.

OK, to reiterate: The Ainslie circuit supplied 1.1 watts average to the load and the load stabilized at 37 degrees.
A regulated DC source supplying 0.75 watts to the load caused the load to stabilize at 33 degrees.

I'll have to graph the power vs. time curves to approximate the energy, but it sure doesn't look like I've gotten anywhere near COP>17, or even overunity, yet.

But at least I am somewhat closer to getting the Ainslie numbers. The "eyeball" method almost certainly underestimates the input power, but if conditions warrant I can pull out some "big guns" here and get much more precise input power measurements. Not with what I've got at home!!

Still seeing nothing like "aperiodic resonance".

Now if someone will only send me a couple of IRFPG50 MOSFETs...

 ;)

(There sure are a lot of 37's, aren't there? But that's what the numbers say...)

I'll also post this over there...
Title: Re: Claimed OU circuit of Rosemary Ainslie
Post by: TinselKoala on July 04, 2009, 04:35:17 PM
Rosemary didn't pay

Hello RAMSET - I was never given the results of any of the tests conducted by those accreditors. It was not from want of trying. But I was given their permission to use their names as accreditors in the Quantum article. The reason we simply used that precise experiment for the paper submitted to the IET was to reference their names. I do have the report for BP because we had to conduct those experiments on battey duration. But the context of that report is just on the effect as it relates to battery delivery - and it has got to be the single most boring exercise in all of history. It's object impeccable - but the testing exhausting.

I think the truth is that these companies allocate a certain amount of funding to research. And having found their answers they do not make it public. Presumbaly having paid for their own lab time they rightly regard the results as being their property - or their company's property. We did try and get the results - but failed - miserably.

I'm afraid I don't understand this. She continues to cite the ABB test as a replication and confirmation--but now it appears that they wouldn't give a report at all??? So how can she cite them as confirmation?

Here's the citation from the EIT paper:
"ABB Electric Systems Technology Institute in North Carolina who conducted
independent tests. Here tests were confined to the evaluation of instantaneous
power delivered simultaneously by the battery supply source and dissipated in
the load. Measurements were enabled through the use of four channel
oscilloscopes."

The implication is that they verified the input and output calculations.
But now we are allowed to know that they may have "evaluated", but since no report was issued we cannot know if the Ainslie measurements were validated or not.
Title: Re: Claimed OU circuit of Rosemary Ainslie
Post by: TinselKoala on July 05, 2009, 06:23:22 PM
Now I'm really getting burned up. The Queen is not even reading my posts, evidently, and is either distorting or simply lying about what she thinks she has read.

"Inverted position of my probes?" Look again, Rosemary. They are EXACTLY positioned as in the Quantum paper and the EIT paper.

"Fluke 123?" WTF? Rosemary, your published documents say you used a Fluke 199, and I have this one sitting right here and I have compared its readings to my 2 analog scopes, the Tek and the Philips.

"Armaged's challenge for me to build the 555 circuit?? " AGAIN, I seem to be the only one to actually build the circuit published by Ainslie. INCLUDING the 555 circuit, which can be seen in the video and the photograph. Where's Ainslie's video and photograph?

There is a lot of abuse directed towards me on that forum. At least you would think they could come up with something TRUE, instead of lies and distortions and assumptions.
Title: Re: Claimed OU circuit of Rosemary Ainslie
Post by: TinselKoala on July 05, 2009, 06:59:27 PM
I'm reposting this here, because as things go, we all know that critical posts tend to dissappear down the memory hole...
Rosemary's comments quoted, my replies interspersed:

"I'm not sure that the question of TinselKoala can be entirely dropped. I remain deeply concerned that the representation of a 90% duty cycle is only achieved through the inverted position of his probes. "

My probes are not inverted. They are positioned exactly as in your publications.

"If so, then he is laughing at us from many, many different levels. "

Nobody's laughing, Rosemary. We are trying to get to the truth.

"And the fact that he shows this in conjunction with the entire depletion of two x 24 volt batteries in the space of 10 minutes from the current flow at it's max of 2 amps - simply adds to that concern. "

Clearly you haven't bothered to read my "huge chapters."

"I would also add that Oppenheimer would not allow a single sceptic on his team. "

Are you comparing yourself to Oppenheimer?

"And I would also point out that he is posting huge chapters from his previous forum. "

For the record. Which, evidently, nobody bothers to read before they begin criticizing.

"I can never work out the motives of such people. The idea of an actual conspiracy still seems a little bazaar. One would assume that he would then be richly rewarded."

This is not even worthy of comment.

" Seems that he even has difficulty getting hold of a Fluke 123."

Fluke 123? Your papers that I am addressing say you are using a Fluke 199 ScopeMeter, which I have sitting right next to my Philips and Tek analog scopes. And I also have available to me at least 12 other sophisticated oscilloscopes, as well as a lot of other instrumentation. I have barely begun my analysis of your work, Rosemary. I am prepared to put the whole circuit inside the world's most sophisticated civilian calorimeter system if I have to.

" His compensations for killing this thread should then, at its least, deserve a tektronix or somesuch. I just don't know. "

Yes, you just don't know.

"Also at issue is the fact that he never explains how he establishes, or actually measures, the energy delivered by the battery. It needs to be done with some transparent reference to the waveform across the shunt including the sum of both parts of that duty cycle."

I am using standard techniques: I compute the instantaneous power waveform using the instantaneous voltage and current signals, and then I integrate that power waveform over an appropriate time period.

" If he is using a simple current meter then it is also - quite simply - wrong. I'm afraid I really do need to address this point - over and over - as his contributions are likely to become highly counter productive. "

Straw man. Do you see a simple current meter in my experimental setup?

"I think Armagdn03's final challenge to let him build his own 555 is appropriate."

Which "him?" What "challenge?" The circuit that you published is right there in black and white. Certainly anybody can build it. When I first did, and discovered that the timer portion behaves as it does, the first thing I suspected was that I had made a mistake, so I built the circuit again, twice, and I asked others to build it--over and over I asked for others to build it. I'm still asking...
But if you would bother to read what you are criticizing, you will see that I have abandoned your published 555 circuit and am using my function generator exclusively.
Title: Re: Claimed OU circuit of Rosemary Ainslie
Post by: Cap-Z-ro on July 05, 2009, 07:57:35 PM

TK...it is clear by what is written that you are being trolled...albeit from someone with a technical background.

I get the impression that you are dealing with a male...possibly oriental, judging from the word combinations and the usage and application of various phrases.

The assertions directed your way could very well be accurate if turned in the direction of origin.

Regards...

 
Title: Re: Claimed OU circuit of Rosemary Ainslie
Post by: poynt99 on July 05, 2009, 08:32:49 PM
TK, all.

The EIT paper and the Quantum article are at odds regarding the flyback diode. The latter does not use one.

Is it used or not?

.99
Title: Re: Claimed OU circuit of Rosemary Ainslie
Post by: fuzzytomcat on July 05, 2009, 08:47:40 PM
Now I'm really getting burned up. The Queen is not even reading my posts, evidently, and is either distorting or simply lying about what she thinks she has read.

There is a lot of abuse directed towards me on that forum. At least you would think they could come up with something TRUE, instead of lies and distortions and assumptions.

Hey TK,

Saw this you must have missed .......

http://www.energeticforum.com/59039-post185.html

Quote
Tinselkoala - I have no intention of answering any further posts. In truth I'm not sure that you wrote the last post as your standard of language is different to the previous. I think Gauss answered in your name. How do you do that? Do you share computers?
Title: Re: Claimed OU circuit of Rosemary Ainslie
Post by: 0c on July 05, 2009, 08:51:10 PM
The EIT paper and the Quantum article are at odds regarding the flyback diode.

Which is the EIT paper? Link please.
Title: Re: Claimed OU circuit of Rosemary Ainslie
Post by: TinselKoala on July 05, 2009, 09:05:13 PM
Which is the EIT paper? Link please.

Hmmm---this is the Quantum article:
http://www.feelthevibe.com/free_energy/rosemary_ainslie/transient_energy.pdf
And this is the EIT paper:
http://dc147.4shared.com/download/110716349/15cc31e0/EIT_paper.pdf

Is it possible that there are two versions of the Quantum article circuit diagram? I see the inconsistency for sure, now that it's pointed out to me. I wonder if I have stuck my foot in my mouth bigtime??
I'm going to have to cancel my evening plans and go back to the breadboard, it seems.

I used the EIT paper at first, building for the FG input as shown, then I built the 555 circuit from the GroundLoop diagram and simply inserted it into the EIT circuit in place of the FG, using a separate battery supply for the 555 portion. Now I can see that this might not be equivalent to the Quantum circuit in the link.

So it appears that I have been testing a hybrid, of sorts, of the EIT and the Quantum circuits. Although lately I have not been using the 555 at all, just the FG.
I will have to do some exploration and experimentation to see if it makes a difference.

So there is still a question: The EIT paper and the Quantum article appear to  be reporting the exact same experiment. So I'd still like to know what the correct circuit was, that was used in the experiment.

Meanwhile, thank you so much for poynting this out, poynt99. It might mean that my rep is about to be totally shot down...
 ???
Title: Re: Claimed OU circuit of Rosemary Ainslie
Post by: TinselKoala on July 05, 2009, 09:17:54 PM
All right, I've looked carefully at the Quantum article diagram, yet again.

It seems that the flyback diode is simply left out, or not mentioned, or something.

In the parts list the 1n4007 appears, and it's shown in the EIT paper across the load, and it's mentioned in that paper...in the Quantum diagram there's no diode across the load, and there's an unlabelled diode in the 555 Vcc line--in Groundloop's cleaned up version this is listed as 1n4148 like the other two, so that's what I used here...

I don't think this re-inverts the duty cycle like I was afraid of, but it's easy enough to check.

The only difference is the presence or absence of the flyback diode. I've already tested several in this position, but DUH, I didn't think to test "no diode" here.

And the beat goes on...
Title: Re: Claimed OU circuit of Rosemary Ainslie
Post by: poynt99 on July 05, 2009, 09:44:40 PM
I don't think the flyback diode is going to change the duty cycle, and as you can see I have verified that Ainslie and her crew have indeed inverted their calculations.

Next is to see if I can get the FET to oscillate, but will check out the wave form with a flyback as well.

.99
Title: Re: Claimed OU circuit of Rosemary Ainslie
Post by: poynt99 on July 06, 2009, 02:43:23 AM
I wasn't able to get the MOSFET to oscillate (no surprise eh TK?  ;) ).

I tired the full range of the 100 Ohm Gate resistor and even added some stray inductance in the Gate and Source, still no oscillation. With the MOSFET in saturation 96% of the time it's probably no wonder it won't oscillate. So for fun I drove the MOSFET separately from a square wave with 3.7% duty cycle and still could not elicit any oscillation.

The effect of the flyback diode really just cleans up the pulses a bit, for either case, 3.7% or 96%. There is no substantial flyback present below 0V as Ainslie mentions. Apparently this is where her circuit gains come from, but in my case there is very little and only without the diode in place.

I think at this point it would be necessary to see a picture of the actual built circuit used for their testing. Poor circuit construction can play a large part in how circuits behave, particularly with high current pulsing type circuits. Was a cheap breadboard used perhaps, long wires, etc?

Also, after reading Ainslie's posts at energeticforum, I'm beginning to get the feeling that she doesn't possess the technical prowess to really defend against TK's points, and this by her own admission. Why then is she lashing out at anyone that questions the accuracy of her reports ???  Human nature.

.99
Title: Re: Claimed OU circuit of Rosemary Ainslie
Post by: ramset on July 06, 2009, 03:08:39 AM
99
Rosemary has some fellow Donavon [I think] that is her "expert"
He's supposed to be showing up to help out

Chet
Title: Re: Claimed OU circuit of Rosemary Ainslie
Post by: TinselKoala on July 06, 2009, 04:26:13 AM
@99: Thank you so much for doing that. I was afraid for a while that I was going nutzo. Not that that would be bad, necessarily...

Do you mind if I post a link over there to this post, so those with eyes to see can take a look?

(Now, she is presuming to teach me how to use and read an oscilloscope...    :D   )

EDIT: I really don't like the "tone" she is taking with me. This is starting to get a bit personal, and I will be happy to pull out the "big guns" of accurate calorimetry to blow her out of the water. There's the matter of the patent applications...which in her mind seem to have the status of "patents"...and the supposed confirmations by independent labs, which turn out to be no such thing....and of course the Quantum circuit, which simply turns the mosfet ON and heats the load through simple Joule heating from the current conduction...

I suppose arrogance is a necessary concomitant of prevarication and mendacity, if one wants to enhance seeming credibility among the credulous. But it's the arrogant liers that are the worst, because they will never never admit that they are wrong and have been shovelling you a line of bs.
Title: Re: Claimed OU circuit of Rosemary Ainslie
Post by: poynt99 on July 06, 2009, 05:16:58 AM
@99: Thank you so much for doing that. I was afraid for a while that I was going nutzo. Not that that would be bad, necessarily...

Do you mind if I post a link over there to this post, so those with eyes to see can take a look?

Sure. I don't mind.

What might have caught them: If you look at the MOSFET Drain with the scope referenced to ground, the wave form will look like a 3.7% duty cycle. But in reality it looks that way because the MOSFET is pulling the coil down to ground, 96% of the time. After all, the MOSFET is connected as an INVERTER  :o

.99
Title: Re: Claimed OU circuit of Rosemary Ainslie
Post by: TinselKoala on July 06, 2009, 08:17:26 AM
Sure. I don't mind.

What might have caught them: If you look at the MOSFET Drain with the scope referenced to ground, the wave form will look like a 3.7% duty cycle. But in reality it looks that way because the MOSFET is pulling the coil down to ground, 96% of the time. After all, the MOSFET is connected as an INVERTER  :o

.99

Thanks.
Yep, as I explained in one of the videos, when the voltage at her monitoring point "A" goes HIGH (to battery voltage positive rail) , that means the MOSFET is OFF. And her circuit turns the mosfet OFF in the range of about 1 to 10 percent of the time. It cannot be adjusted to turn the MOSFET ON for a short duty cycle, with the component values given, as you've confirmed.

Again, I really appreciate your taking a look at this. I posted a link, but I'm pretty sure it won't do any good.

I would like to get on with testing the main OU claim. My results so far, using a 3.7 percent duty cycle and tuning the gate drive for maximum ringdown weirdness (where the battery-monitoring voltmeter goes crazy from the spikes returning on the input), I get heating of the load that seems similar to what is reported in the Quantum article and the paper. So my main beef is with the published diagram, not the data itself.  It seems that a true 3.7 percent duty cycle can heat the load, with a similar profile to what Ainslie claimed.
BUT--my control experiment, which used the very same load resistor-inductor, and a DC current-limited source supplying the same average power as was given to the load in the experimental condition (about 1.1 watts, in line with Ainslie's number)--the control experiment causes almost exactly the same heating. So I am not detecting anything like COP>17. Not even COP>1, at this point. But the mosfet gets pretty warm too, and after all, I still don't have the IRFPG50 to play with.
Title: Re: Claimed OU circuit of Rosemary Ainslie
Post by: Cloxxki on July 06, 2009, 08:24:08 AM
There seemed to be another feature to her circuit.
Was it not mentioned that the batteries lasted a long time, considering the amount of heat produced?
I'm a newbie, but I suppose with a 3.7% duty cycle, your batteries are supposed to last a while? Yet, if the inverted duty cycle is the actual case, how long could her batteries be expected last?
Title: Re: Claimed OU circuit of Rosemary Ainslie
Post by: TinselKoala on July 06, 2009, 09:00:48 AM
There seemed to be another feature to her circuit.
Was it not mentioned that the batteries lasted a long time, considering the amount of heat produced?
I'm a newbie, but I suppose with a 3.7% duty cycle, your batteries are supposed to last a while? Yet, if the inverted duty cycle is the actual case, how long could her batteries be expected last?

Well, that's a question, isn't it? In the EIT paper she says the batteries were 12 volt, 20 Amp-hour rated. In the discussion thread where she is posting now, she says they were "car batteries", which are usually in the range 80-100 Amp-hours, and could even be as high as 200 Amp-hours.

So, I got two brand new 12V 20 A-h batteries, charged them fully with an 8-amp automotive "automatic" battery charger, and running the experiment over 4 hours continuously at 3.7 percent, the no-load voltage of the pair is still 25.4 volts. (It was 25.6 when charging was complete.)

It will take a long time for the batteries to deplete noticeably. The current drain is about 1.2 amps when ON, so figuring 25 volts x 1.2 amps that's 30 watts when ON, and on for 3.7 percent of the time that's about 1.1 watts average. They will go a long time before there's much of a voltage drop below 24 volts. Ten days? Maybe.

I don't think the reported experiment was done with the long duty cycle that the circuit produces, because of mosfet heating. And my load gets well over 110 degrees C when run with good batteries at long duty cycles. But even making 30 watts continuously, the batteries will last a long time. Many hours.

There are so many inconsistencies popping up in what's been reported that I'm not sure what to think. Ainslie isn't giving any actual information, if you look at her posts. She's engaging in theoretical discussions and ad hom attacks against me but isn't answering any actual questions about the circuit or the experiment.
Title: Re: Claimed OU circuit of Rosemary Ainslie
Post by: WilbyInebriated on July 06, 2009, 09:31:02 AM
Now, I've tried to play nice here. Anybody reading my posts, who is familiar with me, like 0c, can tell you that I am being quite polite and restrained, compared to my usual response to bullshit. But seeing the flack I am getting, from people who cannot even be arsed to assemble seven dollars worth of components to see how they behave...that's starting to piss me off.

you get that $10 fet yet? or are you a hypocrite?

@poynt99
what fet did you use? the same as tk? or the right one?
Title: Re: Claimed OU circuit of Rosemary Ainslie
Post by: TinselKoala on July 06, 2009, 10:08:27 AM
you get that $10 fet yet? or are you a hypocrite?

@poynt99
what fet did you use? the same as tk? or the right one?

As I have explained several times, my local suppliers do not stock them, and I would have to order a minimum of 10. I don't need these expensive transistors in order to prove that Ainslie's circuit does not produce 17 times more energy out than in.
And I have also offered to test any transistor anybody would care to send me.

And the fet used by poynt99 is specified right there on the circuit he made, and if you would learn to read instead of troll you might be able to see it.
Title: Re: Claimed OU circuit of Rosemary Ainslie
Post by: Cloxxki on July 06, 2009, 10:32:17 AM
I've not been reading Tk for too long, he does strike me as extremely friendly and patient by his standard as I (limitedly) got to know them :-)
Good job though, friendliness is one of the strongest weapons, and it's FREE.
Title: Re: Claimed OU circuit of Rosemary Ainslie
Post by: WilbyInebriated on July 06, 2009, 12:22:27 PM
As I have explained several times, my local suppliers do not stock them, and I would have to order a minimum of 10. I don't need these expensive transistors in order to prove that Ainslie's circuit does not produce 17 times more energy out than in.
And I have also offered to test any transistor anybody would care to send me.

And the fet used by poynt99 is specified right there on the circuit he made, and if you would learn to read instead of troll you might be able to see it.

re: your first paragraph. ie:more tk BS
http://cgi.ebay.com/IRFPG50_W0QQitemZ370108354282QQcmdZViewItemQQptZLH_DefaultDomain_0?hash=item562c2d4eea&_trksid=p4634.c0.m14.l1262&_trkparms=%7C293%3A10%7C294%3A30
look, $4! gasp! and if you would learn to use the web for something other than being a tick, you might be able to find a single IRFPG50 fet for half of what you claim they cost.

re: your second paragraph. it was a rhetorical question, more of another poke at you to get the right one. obviously...

edit: i'm curious though, and feel free to jump to the conclusion that ainslie is my new hero. how much did you spend on those "brand new" 20ah batteries?
Title: Re: Claimed OU circuit of Rosemary Ainslie
Post by: poynt99 on July 06, 2009, 02:37:24 PM
you get that $10 fet yet? or are you a hypocrite?

@poynt99
what fet did you use? the same as tk? or the right one?

I used the IRFPG50 as noted on the diagram. You may not have noticed, but this circuit was modeled and simulated. Mainly I wanted to confirm the duty cycle, which I did.

Most component models are pretty good if one knows how to use them, but I didn't expect the MOSFET to oscillate. I wouldn't be surprised mind you if it did, as PSpice has impressed me with it's accuracy many times over the years I have been using it.

The IRFPG50 has a relatively high gain, but also  a high input capacitance. Probably why it likes to oscillate in the low 100's of kHz. I tried 1000 Ohms in the Gate and no oscillation. Again, the model may not be 100% correct, but I will look into using perhaps the small signal model instead of the large signal one. This might do it.

.99
Title: Re: Claimed OU circuit of Rosemary Ainslie
Post by: TinselKoala on July 06, 2009, 04:04:49 PM
re: your first paragraph. ie:more tk BS
http://cgi.ebay.com/IRFPG50_W0QQitemZ370108354282QQcmdZViewItemQQptZLH_DefaultDomain_0?hash=item562c2d4eea&_trksid=p4634.c0.m14.l1262&_trkparms=%7C293%3A10%7C294%3A30
look, $4! gasp! and if you would learn to use the web for something other than being a tick, you might be able to find a single IRFPG50 fet for half of what you claim they cost.

re: your second paragraph. it was a rhetorical question, more of another poke at you to get the right one. obviously...

edit: i'm curious though, and feel free to jump to the conclusion that ainslie is my new hero. how much did you spend on those "brand new" 20ah batteries?

Well, clearly you have the ability to order your own parts and build your own circuit, since you can use a web catalog. Oh, wait--using the catalog only requires a single finger for typing. Actually building something requires opposable thumbs.

If you want to buy that from ebay and send it to me, I'll deduct the cost from the bill I send you for the consulting work.

And the batteries cost "somebody" seventy-six dollars each. But I just had to walk around the building to get them.

Now, from your elevated pulpit, can you read me the gospel chapter on how the choice of any particular N-channel mosfet would make a likety-split of difference in the duty cycle issue? And why do you care so much anyway? Why don't you go attack her, there are a LOT more holes in her story than you will ever find in mine.
Zipons! Hah!
Title: Re: Claimed OU circuit of Rosemary Ainslie
Post by: TinselKoala on July 06, 2009, 04:20:09 PM
I used the IRFPG50 as noted on the diagram. You may not have noticed, but this circuit was modeled and simulated. Mainly I wanted to confirm the duty cycle, which I did.

Most component models are pretty good if one knows how to use them, but I didn't expect the MOSFET to oscillate. I wouldn't be surprised mind you if it did, as PSpice has impressed me with it's accuracy many times over the years I have been using it.

The IRFPG50 has a relatively high gain, but also  a high input capacitance. Probably why it likes to oscillate in the low 100's of kHz. I tried 1000 Ohms in the Gate and no oscillation. Again, the model may not be 100% correct, but I will look into using perhaps the small signal model instead of the large signal one. This might do it.

.99

Hey, .99, could you stick a 2SK1548 in the model and see if you see any real difference? I'd also like to know if adding a little external capacitance to the 2sk is predicted to make any difference.

Of course, "Wilby won't be" happy until I find the exact same circuit board material that Ainslie used and run the experiment in the southern hemisphere. Since those things clearly make a huge difference--after all, hers works and mine doesn't. So clearly the fault must be in my construction or location.

No, wait...we don't know if hers works or not, since we don't have any real idea WHAT THE RIGHT CIRCUIT IS, and she won't tell us. All we really know is that nobody anywhere, working from the information she provides, has gotten any overunity performance...no matter what MOSFET or batteries they used.

I've been using a 200 K pot to vary the gate; the mosfet behaves interestingly only when the gate input resistance is very very low. Like at zero ohms.  Otherwise the pot works just like a gain control. Duh. Using the 100 ohm pot here is incomprehensible to me as it has almost no effect on the circuit. This is another discrepancy in the Quantum circuit that needs explanation.
Title: Re: Claimed OU circuit of Rosemary Ainslie
Post by: ramset on July 06, 2009, 04:58:31 PM
All
Something else "Very Good' is happening this week.[in regard to this circuit]


S.Roksund

I am a Novice member in this forum, but a retired electronic engineer with some 35 years of experience. I take the chance that my posting is a little bit beside what is discussed in this tread.

In the last one and a half year or so I have done research on capturing energy from the inductive back spike from transformers. I use my own kind of circuit and use a microcomputer to control the switches. Experimentally I have several times – and with different duty cycles - obtained  2 - 5  times electrical energy output relative to the input.

I have read a lot in this forum and other forums - of similar circuits to the Rosemary Ainslies, and I am worried of the fact that she and Peter Kevin ASHBY has obtained a patent on a circuit which seem to operate in  similar - or quite similar ways, that many  other publizised circuits do. In my oppinion it should not be possible to get a patent on a system or circuit that have been discussed openly for such a long time.


Re: Claimed OU circuit of Rosemary Ainslie
« Reply #94 on: June 30, 2009, 08:12:09 PM »

    * Reply with quoteQuote

It is good if no patent has been issued.
I will post my electronic schema and a component list - as
well as the measurement methods I have used, here in this forum.
My intention is  that someone (hopefully) will make a replicate and test.
When I get the circuit and measurements confirmed, I will start making
units that can be tested in practice - before I start the production.
If all fails, - well it has been exciting all the way, and I have learnt a lot.
I am leaving to celebrate my mother (98), so no posting until next week.
Rgds
Sigvald

Title: Re: Claimed OU circuit of Rosemary Ainslie
Post by: TinselKoala on July 06, 2009, 05:21:33 PM
Happy Birthday, Sigvald's Mom!!

 :)
Title: Re: Claimed OU circuit of Rosemary Ainslie
Post by: WilbyInebriated on July 06, 2009, 07:35:22 PM
Well, clearly you have the ability to order your own parts and build your own circuit, since you can use a web catalog. Oh, wait--using the catalog only requires a single finger for typing. Actually building something requires opposable thumbs.

If you want to buy that from ebay and send it to me, I'll deduct the cost from the bill I send you for the consulting work.

And the batteries cost "somebody" seventy-six dollars each. But I just had to walk around the building to get them.

Now, from your elevated pulpit, can you read me the gospel chapter on how the choice of any particular N-channel mosfet would make a likety-split of difference in the duty cycle issue? And why do you care so much anyway? Why don't you go attack her, there are a LOT more holes in her story than you will ever find in mine.
Zipons! Hah!

well, you clearly have the ability to make BS up on the spot and then misdirect and obfuscate when called on it... i am assuming $4! is still "expensive" for you then? or is it that ebay is as difficult for you to use as google? or do you just like posting outright falsehoods as justification for doing it wrong?

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

building "something" may or may not require opposable thumbs. from your elevated pulpit do let us know when you get around to building it "right"...
Title: Re: Claimed OU circuit of Rosemary Ainslie
Post by: utilitarian on July 07, 2009, 02:46:41 AM
well, you clearly have the ability to make BS up on the spot and then misdirect and obfuscate when called on it... i am assuming $4! is still "expensive" for you then? or is it that ebay is as difficult for you to use as google? or do you just like posting outright falsehoods as justification for doing it wrong?

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

building "something" may or may not require opposable thumbs. from your elevated pulpit do let us know when you get around to building it "right"...

He is not being paid to do any of this, and you are not paying to have it done, so your level of agitation is somewhat comical.
Title: Re: Claimed OU circuit of Rosemary Ainslie
Post by: poynt99 on July 07, 2009, 03:57:46 AM
Sorry TK,

I could not find a 2SK1548 model in PSpice. The closest part number was a 2SK1544, and it is quite a different animal by the looks of it.

I've just done some more reading over at the other forum, and also in the EIT paper, and I am almost in disbelief  :o There is such a comedy of errors now from Ainslie herself, her co-author Donovan, and the guy that apparently designed the 555 circuit and wrote the Quantum article, that I don't know where to begin.

Perhaps it's best I don't  ;D

.99
Title: Re: Claimed OU circuit of Rosemary Ainslie
Post by: Kator01 on July 07, 2009, 12:36:57 PM
Hello poynt99, hello TK

I agree on your statement "Perhaps it's best I don't".

Now this guy Donovan  either shows a total lack of electronic knowledge or he ist just poking fun on gullible members in this forum.
He makes the members believe that you can regain most of the E_mag-Energy in a coil by a flybackdiode and at the same time have all the termal energy generated by the same current available. It does not occur to him by this oversimplified example he presents that energy-balance demands E_in = E_mag + E-thermal. So for me this discussion over there develops into a comedy-show. It is very obvious that this Donovan is just an invention of Rosemary... if this person Rosemary ever exists as such in the first place
This thing is the worst desinformation-activity of a special desinfo-group I have seen up to now.
Waste of time

Regards

Kator01
Title: Re: Claimed OU circuit of Rosemary Ainslie
Post by: poynt99 on July 07, 2009, 02:29:16 PM
Quite a change of tune (and tone) over at the other forum now.

It's pretty much self-explanatory.

.99
Title: Re: Claimed OU circuit of Rosemary Ainslie
Post by: ramset on July 07, 2009, 03:05:38 PM
A question put to Rosemary

. As soon as the Mosfet switches OFF, the inductor will do all it can to preserve the flow of current that was already established through itself, and consequently, the rest of the circuit....But still, none of these conditions produces, nor necessitates, any reverse current flowing through the Mosfet (in the body diode).Altair
-------------------------------------------------------------------------
Ok. I'm going to try and answer this. But I need to remind you all - all those that agree with Altair on this issue. I am an amateur. No-one taught me about electric current flow - and no-one taught me about the nature of inductors and their need to 'retain a directional flow in current'. It was entirely omittted from my frame of reference. From technicians all the way up to some highly qualified electrical engineers - many of whom are acknowledge experts in the art, those many who helped build or evaluate the circuit - never tried to teach me conventional current flow. And this was despite pretty constant discussion over a decade and many instances where I asked the question directly. It used to puzzle me - as I was anxious to learn this. I was looking for a common frame of reference. Then I realised that they were probably simply accommodating my view of this - precisely because it was different. Maybe, therefore it could possibly account for the anomalies that were evident in these results.

So, Altair, I need to impose on you to hear my view point. If it is wrong then the measured results will refute my analysis. But my lack of understanding conventional flow has never been addressed. You will note that my knowledge, such as it is, of conventional current flow eventully relied on my own research. It is in two earlier consecutive posts on page 6, (from memory) in this thread. And both argue that conventional current flow, based on a concept of the 'flow of electrons' is simply illogical. But having said that - I happen to be the 'beginner' here and you guys are just so much better trained and experienced. If I am wrong then it will very quickly be shown. In fact henieck was the first person who ever showed me that - at its least - it could be argued that 'free floating' electrons could be responsible for charge distribution between two terminals. But even that entirely contradicts Pauli's exclusion principle, based as it is on the argument that two electrons (charged particles from the lepton family) cannot 'share' the same path. While Pauli was referring to the an atom's energy levels - and we are here looking at a far grosser field of application - then perhaps this law too, needs to be modified.

This has been a remarkably extensive 'apologia' and I think it may well stress the tolerance of such as Dr Stiffler, so - apologies all round. But I feel it is really important that you know where I come in.

I'm going to post this - because I've found that long posts cannot be easily edited - and I may well need to do so. I'll continue in the next post.

2
As soon as the Mosfet switches OFF, the inductor will do all it can to preserve the flow of current that was already established through itself, and consequently, the rest of the circuit....But still, none of these conditions produces, nor necessitates, any reverse current flowing through the Mosfet (in the body diode).Altair
--------------------------------------------------------------------------
I'm still trying to answer this question. So I've duplicated the reference. And as pointed out in the previous post my 'concept' of curent flow is not consistent with classical analysis. But as I do not understand classical concept I'm going to see if I can share my own.

To start with I need to refer to well known induction laws. In this, I think it was Farraday, established that changing magnetic fields induce electric fields. Then Maxwell argued and proved that changing electric fields also induce magnetic fields. But no-one to this day has found an electric field in a simple magnet on magnet interaction. Put two bar magnets together within a critical proximity and the one will attach to the other. That interaction shows an energetic movement of one or both magnets towards each other in space and over time - that, at its least, requires an energetic interaction. And - in that interaction - there is no evident manifestation of an electric field. It may, indeed, be hidden within the body of the magnet. But if it is there it has never been found. Now. I have discussed this point with acknowledged experts in the field - and, to a man - I have been assured that while the electric field has not been shown to exist in this magnet on magnet interaction - it is, nonetheless, assumed to exist. In fact I need to refer to a paper written on this but cannot, for the life of me, find it again. But there was an attempt at finding this field and the results were inconclusive. This also means that the lack of this electric field has been addressed. For some reason it has also apparently been put on hold - presumably in the hopes of finding a means of detecting it? I just don't know.

Well this is the first radical departure from known physics. In effect, if this magnet on magnet interaction - in fact manifests no electric field - then it may indicate that the magnetic force is an entirely independant field that is extant - as a newly identified and independant force - like gravity - or the strong nuclear force. And - in this way - the electromagnetic force may simply be a secondary force, relying, in its essential definition, on the existence of that primary field. That was the foundational basis of the field model.

I wont bore you with the tedious deductions that led to the field model except to reference one single effect that I have found resonates with most people. But I'll reference it in the next post - again, because I have found that I cannot edit my posts if they're too long. Apologies to Aaron if this, in fact, is not allowed.


3
As soon as the Mosfet switches OFF, the inductor will do all it can to preserve the flow of current that was already established through itself, and consequently, the rest of the circuit....But still, none of these conditions produces, nor necessitates, any reverse current flowing through the Mosfet (in the body diode).Altair
-------------------------------------------------------------------------

Here's the thing. Imagine that one has a machine that propels rocks in a vacuum. And it always applies a constant force so there are no extraneous forces to take into account. Under those circumstances then the smaller the rock the further the throw and vice versa. But if the rock were too big the machine could not lift it. And if it were too small the machine could not detect it. That's a boundary constraint.

(By the way there is an inverse proportional relationship suggested between velocity and mass - in that interaction. It is not required to answer Altair's quesion but I will refer to it in due course. It may possibly interest Armagdn03.)

The second point is this. All things are the sum of their parts. If we were to grind down a rock to its finest parts we'd find collections of atoms and molecules that formed the amalagam of the rock in its earlier bound state.
That's my definition of a principle of correspondence.

These were the tools that I used to determine the properties of a magnetic field. Again - just to get to the nub and to exclude the tedious dialectic that requires it I'll just deal with the conclusions.

My proposal is that magnetic fields comprise particles. They are too small and too fast for light to detect the particle. In effect they are outside the boundary constraints of light itself. They are magnetic dipoles that attach - north to south - head to toe. They form long strings that eventually close in on themselves to form circles. The whole field comprises many, many such strings to form the shape of a toroid. The particle, being a magnetic dipole, continually adjusts its position to its neighbouring dipoles in the field. This necessitates a compelementary movement of every particle in that entire field. This gives the field a fixed justification or direction. The force of the entire field maintains that direction. The particle is referred to as a zipon. It has a velocity of 2c and its mass is half that of a photon. All particles are composites of this zipon. The charge of the whole field is perfectly neutral and the zipons move to maintain that neutrality. Therefore each part of the entire field is perfectly balanced with every other part to produce a net zero charge.

In a simple bar magnet that symmetry is broken because one half of the orbit is shielded from the other half.

4a
As soon as the Mosfet switches OFF, the inductor will do all it can to preserve the flow of current that was already established through itself, and consequently, the rest of the circuit....But still, none of these conditions produces, nor necessitates, any reverse current flowing through the Mosfet (in the body diode).Altair
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Still the same question - but still the circuitous path (no pun intended) to answer it. Hope this is all readable and understandable. Anyway - fingers crossed and I'll plod on in the real knowledge that I'm taxing your patience. It is just that I SO need to make these points and hopefully to make them clearly. The arguments have been laboriously covered in my field model. That's where the actual dialectic comes in. But this, at its least, may serve as a synopsis.

So. The next point is purely hypothetical. Imagine that the universe comprises a backdrop of these magnetic fields. What if all of space comprises these little undetectable zipons that move around at twice light speed but always maintain that perfect charge distribution. They are entirely undetectable yet their force is - in fact - in every nook and cranny of the universe. Because the strings join - the influence on any part will be entirely consistent with the whole. Those strings would have to be really, really long, and really, really thin. And each string would have to move in 'lock step' with every other string. The outer strings would need to be longer than the inner - but the 'shoulder to shoulder' lateral arrangement of those strings would counter the distribution of charge and energy - that is makes for this required 'smoothness'. So. Hypothetically, this could be a fair description of the field - as a backdrop or a skeletal frame - to the condition of apparent vacuum of space. A really big toroid comprising an uncountable number of these tiny zipons. This, I think, may now occur to you as a possible source of both dark matter and dark energy required by our physicists.

But, in any event. Let's hypothesise further. What would happen if one of those strings broke?

4b
As soon as the Mosfet switches OFF, the inductor will do all it can to preserve the flow of current that was already established through itself, and consequently, the rest of the circuit....But still, none of these conditions produces, nor necessitates, any reverse current flowing through the Mosfet (in the body diode).Altair
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
The last question was 'what would happen if one of those strings broke?' I'm not too concerned as to the cause. It could be due to the unfortunate juxtaposition of two like charges in a chance coincident positioning of two or more zipons. Or, as I've described it in my field model, perhaps God Himself simply snipped one of those threads. In any event - once out of the smooth structure of the field I imagine that the truants would lose velocity and gain mass in an inverse proportion. In other words they would 'slow down' to the speed of light and light, itself, would find the zipon. That change in its manifest nature is likened to, and indeed proposed as - the source of all nebulae in space. Just a lot of zipons that have tumbled out of nowhere to structure into huge piles of manifest zipons.

But, in its state out of the field I've referred to the zipon as a truant. It is still a magnetic dipole but it no longer has the cohesive and coherent condition that it expressed in the field. Just a mass of manifest truants that have tumbled together from the force of a broken string of zipons. Like a pile of sugar - or clouds from a nuclear explosion - or falling leaves from a tree in autumn - or iron filings from a lathe.

However for symmetry - while some truants may have slowed down, equally therefore some truants may have speeded up. Those that have increased their velocity would do it at the expense of their mass in direct opposition to the those that increased their mass at the expense of their velocity. The smaller truant is referred to as the antitruant. And because of the boundary constraint, the zipons in the field can find neither truant. The one is too big and the other is too small. In effect, both truants remain invisible to the field. The field simply closes ranks to compensate for that broken string and they continue their march, ever forward, entirely oblivious to the break in that string and to the loss of the string, to the field.

I want to refer to the next points in a single paragraph - with apologies to purists who would require a fuller description. Again, it is fully described in the field model itself. This is merely a synopsis relating to the conclusions of the model rather than to an account of the logic that precedes the conclusion.

Virtual particles are those particles that lose their mass - regain their velocity and slip back into a string in that background universal structure. Stable particles are those truants that 'link' with their antitruant across the field, the 'ground zero' so to speak or the great divide. The point being that in this movement towards each other brings their mass/velocity back into co-incidence with the field which means that they are no longer invisible to the field. They would then be moved - by the force of the field at that point that they interacted with each other. Therefore, the antitruant is also a quark - here defined as that truant that anchors a composite out of the field. And composite truants can only be stable if they comprise 2, 3 or 9 truants. All other composites between 4 to 8 would variously subdivide into 1, 2 or three composites. The model also determines that 2 composites comprise the photon, 3 the electron and 9 the proton. But I'll return to this point at a much later stage - when and if anyone wants a fuller explanation of the field model. Otherwise a fuller description is largely irrelevant. I think I've covered the more salient features as needed to answer Altair's question.

5a

I think I'm nearing the point where I can finally answer the question. Apologies for taxing everyone by telling them so much more than they may want to know. In any event. The end looms large. Please bear with me. And again to the purists, the following statements need to be argued. But, again, this is just an abbreviated, broad brush stroke account. It is more fully explained in that model.

The next point is this. The truants in that nebulus are still simply very small magnets and they do what all magnets do. They try to congregate in orderly formations. They cannot, however, re-constitute that string. Rather do they cohere or fuse into stable or virtual particles in a series of 'small steps' so to speak. The first amalgam is into photons and electrons. The second more complex step is into the structure of a proton which, with it, comes the first real closed system away from the nebulus and out of the field. But in the accretion or 'fusion' into this hydrogen atom - and really to satisfy the symmetries of 'charge distribution' - it is proposed that the creation of this atom is also accompanied by a field of zipons that decay from truants in the nebulus itself. It is proposed that these zipons form the energy levels or hydrogen lines that are measurably evident. It is these energy levels themselves that it is proposed, maintains the hydrogen atom as the first truly closed system away from the primary fields of the universe itself.

Then further accretion - and the hydrogen atom itself is massed with other hydrogen systematically generating the structure of a new star. However, the actual binding of those atoms and their energy levels is at the cost of yet more traunts and antitruants from that same nebulus. They form fields that circle that atomic structure - holding one atom hydrogen atom away from another. This is the point. The actual material of the star body is held together by an unseen binding force of zipons that decayed from the truants and antitruants to form a kind of glue. This first holds star amalgams together and then - on a more universal scale - all amalgams.

The proposal is, therefore, that in the visible evidence of any gross amalgam, be it battery acid, iron, rocks, whole mountains, buildings, whatever - the thing that actually binds such structures are always zipons. These fields circle the atoms and determine the kind of 'abodes' of such atoms and their alignments in chaotic or structured crystalline formations. We don't see them because they orbit. Therefore, regardless of their justification or direction, the field is neutral. And we cannot find them because their velocity exceeds light speed. They are, therefore, outside the boundary constraints of light itself.

The existence of this field is relevant because it is proposed that it is these fields that move as current in electric energy through circuit components. These same fields manifest as flame in 'fire' which I'll discuss later. I mention it here because it most easily illustrates this particle. But for now, it is just necessary to point to these fields, entirely extraneous to the atomic structure, that are responsible for ensuring the equal distribution of atoms within amalgams. If the atom's basic structure is ionised therefore requiring some equal distribution of charge through the positioning of those abodes - then these zipons align the atoms to achieve that balance.

So it is proposed that current flow is - in fact - the flow, not of electrons that are essentially of like charge and therefore mutually repellent - but of zipons that easily structure into plastic formations, can extend their influence through space, and can adjust their own and other atomic charge by the careful positioning of atoms - one against another and can move to realign molecules and atoms so that the charge distribution is better balanced.

5b
As soon as the Mosfet switches OFF, the inductor will do all it can to preserve the flow of current that was already established through itself, and consequently, the rest of the circuit....But still, none of these conditions produces, nor necessitates, any reverse current flowing through the Mosfet (in the body diode).Altair
-------------------------------------------------------------------------

So here's my take on current flow through the circuit. The material of the battery acid comprises ionised molecules and atoms that essentially have a like charge and are therefore mutually repellent. Between these molecules and atoms are fields of zipons that spin in the opposite direction to those molecules and atoms to counter the ionised condition of those atoms at the source. But having a like spin they themselves are mutually repellent - the one field to the other. Their object is to change their spin - realign this to accommodate their own mutual repulsion. And by so doing they then rearrange the abodes of those molecules and atoms at the source, thereby diminishing the effects of that like charge. In so doing they also diminish the potential difference at the source.

But they cannot simply change their orbits, any more than a flux field from a permanent magnet can change its orbit. However, if they move from one terminal to another they effectively describe an orbit. And then their re-introduction to the field in that amalgam can then also enable that required 'changed spin'. In effect they change their position in space. Just think of a bar magnet. It has to change it's actual physical position to adjust to another magnetic field. The same with these little fields. They also move through space by interacting with the inductive and conductive material of the circuit components themselves. That way they reach the opposite terminal with an opposite spin and can re-introduce themselves into the material at the source with an adjusted spin.

But they do not interact with anything in that circuit other than the circuit's own binding magnetic fields. The zipon is restricted to its own boundary constraint. Anything that moves at light speed is too big and too slow to be seen or detected. Matter iself is invisible to this particle. It simply only sees and only interacts with those binding fields because these binding magnetic fields are precisely the right velocity and mass to enable an interaction. And both the zipon particle and the field of zipons are always neutral. It is just the justification and direction of their spin that determines their charge.

Therefore with the full force of potential difference measured at the supply source, it can overwhelm these binding zipons in circuit components to move them out of the structure of the circuit material or interact with them to move themselves through the circuit. Their only object is to reach the opposite terminal in order to change their justification. And having changed this they also realign the molecules and atoms so that that they no longer repel each other. They simply realign their own spin as it relates to the atoms in the source amalgam. That way they diminish the potential difference of the source amalgam over time.

6
As soon as the Mosfet switches OFF, the inductor will do all it can to preserve the flow of current that was already established through itself, and consequently, the rest of the circuit....But still, none of these conditions produces, nor necessitates, any reverse current flowing through the Mosfet (in the body diode).Altair
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Now, finally, I think I can answer your question. The transfer of these fields through the circuit material is proposed to be at twice light speed. The extruded magnetic fields across the resistor is also therefore, instantaneous, with respect to our own time frame. The justification of that extruded magnetic field is determined by the applied potential difference from the source.

So. During that ON period of the duty cycle when the switch is open - these zipons from the battery supply source line up in fields through the circuit material and across the circuit itself to discharge at the opposite terminal. Let's call that justification or path - south/north. And the extruded fields from the resistor/inductor would then, correspondingly, be north/south.

When the switch is closed and the battery can no longer deliver any current, then the extruded fields collapse. Collapsing magnetic fields are simply magnetic fields changing in time. They induce a reversal in the voltage which is also a measure of the newly applied potential difference from the material of the resistor itself. Changing magnetic fields induce an electric field. The justification of the voltage has changed - say south/north so the resultant current will change, let's say north/south. Those same zipons that have not yet discharged at the terminal now do an 'about face' so to speak and move towards the postive terminal of the battery. Their justification is such that they then recharge the material at the source.

In effect, the fields have simply flowed in the reverse direction to recharge the material that they had previously intended to discharge. I don't mean, by the word 'intended' that they sat around and discussed the issue. Just that they are compelled to move in the direction of the applied potential difference. The applied potential difference during the off period of the duty cycle is in reverse to the on period.

The bias of the flyback and the body diode in the MOSFET enables this flow during the off period, as their polarity is now consistent with the flow of current.

The point about the flow of zipons as opposed to the flow of current is, the known speed of current flow would be enabled - seen to be at light speed - but proposed herein to be at 2c. The zipon is able to change direction and justification. The zipon is not constrained to the exclusion priniciple as, far from being mutually repellent, zipons would attach, exactly as magnets attach - in long plastic lines through the circuit itself. And their path would be restricted through polarised materials such as the diodes - depending on their justification as they respond to different potential differences. Then the recharge system would simply force the realignment of these same zipons to their previously charged state within the material of the battery itself.

I hope that's answered the question Altair. And if I've told you much, much more than you intended to ask - apologies.
End quote

Chet

PS
This is good ,It will not take years to have this "revealed"one way or the other.
And some big names "in the business " are helping!

This is the proof is in the pudding part
Title: Re: Claimed OU circuit of Rosemary Ainslie
Post by: TinselKoala on July 07, 2009, 03:19:58 PM
Thank you for posting that, Chet.

The tests of a good theory are these: Does it make testable, falsifiable predictions? Does it account in a consistent manner for experimental observations already made? Does it account, in a testable falsifiable way, for new observations? And finally, is it consistent with what is already known about the world?

(Note that good theories can be falsified, and they are, all the time. "Goodness" doesn't mean correctness in this context.)

And there are many other, finer points, like: Are the constructs well-defined? Are there mathematical formulations for any parts of the theory, and is this math consistent and correct? Has the theory been peer-reviewed and published for comment and criticism?

And so forth.

If a theory has trouble passing these minimal tests, and yet includes entities such as "zipons" and "truants" and "antitruants" that are unknown to conventional science, what is to distinguish it from the rantings of a paranoid schizophrenic?
Title: Re: Claimed OU circuit of Rosemary Ainslie
Post by: TinselKoala on July 07, 2009, 05:00:56 PM
OK, for my morning blood pressure boost, I read up on the recent posts "over there". Hah!
It seems that Rosemary has a lot of time and energy to answer the difficult questions, but is ignoring my simpler, easier questions regarding verifiable facts.
So I asked them again.

(Quoting my post)

I see you're having fun answering hard questions. But why don't you answer my easy ones?

1) Did any of your patent APPLICATIONS result in the actual granting of PATENTS, and if so, where are the patent documents available?

2) Was the circuit published in the Quantum article used to generate the data in that article and in the EIT paper, or not?

3) Can you assure us that the energy balance calculations in the article and the paper do NOT suffer from the "duty cycle" problem that I have identified? I mean "assure" not "assert." I'd like to see some original data from the experiment and exact details of calculations. After all, the claim is COP>17. Surely something that robust can survive a little scrutiny.

4) Do you (or other readers) realize that if the data was generated with the Quantum circuit, the energy balance conclusions are Wrong, and so--all theoretical speculation based upon them are, at best, unsupported by evidence..???

Easy questions, straightforward. And all of them are critical this "discussion."

(End quoted post)

The thing that I find perhaps most ironic is that she is repeatedly pleading for someone to replicate her "results".
Well, I've done so. I've used her published circuit to show that the heating from that circuit is nothing unusual as the mosfet is ON most of the time.

I've given her the benefit of the doubt and used a 3.7 percent ON duty cycle and shown heating of the load that is in line with the load heating that she reported--within experimental error. So no real problem here--even though I obtained it with (4 different) "wrong" mosfets.

BUT: in a properly-performed control experiment, where I fed the same load with DC at a constant power level (constant regulated voltage and current) that was the same as the computed AVERAGE power coming from the Ainslie circuit at 3.7 percent ON, the load heated to a little above the same temperature and at the same rate of temperature increase as in the Ainslie experimental condition.

Note that this procedure is different from the "control experiment" used by Ainslie which relies on "guesstimations" of power dissipated in a load resistor over a long time period.

My preliminary conclusion USING THE WRONG MOSFETS (there, Wilby, you happy?) is that the Ainslie circuit produces no effects that are not also produced by straight DC at the same average power levels. (The Ainslie circuit also heats up the MOSFET, so less overall power is actually delivered to the load. Also, the Ainslie circuit allows a small amount of power from the clocking circuit to leak to the load. In a proper experiment these amounts should be quantified.)

My hypothesis for future research is that the "proper" IRFPG40 mosfet will not perform substantially differently in this experiment. BUT--in fact the 2sk1548 has a guaranteed +-30 volt gate-to-source voltage max, while the IRF unit only specifies +- 20 volts max--so it is indeed possible that the mosfet used in Ainslie's work was being overdriven. She has made statements about blowing mosfets...

(EDIT: as Wilbyshouldbedeleted so politely pointed out, I made a boo-boo in the post: it should say IRFPG50, not IRFPG40. I certainly hope that error doesn't cause anybody to waste time building the WRONG CIRCUIT, like the one in Ainslie's still-not-retracted Quantum article.)
Title: Re: Claimed OU circuit of Rosemary Ainslie
Post by: WilbyInebriated on July 07, 2009, 07:51:37 PM
My hypothesis for future research is that the "proper" IRFPG40 mosfet will not perform substantially differently in this experiment. BUT--in fact the 2sk1548 has a guaranteed +-30 volt gate-to-source voltage max, while the IRF unit only specifies +- 20 volts max--so it is indeed possible that the mosfet used in Ainslie's work was being overdriven. She has made statements about blowing mosfets...

wow! that's brilliant  ::)
let us know when you get around to do the "proper" and "correct" experiment that should go along with that hypothesis. you know, the one i have been asking you about since the first page of this thread...
wasn't it a irpfg50? and you were giving me crap about not being able to read. you make me laugh tk.
Title: Re: Claimed OU circuit of Rosemary Ainslie
Post by: TinselKoala on July 07, 2009, 10:05:22 PM
wow! that's brilliant  ::)
let us know when you get around to do the "proper" and "correct" experiment that should go along with that hypothesis. you know, the one i have been asking you about since the first page of this thread...
wasn't it a irpfg50? and you were giving me crap about not being able to read. you make me laugh tk.

Look!!

TinselKoala made a TYPO!!!

Call out the RCMP, the FBI, CSIS, and the Salvation Army, there's something wrotten in Denmark!! Clearly all his work is invalidated, since "4" and "5" are on completely different parts of the keyboard...

Check your PM, I've sent you an address so you can send me your mosfet. Be sure to wrap it in foil to protect from static. If it gets here and doesn't work for some reason, it will clearly be your fault.
Title: Re: Claimed OU circuit of Rosemary Ainslie
Post by: WilbyInebriated on July 07, 2009, 10:26:20 PM
Look!!

TinselKoala made a TYPO!!!

Call out the RCMP, the FBI, CSIS, and the Salvation Army, there's something wrotten in Denmark!! Clearly all his work is invalidated, since "4" and "5" are on completely different parts of the keyboard...

Check your PM, I've sent you an address so you can send me your mosfet. Be sure to wrap it in foil to protect from static. If it gets here and doesn't work for some reason, it will clearly be your fault.

you forgot the MIB...  ::)
no, it's clearly invalidated because you have done it incorrectly 4? times now, and haven't got any? fet to self-oscillate. obviously...

wrotten? you make me laugh.
Title: Re: Claimed OU circuit of Rosemary Ainslie
Post by: TinselKoala on July 07, 2009, 10:52:38 PM
you forgot the MIB...  ::)
no, it's clearly invalidated because you have done it incorrectly 4? times now, and haven't got any? fet to self-oscillate. obviously...

wrotten? you make me laugh.

Try not to pee your pants. It makes the smell even worse.

So now, it's "self-oscillation". Before it was "random chaotic" oscillations or "non-periodic resonance."
Well, since you are the expert on self-oscillation (careful, you'll grow hair on your palm, or is it easier to use your foot...) perhaps you can publish a screen shot of your oscillating MOSFET oscillating, so I can be sure you aren't sending me a dud...


EDIT and by the way, in her latest, Rosemary explains just how to get overunity power measurements, and with her technique it appears that the mosfet isn't critical--in fact, it isn't even required, as just about any oscillating circuit will behave as she describes, and will give "overunity" gain when measured and calculated as she recommends. The duty cycle doesn't even matter.

"And that is all that is required to prove the over unity claim. It will not matter what duty cycle you use. It will not matter what frequency you run the test at. The sum over the shunt resistor will always be less than the product over the load resistor. That's strictly in terms of classical analysis of energy delivered by the battery and dissipated at the load. You do not need to be a genius to see that the one will inevitably be greater than the other."

That's all, it's easy. Even you, Wilby, should be able to prove the overunity claim, using her technique.

Title: Re: Claimed OU circuit of Rosemary Ainslie
Post by: WilbyInebriated on July 07, 2009, 11:01:16 PM
it's a simple question, i asked it on page one. yet you avoid it like, how did you say? a politician.

any plans on doing it right?

nice try on the latest misdirection though
Title: Re: Claimed OU circuit of Rosemary Ainslie
Post by: TinselKoala on July 07, 2009, 11:12:08 PM
You mean this post?
You want me to confirm a diode on the FG output---Just like Rosemary used...where's Rosemary's diode there? I don't see it.
Do I plan to use a calorimeter--just like Rosemary did?   No, wait--she didn't use a calorimeter. She just used a "draft shield" of some non-specified type, and showed no data for the construction or performance of the "shield".
By now it should be clear, even to you, that even Rosemary Ainslie herself has no idea what circuit was used to make the data in the Quantum article or the EIT paper. Since I have asked her repeatedly to confirm or correct the circuit and she hasn't done so---I feel free to use whatever components I like to make my replication, and it's up to someone else to show, BY COMPARISON TO THE CORRECT CIRCUIT, whether or not I am using the "exact" parts or not.
After all, other "replicators" add capacitors, use different valued loads, different frequencies, different duty cycles, different transistors, and so forth--yet they don't have their "wilbys" grafted to their backs like I seem to...

any plan on doing it right? meaning getting proper components for the ones that you have that are not spec.
do you plan to use a calorimeter if/when you make the circuit to spec?

i am assuming you have a diode on the genny output? could you confirm?

Of course, once you send me that MOSFET, you will have to find some other inaccuracy in my build to complain about. How about the color of the base? No, wait--we don't know what her base color was. And she's not answering questions from me. So maybe you could ask her, in the interests of accurate replication: What color was her circuit board base material?

After all, I live only to please you, Wilby, and making an accurate replication is my lifetime goal. I wouldn't want to let you down by passing up a chance to generate SEVENTEEN times more energy out than I put in...just because I used the wrong mosfet--4 times running.

Even though I am quite sure that Rosemary could measure overunity performance even from a dead shorted mosfet.
Title: Re: Claimed OU circuit of Rosemary Ainslie
Post by: WilbyInebriated on July 07, 2009, 11:16:54 PM
You mean this post?
You want me to confirm a diode on the FG output---Just like Rosemary used...where's Rosemary's diode there? I don't see it.
Do I plan to use a calorimeter--just like Rosemary did?   No, wait--she didn't use a calorimeter. She just used a "draft shield" of some non-specified type, and showed no data for the construction or performance of the "shield".
By now it should be clear, even to you, that even Rosemary Ainslie herself has no idea what circuit was used to make the data in the Quantum article or the EIT paper. Since I have asked her repeatedly to confirm or correct the circuit and she hasn't done so---I feel free to use whatever components I like to make my replication, and it's up to someone else to show, BY COMPARISON TO THE CORRECT CIRCUIT, whether or not I am using the "exact" parts or not.
After all, other "replicators" add capacitors, use different valued loads, different frequencies, different duty cycles, different transistors, and so forth--yet they don't have their "wilbys" grafted to their backs like I seem to...

Of course, once you send me that MOSFET, you will have to find some other inaccuracy in my build to complain about. How about the color of the base? No, wait--we don't know what her base color was. And she's not answering questions from me. So maybe you could ask her, in the interests of accurate replication: What color was her circuit board base material?

After all, I live only to please you, Wilby, and making an accurate replication is my lifetime goal. I wouldn't want to let you down by passing up a chance to generate SEVENTEEN times more energy out than I put it...just because I used the wrong mosfet--4 times running.

Even though I am quite sure that Rosemary could measure overunity performance even from a dead shorted mosfet.

so that's a no then?
Title: Re: Claimed OU circuit of Rosemary Ainslie
Post by: TinselKoala on July 07, 2009, 11:19:05 PM
so that's a no then?

No, that's a yes. Assuming, of course, someone can tell me just what the correct circuit is, and someone else is able to get a stamp properly stuck to an envelope.

This is a no:

NO.

Title: Re: Claimed OU circuit of Rosemary Ainslie
Post by: WilbyInebriated on July 07, 2009, 11:27:51 PM
No, that's a yes. Assuming, of course, someone can tell me just what the correct circuit is, and someone else is able to get a stamp properly stuck to an envelope.

This is a no:

NO.

you still think i'm sending you a fet?  LMFAO you are funny. look tk, the other "replicators" weren't being pompous asses about their circuit being "exact", which i can't even believe you would dare to utter when i asked you straight up on page one if you had plans to do it right. then you do the same things you cry foul about R.M.A. doing, ad hom, misdirection (ie:talking about my circuit when it's yours that is up for criticism. i didn't post my incorrect "replication", you posted yours remember?)

edit: i did like how you did it wrong 4 times and then came up with that brilliant hypothesis you last posited. that one about using the fet you should have used first...  ::)
that was classic, thanks.
Title: Re: Claimed OU circuit of Rosemary Ainslie
Post by: TinselKoala on July 07, 2009, 11:30:04 PM
OMG!!! I"VE MADE A SERIOUS ERROR!!

An error that has profound implications for my "replication" of Ainslie's "work".

In fact it is so serious that I've got to go out immediately and get supplies and components to correct it.




What have I done? How could I have been so stupid and foolish?
Oh, well, I guess there's nothing for it but to admit:

 :'(









I've RUN OUT OF BOOZE!!!
Title: Re: Claimed OU circuit of Rosemary Ainslie
Post by: TinselKoala on July 07, 2009, 11:33:48 PM
"you still think i'm sending you a fet?  LMFAO you are funny."

So this post from you was a baldfaced lie, then.
Well, color me especially stupid and naiive, because I tend to believe what people tell me they will do.
No more.
Either you come through and send me the transistor like you said you would, or you can go play in somebody else's yard, because my Mom won't let me play with liars.

well, you clearly have the ability to make BS up on the spot and then misdirect and obfuscate when called on it... i am assuming $4! is still "expensive" for you then? or is it that ebay is as difficult for you to use as google? or do you just like posting outright falsehoods as justification for doing it wrong?

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

building "something" may or may not require opposable thumbs. from your elevated pulpit do let us know when you get around to building it "right"...
Title: Re: Claimed OU circuit of Rosemary Ainslie
Post by: WilbyInebriated on July 07, 2009, 11:36:53 PM
"exactly"
Title: Re: Claimed OU circuit of Rosemary Ainslie
Post by: TinselKoala on July 07, 2009, 11:37:37 PM
you still think i'm sending you a fet?  LMFAO you are funny. look tk, the other "replicators" weren't being pompous asses about their circuit being "exact", which i can't even believe you would dare to utter when i asked you straight up on page one if you had plans to do it right. then you do the same things you cry foul about R.M.A. doing, ad hom, misdirection (ie:talking about my circuit when it's yours that is up for criticism. i didn't post my incorrect "replication", you posted yours remember?)

edit: i did like how you did it wrong 4 times and then cam up with that brilliant hypothesis you last posited. that one about using the fet you should have used first...  ::)
that was classic, thanks.

Yes, I used a fet that was rated, on that critical parameter, higher than the one Rosemary allegedly used. Alleged--there is at this point nothing more than her bogus claims that says she actually used anything at all. And my "hypothesis" if you can interpret it correctly, is that she may have been using a BLOWN mosfet--in which case even you would probably admit that it would make no difference what mosfet it is.
Title: Re: Claimed OU circuit of Rosemary Ainslie
Post by: TinselKoala on July 07, 2009, 11:39:01 PM
"exactly"
"send me your address and i will send you the part, you worthless bum"
Title: Re: Claimed OU circuit of Rosemary Ainslie
Post by: ramset on July 07, 2009, 11:40:26 PM
Wilby

A....A.... LLLLIIIIIIIAAAAAAAARRRRRRRR!!!!!?? :o :o :o :o :o :o :o :o :o :o
Title: Re: Claimed OU circuit of Rosemary Ainslie
Post by: WilbyInebriated on July 07, 2009, 11:40:48 PM
Yes, I used a fet that was rated, on that critical parameter, higher than the one Rosemary allegedly used. Alleged--there is at this point nothing more than her bogus claims that says she actually used anything at all. And my "hypothesis" if you can interpret it correctly, is that she may have been using a BLOWN mosfet--in which case even you would probably admit that it would make no difference what mosfet it is.

great, grand, wonderful. let us know when you get around the proper and correct experiment part that comes next.
Title: Re: Claimed OU circuit of Rosemary Ainslie
Post by: TinselKoala on July 07, 2009, 11:42:39 PM
great, grand, wonderful. let us know when you get around the proper and correct experiment part that comes next.

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


I'll be checking my mail every day, looking for a little package from you.
Title: Re: Claimed OU circuit of Rosemary Ainslie
Post by: WilbyInebriated on July 07, 2009, 11:44:42 PM
Wilby

A....A.... LLLLIIIIIIIAAAAAAAARRRRRRRR!!!!!??????

it's a $4 part. i've made it abundantly clear in prior posts that tk can easily afford it. why he chooses not to is beyond me. why you all are naive enough to think i was serious after i made explicit points of tk's demonstration of his deep pockets and his willingness to bet, why anyone would think i was serious is also beyond me.  ::)

nice try on the misdirection though...
Title: Re: Claimed OU circuit of Rosemary Ainslie
Post by: ramset on July 07, 2009, 11:46:01 PM
It will probably make as big a difference as the kind of scotch you drink
Title: Re: Claimed OU circuit of Rosemary Ainslie
Post by: WilbyInebriated on July 07, 2009, 11:48:40 PM
It will probably make as big a difference as the kind of scotch you drink

i don't drink, but nice ad hom...
Title: Re: Claimed OU circuit of Rosemary Ainslie
Post by: ramset on July 07, 2009, 11:55:59 PM
If Aaron wasn't so busy with Jerry in his tube thread ,
this never would have gone on this long.
Look at Rosies cavalier response to the fact that the article is corrupt
Not even important enough for her to give a  clear answer [we should search all her posts]
How many days??

Chet
Title: Re: Claimed OU circuit of Rosemary Ainslie
Post by: WilbyInebriated on July 07, 2009, 11:58:56 PM
If Aaron wasn't so busy with Jerry in his tube thread ,
this never would have gone on this long.
Look at Rosies cavalier response to the fact that the article is corrupt
Not even important enough for her to give a  clear answer [we should search all her posts]
How many days??

Chet
how is this relevant to tk using the wrong fet?
nice try on the misdirection though.
Title: Re: Claimed OU circuit of Rosemary Ainslie
Post by: WilbyInebriated on July 08, 2009, 12:00:19 AM
so after 19 pages what do we have, an unproven hypothesis (reached by adhering to some asinine attitude of "i'm not going to use the specified fet if it's the last thing i do") by tk...

damn, it's like pulling teeth.

edit: hold on, let me get a comfortable chair and some popcorn, this is classic "science", i don't want to miss it it.  ;)
Title: Re: Claimed OU circuit of Rosemary Ainslie
Post by: TinselKoala on July 08, 2009, 12:22:59 AM
it's a $4 part. i've made it abundantly clear in prior posts that tk can easily afford it. why he chooses not to is beyond me. why you all are naive enough to think i was serious after i made explicit points of tk's demonstration of his deep pockets and his willingness to bet, why anyone would think i was serious is also beyond me.  ::)

nice try on the misdirection though...

Maybe it was the part where you said, "send me your address and i will send you the part, you worthless bum" that made us think you were going to send me the part.

And I have already explained several times that I do not need, nor will I be ordering, the minimum 10 parts that my suppliers want me to order, and I have philosophical objections to using ebay for anything--it's against my religion, which is an obscure sect of Sufism that does not believe in auctions or "buy-it-now".

And speaking of misdirection--this thread is about "Claimed OU circuit of Rosemary Ainslie".
So, without even referring to my "replication" which is making Wilby prance around like a debutante with a bladder issue...

I will here reiterate several problems with the Ainslie affair.

First, the Quantum article and the EIT paper give circuits that are different in several respects, yet the data and descriptions contained in the works appear to be describing the exact same experiment and control runs. The Quantum article's diagram does not include the flyback diode and the article does not even mention it. However, the EIT paper's diagram does include the diode, and current statements from Ainslie say that this diode is absolutely necessary.
Since these two papers are describing the same experiment, there is a major inconsistency here that needs to be explained.

(And I didn't even mention the mosfet or the duty cycle, did I.)
(But I will now.)

Second, the circuit as published in the Quantum article definitely produces a duty cycle that is inverted from what the paper claims. And definitely the flyback diode is not on the diagram. These are facts that anyone can check for themselves.
So definitely this circuit is in error. And yet it has not been corrected or retracted by Ainslie, and she rejects all criticism and questions about this topic. Why? I see this as a major problem. How can we trust anything from Ainslie, if this is how she regards the truth and correctness of publication? Her name is right there on the paper.
I mean--it's OK to make mistakes, I even make them sometimes...but to willfully let them stand and to refuse to correct them after they have been pointed out--that's something different.

Third, she refers in various places to her "patents"--and yet, I cannot find any issued patents in her name. I find patent applications on the links that I have been given--applications, not issued patents. I have asked her over and over to confirm that she has patents issued--to deafening silence. Why not just give me a link to an issued patent? I must conclude that there aren't any, and she was "exaggerating" when she called them "patents". Of course I am always willing to be proven wrong with evidence, and I would be especially happy to see patents of these particular ideas.

Fourth, there's that pesky MOSFET. That self-oscillates for her, every time. But nobody else (yes, Wilby, there are others using that correct IRFPG50 mosfet that I refuse to buy) has been able to reproduce this behaviour. Then there's that "random chaotic resonance" that the mosfet is able to achieve, when the gate drive current is turned DOWN. Another effect that nobody has been able to duplicate. What is up with that? If you read Ainslie's posts you would have to be a total "wilby" to not get overunity, no matter the mosfet, the frequency, the duty cycle, or whatever---until of course you try it and report failure--then she can come up with all kinds of things you aren't doing right.

Fifth, there's the issue of reproducing her heating effects and numbers. Hmm. Now I must mention my circuit and experiment. Even though I didn't use the same mosfet, I got the same heating in the load (within experimental error and accounting for the 2-ohm difference between my load and her reported load). So actually that's another data point that says the Quantum circuit is in error--because it generates a 97.3 percent ON duty cycle, and I'm using a FG at 3.7 percent ON--so my experiment supports her generated heat values, and at the same average input power that she calculates--mine is about 1.1 watts average.

Odd, isn't it, if my mosfet is wrong, that it works just like hers does at 3.7 percent ON, and heats the load the same way. What do you say to that, Wilby?

The problem is that, when I take the exact same load and put 1.1 watts through it with a regulated DC supply with negligible ripple--that's straight DC, so voltage x current = power--I get "exactly" the same heating of the load resistor.

TO reiterate again once more: I have had no problem repeating Ainslie's INPUT power and EXPERIMENTAL load heating. It's the CONTROL part of her experiment that I have a problem with. My control experiment indicates no overunity, not because the experimental load doesn't heat up enough--it's because the CONTROL load heats up just the same on straight DC power.

And if Wilby can explain how my choice of mosfet could account for these facts, I'll buy the drinks if we ever meet. Explain coherently, I mean. The usual hanuman chatter probably won't convince me.
Title: Re: Claimed OU circuit of Rosemary Ainslie
Post by: WilbyInebriated on July 08, 2009, 12:26:14 AM
So here's a picture of my "replication" of Ainslie's circuit. I couldn't find the IRFGP50 MOSFET locally, so I used a similar one, 2SK1548. And instead of using a 555 timer clock circuit I just used my trusty Interstate F34 function generator to make the gate drive pulses. And instead of using a .25 ohm current-viewing shunt I used a 2.5 ohm shunt. But the rest is as specified.

1,2,3 things non spec, but the rest is "exact"

nice try on the misdirection though.

what "others". no one here is. and really we are talking about YOUR circuit. nice try on the misdirection again.
i've said several times i agree with you mostly, it's your pompous ass combined with a standard approach of substituting whatever you have on hand that i have issue with.

edit: as i also said before, get the right fet and put this to rest or shut up. furthermore don't expect people to "fund" you or send you parts with the incorrect approach you have taken so far.
Title: Re: Claimed OU circuit of Rosemary Ainslie
Post by: 0c on July 08, 2009, 12:27:47 AM
I'll be checking my mail every day, looking for a little package from you.

Sounds like something I might say.

(Oh why, oh why do these discussions degenrate so?)
Title: Re: Claimed OU circuit of Rosemary Ainslie
Post by: BEP on July 08, 2009, 12:33:10 AM
I just read (and understood) the quotes from 'her'. Now I have an extreme headache. My fault, I know.

So ON is OFF and OFF is ON. No wonder some folks have trouble reading a scope.

For the life of me I can't think of any diode that can 'block' at 2c. Even with forward, <1c, current they aren't on by default. If the current is careening at 2c the diode is a short circuit.

The read was ..... interesting. I'll agree on a few points but my conclusion is this: These ideas can never be proved as it would require equipment that is either faster than 2c or worked in a time warp.

At least with these ideas it doesn't matter that I can't get to my bench because there is no point in trying to test those theories. I've already done the 'you can't see it because it is impossible to measure with current equipment' <expletive deleted>.

Like most, I truly hope things like free energy will be realized and proven. I still spend a large amount of my free time toward that goal.

It is a good thing I can't get to my bench right now. 
Title: Re: Claimed OU circuit of Rosemary Ainslie
Post by: TinselKoala on July 08, 2009, 12:38:36 AM
1,2,3 things non spec, but the rest is "exact"

nice try on the misdirection though.

what "others". no one here is. and really we are talking about YOUR circuit. nice try on the misdirection again.
i've said several times i agree with you mostly, it's your pompous ass combined with a standard approach of substituting whatever you have on hand that i have issue with.

You're digging up obsolete posts. Running out of new material? The current shunt was replaced with a 0.25 ohm shunt right after that post. And it turns out that the 555 timer isn't the right way to go at all, Ainslie herself says to use a FG, so it looks like I was correct in my first try.
And I didn't have the 2sk1548 on hand, I scoured a major metropolitan area of nearly 10 million persons in order to get that close. I would also have considered using 2sk1365, 2sk1120, and 2sk1934. I even considered the possibility that a p-channel mosfet was used by mistake. And it's pretty clear that I understand more about transistor substitution than you do. And you're a fine one to talk, you'd win the grand award for pomposity just about anywhere they allow monkeys to compete.

And no, we, that is, the ones who count, are talking about Ainslie's circuit, whatever it might turn out to be.
Title: Re: Claimed OU circuit of Rosemary Ainslie
Post by: TinselKoala on July 08, 2009, 12:40:26 AM
Sounds like something I might say.

(Oh why, oh why do these discussions degenrate so?)

It's a law of nature, like Moore's law.

Would you believe that Canada Post won't even start looking for something until it's missing 90 days past the send date? It's a vast frontier, I'm telling you that for nothing.
Title: Re: Claimed OU circuit of Rosemary Ainslie
Post by: 0c on July 08, 2009, 12:40:46 AM
The read was ..... interesting. I'll agree on a few points but my conclusion is this: These ideas can never be proved as it would require equipment that is either faster than 2c or worked in a time warp.

Won't be a problem once we herd up and harness some of them zipons.  ;)
Title: Re: Claimed OU circuit of Rosemary Ainslie
Post by: WilbyInebriated on July 08, 2009, 12:41:15 AM
You're digging up obsolete posts. Running out of new material? The current shunt was replaced with a 0.25 ohm shunt right after that post. And it turns out that the 555 timer isn't the right way to go at all, Ainslie herself says to use a FG, so it looks like I was correct in my first try.
And I didn't have the 2sk1548 on hand, I scoured a major metropolitan area of nearly 10 million persons in order to get that close. I would also have considered using 2sk1365, 2sk1120, and 2sk1934. I even considered the possibility that a p-channel mosfet was used by mistake. And it's pretty clear that I understand more about transistor substitution than you do. And you're a fine one to talk, you'd win the grand award for pomposity just about anywhere they allow monkeys to compete.

And no, we, that is, the ones who count, are talking about Ainslie's circuit, whatever it might turn out to be.
you set the precedent. my material has been the same, for 19 pages now...
1 when are you going to do it correctly?
2 don't call it exact if it isn't.

great,grand wonderful. let us know when you get around to doing the experiment that goes with that brilliant hypothesis.
Title: Re: Claimed OU circuit of Rosemary Ainslie
Post by: TinselKoala on July 08, 2009, 12:46:42 AM
you set the precedent.

great,grand wonderful. let us know when you get around to doing the experiment that goes with that brilliant hypothesis.

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

Oh, maybe you mean trying to account for the inverted duty cycle by giving her the benefit of the doubt and trying a p-channel mosfet in the circuit to see if it re-inverts the inverted cycle back to the claimed one, by some strange silicon alchemy?

Why bother--you'd just say I was in the wrong hemisphere or something.
(OOPS, did I just show your trump card for when all your other objections are met and the circuit still doesn't make COP>17? Sorry...)


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

Gee, isn't this fun? I get to mock you with your own words. And all you can do is go "exact"--when it's been days since I retracted even that claim, right here on this thread, thanks to your poking.
Title: Re: Claimed OU circuit of Rosemary Ainslie
Post by: WilbyInebriated on July 08, 2009, 12:50:46 AM
"send me your address and i will send you the part, you worthless bum"

Oh, maybe you mean trying to account for the inverted duty cycle by giving her the benefit of the doubt and trying a p-channel mosfet in the circuit to see if it re-inverts the inverted cycle back to the claimed one, by some strange silicon alchemy?

Why bother--you'd just say I was in the wrong hemisphere or something.
(OOPS, did I just show your trump card for when all your other objections are met and the circuit still doesn't make COP>17? Sorry...)


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

Gee, isn't this fun? I get to mock you with your own words. And all you can do is go "exact"--when it's been days since I retracted even that claim, right here on this thread, thanks to your poking.

you know i'm not sending you a fet, why repeat that? too bad if you're that naive.
all you've done is give asinine reasons why you won't get the specified fet.
i'm not going to stop nor be distracted until you either shut up or do it right.

no i mean use the specified fet so there can't be any petty (other than the ones about color, etc. that you noted earlier) objections, as i have said before... you can read can't you?
Title: Re: Claimed OU circuit of Rosemary Ainslie
Post by: TinselKoala on July 08, 2009, 12:54:09 AM
@BEP: Thanks for taking a look at the material. I know it was hard, my eyeballs cross up when I read that stuff, because I too am looking for testable hypotheses and real-world consequences of these theories.
What gets me is the incredible close-mindedness of these so-called open-minded researchers. I've grown to expect it, but usually when faced with incontrovertible evidence of incompetence and prevarication, like the discrepancies between the Quantum article and the EIT paper, the culprit fades away gracefully. Not in this case. Foot happily in mouth, the monologue continues, with 2c zipons and delinquent antitruants leading the way.
Title: Re: Claimed OU circuit of Rosemary Ainslie
Post by: TinselKoala on July 08, 2009, 12:56:08 AM
you know i'm not sending you a fet, why repeat that? too bad if you're that naive.
i'm not going to stop nor be distracted until you either shut up or do it right.

no i mean use the specified fet so there can't be any petty (other than the ones about color, etc. that you noted earlier) objections, as i have said before... you can read can't you?

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

ROTFL! You have abandoned any credibility you may have ever had here, and just as I was beginning to like you, too.
You can forget what I said about the drinks. You are definitely buying.
Title: Re: Claimed OU circuit of Rosemary Ainslie
Post by: WilbyInebriated on July 08, 2009, 12:56:26 AM
why are you looking for testable hypothesis "over there" when you won't even test your own here?
Title: Re: Claimed OU circuit of Rosemary Ainslie
Post by: TinselKoala on July 08, 2009, 01:00:24 AM
you know i'm not sending you a fet, why repeat that? too bad if you're that naive.
all you've done is give asinine reasons why you won't get the specified fet.
i'm not going to stop nor be distracted until you either shut up or do it right.

no i mean use the specified fet so there can't be any petty (other than the ones about color, etc. that you noted earlier) objections, as i have said before... you can read can't you?

But Wilby, if you'd bother to get someone to read my posts out loud to you in whatever language you stutter in, you'd see that I have reproduced the heating of the load. So how could it get any better, or even be different, if I used a different mosfet? Are you saying that DC produces overunity too? Or maybe that, since I got the same heating as she did, I'm getting COP>17 already, and using the mosfet you promised to send me will improve on that? Wow, I sure hope it gets here soon then. Maybe you should airmail it, so we can hurry up and save the world from the tyranny of big oil. Since you've been so helpful, I'll even cut you in for a percent. Not a percentage, a percent.
Title: Re: Claimed OU circuit of Rosemary Ainslie
Post by: TinselKoala on July 08, 2009, 01:01:00 AM
why are you looking for testable hypothesis "over there" when you won't even test your own here?

You wouldn't know a testable hypothesis if you woke up next to one.
Title: Re: Claimed OU circuit of Rosemary Ainslie
Post by: WilbyInebriated on July 08, 2009, 01:02:13 AM
You wouldn't know a testable hypothesis if you woke up next to one.

nice ad hom, you're quite good at that.
Title: Re: Claimed OU circuit of Rosemary Ainslie
Post by: TinselKoala on July 08, 2009, 01:04:09 AM
nice ad hom, you're quite good at that.

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

Not as good as the "pro".

 :D
Title: Re: Claimed OU circuit of Rosemary Ainslie
Post by: WilbyInebriated on July 08, 2009, 01:05:11 AM
But Wilby, if you'd bother to get someone to read my posts out loud to you in whatever language you stutter in, you'd see that I have reproduced the heating of the load. So how could it get any better, or even be different, if I used a different mosfet? Are you saying that DC produces overunity too? Or maybe that, since I got the same heating as she did, I'm getting COP>17 already, and using the mosfet you promised to send me will improve on that? Wow, I sure hope it gets here soon then. Maybe you should airmail it, so we can hurry up and save the world from the tyranny of big oil. Since you've been so helpful, I'll even cut you in for a percent. Not a percentage, a percent.

but TK, if you'd bother to comprehend my posts, you'd see that i have said i agree with you, SEVERAL TIMES NOW... i just don't like your half-assed approach of using the wrong fet and coming up with some hypothesis by using some ass backward approach instead of just using the right damn fet. but you refuse, justifying it with all sorts of obscure and pathological reasons.
Title: Re: Claimed OU circuit of Rosemary Ainslie
Post by: ramset on July 08, 2009, 01:05:43 AM
Some very funny stuff here ;D ;D ;D ;D

Thanks guys

Chet
Title: Re: Claimed OU circuit of Rosemary Ainslie
Post by: WilbyInebriated on July 08, 2009, 01:07:18 AM
"send me your address and i will send you the part, you worthless bum"

if the shoe fits, wear it...
Title: Re: Claimed OU circuit of Rosemary Ainslie
Post by: TinselKoala on July 08, 2009, 01:09:28 AM
but TK, if you'd bother to comprehend my posts, you'd see that i have said i agree with you, SEVERAL TIMES NOW... i just don't like your half-assed approach of using the wrong fet and coming up with some hypothesis by using some ass backward approach instead of just using the right damn fet. but you refuse, for all sorts of obscure and pathological reasons.

At this point it's mostly because it's fun to rattle your cage.

Because you see, the mosfet has nothing to do with the problems in Ainslie's claim, and the 67 percent of scientists who understand statistics will agree that I have shown that her claims are not supported by reality.

Nevertheless, should an IRFPG50 mosfet miraculously arrive from somewhere beyond, I will assiduously test it, just for the satisfaction of saying "I told you so" to you.

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

I love doing that! Ctrl-v and it makes you twitch, at the speed of thought! Zipons, eat your little bitty hearts out!
Title: Re: Claimed OU circuit of Rosemary Ainslie
Post by: Justalabrat on July 08, 2009, 01:10:16 AM
Tk, I've gone through at least 20 pages of WilbyInebriated posts, this is the only constructive thing that I found.

just connect the scope to one of your coil windings.

EVERYTHING ELSE WAS JUST ARGUING!  ::)
 Do yourself a favor and just put him on the IGNOR list!
Title: Re: Claimed OU circuit of Rosemary Ainslie
Post by: WilbyInebriated on July 08, 2009, 01:12:14 AM
At this point it's mostly because it's fun to rattle your cage.

Because you see, the mosfet has nothing to do with the problems in Ainslie's claim, and the 67 percent of scientists who understand statistics will agree that I have shown that her claims are not supported by reality.

Nevertheless, should an IRFPG50 mosfet miraculously arrive from somewhere beyond, I will assiduously test it, just for the satisfaction of saying "I told you so" to you.

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

I love doing that! Ctrl-v and it makes you twitch, at the speed of thought! Zipons, eat your little bitty hearts ou!

no, it's mostly because you need to save face. its been how many days now? surely you can afford a $4 part. get your friend whose address you PM'd me to use ebay for you. do they live in the same "sufist" cult building as you? or make up another pathetic excuse...
Title: Re: Claimed OU circuit of Rosemary Ainslie
Post by: TinselKoala on July 08, 2009, 01:13:42 AM
Tk, I've gone through at least 20 pages of WilbyInebriated posts, this is the only constructive thing that I found.

EVERYTHING ELSE WAS JUST ARGUING!  ::)
 Do yourself a favor and just put him on the IGNOR list!

Well, that post was even wrong, because I've always connected the scope just as in the Ainslie papers, and yes, it is connected to the positive rail, along with one end of the coil-resistor load.

But don't let Wilby get you down, I understand his motivation perfectly. He's a truth seeker, and wants to keep me honest, and he's right to do that.

Too bad he's not a "truth-speaker" as well.

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

Besides, if I just ignore him, he'll eventually go away, and what fun would that be?
Title: Re: Claimed OU circuit of Rosemary Ainslie
Post by: TinselKoala on July 08, 2009, 01:14:31 AM
no, it's mostly because you need to save face. its been how many days now? surely you can afford a $4 part. get your friend whose address you PM'd me to use ebay for you. do they live in the same "sufist" cult building as you? or make up another pathetic excuse...

Why should I? I have it on the best authority that I will be getting one in the mail soon.

"send me your address and i will send you the part, you worthless bum"
Title: Re: Claimed OU circuit of Rosemary Ainslie
Post by: WilbyInebriated on July 08, 2009, 01:16:39 AM
Why should I? I have it on the best authority that I will be getting one in the mail soon.

"send me your address and i will send you the part, you worthless bum"
you're a betting man, i bet you $1000 US that you can't keep your mouth shut until it arrives...  ;)
Title: Re: Claimed OU circuit of Rosemary Ainslie
Post by: WilbyInebriated on July 08, 2009, 01:17:39 AM
Well, that post was even wrong, because I've always connected the scope just as in the Ainslie papers, and yes, it is connected to the positive rail, along with one end of the coil-resistor load.

But don't let Wilby get you down, I understand his motivation perfectly. He's a truth seeker, and wants to keep me honest, and he's right to do that.

Too bad he's not a "truth-speaker" as well.

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

Besides, if I just ignore him, he'll eventually go away, and what fun would that be?
actually it was a different circuit, but your pompous knee jerk jump to assumption is typical.
Title: Re: Claimed OU circuit of Rosemary Ainslie
Post by: TinselKoala on July 08, 2009, 01:19:11 AM
"send me your address and i will send you the part, you worthless bum"

You know, the more I think about this, the more pissed off I'm getting. You made a challenge and a promise, and I took you up on it by sending you a good address to use. Now you are reneging, and I have no idea what you will try to do with that address. I feel betrayed, because I trusted you, to a certain extent. But now I am thinking that I was right about you that other time: You are a troll, a stalker, and you do not care about truth, you care about getting a rise out of someone. Well, you've gotten a rise from me now.

Either send me the part or STFU and get off this thread. We are trying to do some serious work here and your posts are not constructive and in fact are disruptive.
Title: Re: Claimed OU circuit of Rosemary Ainslie
Post by: BEP on July 08, 2009, 01:19:19 AM
Foot happily in mouth, the monologue continues, with 2c zipons and delinquent antitruants leading the way.

Must be those delinquent little buggers that keep getting me in trouble. I wonder if wives can sense them. After all, wives can hear a squeaking hinge before the husband.

YES! That IS the answer! I must drop all research now so I can develop a hearing aid for delinquent antitruants. I'll have the boss off my back in no time!
Title: Re: Claimed OU circuit of Rosemary Ainslie
Post by: WilbyInebriated on July 08, 2009, 01:20:30 AM
"send me your address and i will send you the part, you worthless bum"

You know, the more I think about this, the more pissed off I'm getting. You made a challenge and a promise, and I took you up on it by sending you a good address to use. Now you are reneging, and I have no idea what you will try to do with that address. I feel betrayed, because I trusted you, to a certain extent. But now I am thinking that I was right about you that other time: You are a troll, a stalker, and you do not care about truth, you care about getting a rise out of someone. Well, you've gotten a rise from me now.

Either send me the part or STFU and get off this thread. We are trying to do some serious work here and your posts are not constructive and in fact are disruptive.

no you're not. you mocking someone who has, from page one asked you when you are going to do it right.
all you have to show, up to this very point, is an untested hypothesis...  serious work, you are funny.
Title: Re: Claimed OU circuit of Rosemary Ainslie
Post by: ramset on July 08, 2009, 01:20:48 AM
OOOOHHHHH......
A bet
parcel post or next day?
Title: Re: Claimed OU circuit of Rosemary Ainslie
Post by: TinselKoala on July 08, 2009, 01:22:31 AM
you're a betting man, i bet you $1000 US that you can't keep your mouth shut until it arrives...  ;)

The difference between my bets and this bogus one is that mine are sincere and directed towards making people provide evidence for their outrageous claims. Your "offer" is clearly cynical, not in earnest, and it appears that you do not intend to send me the part after all, even though you said,

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

So, like I said before, STFU and go away, STALKER, TROLL.
Title: Re: Claimed OU circuit of Rosemary Ainslie
Post by: TinselKoala on July 08, 2009, 01:25:11 AM
no you're not. you mocking someone who has, from page one asked you when you are going to do it right.
all you have to show, up to this very point, is an untested hypothesis...  serious work, you are funny.

Wrong again.
I notice there aren't a lot of people jumping in to support your point.
I made an hypothesis, well specified, and I tested it and reported results. You've just been trolling and obfuscating the real issue, which has nothing at all to do with the mosfet, which you promised to send me.

"send me your address and i will send you the part, you worthless bum"
Title: Re: Claimed OU circuit of Rosemary Ainslie
Post by: WilbyInebriated on July 08, 2009, 01:25:22 AM
The difference between my bets and this bogus one is that mine are sincere and directed towards making people provide evidence for their outrageous claims. Your "offer" is clearly cynical, not in earnest, and it appears that you do not intend to send me the part after all, even though you said,

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

So, like I said before, STFU and go away, STALKER, TROLL.

nice work on the misdirection, you must be sweating with all that jumping around.
do it right or shut up. test your hypothesis, i'm betting you won't, that's how your "science" flys.
Title: Re: Claimed OU circuit of Rosemary Ainslie
Post by: TinselKoala on July 08, 2009, 01:27:19 AM
OOOOHHHHH......
A bet
parcel post or next day?

Of course he doesn't mean it, and he's said that he won't send me the mosfet anyway, so it's a cynical attempt to silence me.

He's probably never even seen that much cash in one place. I'm talking about the 4 dollars for the mosfet from ebay...
Title: Re: Claimed OU circuit of Rosemary Ainslie
Post by: TinselKoala on July 08, 2009, 01:27:58 AM
nice work on the misdirection, you must be sweating with all that jumping around.
do it right or shut up. test your hypothesis, i'm betting you won't, that's how your "science" flys.

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

I'm betting you won't, because you are a liar and a troll and a stalker.
Title: Re: Claimed OU circuit of Rosemary Ainslie
Post by: WilbyInebriated on July 08, 2009, 01:30:23 AM
I made an hypothesis, well specified, and I tested it and reported results. You've just been trolling and obfuscating the real issue, which has nothing at all to do with the mosfet, which you promised to send me.

"send me your address and i will send you the part, you worthless bum"
you  tested this one?
My hypothesis for future research is that the "proper" IRFPG40 mosfet will not perform substantially differently in this experiment. BUT--in fact the 2sk1548 has a guaranteed +-30 volt gate-to-source voltage max, while the IRF unit only specifies +- 20 volts max--so it is indeed possible that the mosfet used in Ainslie's work was being overdriven. She has made statements about blowing mosfets...
i didn't think so. that's how your "science" flys.

the real issue is, you never did it (your original "replication") properly, and have been avoiding that fact with all sorts of asinine reasons. i didn't promise anything, but nice try on the misdirection again. let us know when you test that hypothesis...
Title: Re: Claimed OU circuit of Rosemary Ainslie
Post by: ramset on July 08, 2009, 01:31:27 AM
OOOHHHH.....


 "" I'm betting you won't, because you are a liar and a troll and a stalker."""

The 1 2 3 combo
better than a triple dog dare
Title: Re: Claimed OU circuit of Rosemary Ainslie
Post by: WilbyInebriated on July 08, 2009, 01:32:35 AM
"send me your address and i will send you the part, you worthless bum"

I'm betting you won't, because you are a liar and a troll and a stalker.

back to "serious" work i see...
Title: Re: Claimed OU circuit of Rosemary Ainslie
Post by: TinselKoala on July 08, 2009, 01:55:58 AM
you  tested this one?i didn't think so. that's how your "science" flys.

the real issue is, you never did it properly, and have been avoiding that fact with all sorts of asinine reasons. i didn't promise anything, but nice try on the misdirection again. let us know when you test that hypothesis...

How could I test that hypothesis, since I just made it today and I don't have the parts? That's why it's a hypothesis, not a demonstrated fact. And I could swear I see "future experimentation" there in that post you quote. Of course I could just be making that part up too...

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

Yeah, that's not a promise, it's a threat.

Title: Re: Claimed OU circuit of Rosemary Ainslie
Post by: WilbyInebriated on July 08, 2009, 01:59:04 AM
How could I test that hypothesis, since I just made it today and I don't have the parts? That's why it's a hypothesis, not a demonstrated fact.

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

Yeah, that's not a promise, it's a threat.
you never did your "replication" properly, and are still avoiding that fact with asinine responses. as far as you testing your "hypothesis for future research", i think that's what you labeled it? correct me if i'm wrong counselor. i doubt that will ever happen, even though it's what you should have done first, but that's what you call "science"...   ::)

nice misdirection attempt, again.
Title: Re: Claimed OU circuit of Rosemary Ainslie
Post by: TinselKoala on July 08, 2009, 02:11:40 AM
you never did the replication properly. as far as you testing your "hypothesis for future research", i think that's what you labeled it? correct me if i'm wrong counselor. i doubt that will ever happen, even though it's what you should have done first, but that's what you call "science"...

nice misdirection attempt, again.

You are starting to sound really weak there.  You're grasping at straw men now--attacking research that I haven't even done yet and just proposed this morning. Yet you already know how I'm going to do it and how it will turn out. Sad. Maybe you should take a break, go get a milkshake if you're old enough to go to the store by yourself.


By the way, your heroine has moved the goalposts yet again. If you compare her present description of the "control" test--which she now says depleted the batteries--with the report of the control test in the EIT paper, you will see that she doesn't even seem to understand what she herself is reporting. The batteries in the control test are nowhere near depleted, if you can trust her figures at all at any time. Take a look for yourself and see.

Now, once again, why are you attacking me, Wilby, when Ainslie is so much a better target? Is it because I will play and she won't? Well, I'm getting tired and I hear Mom calling, so I better go home, it's almost dark.
Title: Re: Claimed OU circuit of Rosemary Ainslie
Post by: WilbyInebriated on July 08, 2009, 02:14:31 AM
You are starting to sound really weak there.  You're grasping at straw men now--attacking research that I haven't even done yet and just proposed this morning. Yet you already know how I'm going to do it and how it will turn out. Sad. Maybe you should take a break, go get a milkshake if you're old enough to go to the store by yourself.


By the way, your heroine has moved the goalposts yet again. If you compare her present description of the "control" test--which she now says depleted the batteries--with the report of the control test in the EIT paper, you will see that she doesn't even seem to understand what she herself is reporting. The batteries in the control test are nowhere near depleted, if you can trust her figures at all at any time. Take a look for yourself and see.

Now, once again, why are you attacking me, Wilby, when Ainslie is so much a better target? Is it because I will play and she won't? Well, I'm getting tired and I hear Mom calling, so I better go home, it's almost dark.

ok, bye now. say hi to mom for me. let us know if you do get around to testing the "future research" hypothesis. i'll grab a chair, i'm sure it will be classic.

i don't care what RMA is doing. we are talking about your circuit. the one that still doesn't have the specified fet. nice try on the misdirection though. you do that every time, such stamina...
Title: Re: Claimed OU circuit of Rosemary Ainslie
Post by: TinselKoala on July 08, 2009, 02:19:48 AM
"send me your address and i will send you the part, you worthless bum"

Oh, I just remembered:

Here's a good way to tell if someone is feeding you science, or bullshit. Is their claimed result repeatable, by anyone, at any time?

Mine is.

Hers isn't.

And yours--well, we just don't know, do we.

Title: Re: Claimed OU circuit of Rosemary Ainslie
Post by: TinselKoala 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.
Title: Re: Claimed OU circuit of Rosemary Ainslie
Post by: TinselKoala 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?
Title: Re: Claimed OU circuit of Rosemary Ainslie
Post by: WilbyInebriated 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?
Title: Re: Claimed OU circuit of Rosemary Ainslie
Post by: TinselKoala 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.)
Title: Re: Claimed OU circuit of Rosemary Ainslie
Post by: TinselKoala 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.
Title: Re: Claimed OU circuit of Rosemary Ainslie
Post by: WilbyInebriated 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.
Title: Re: Claimed OU circuit of Rosemary Ainslie
Post by: WilbyInebriated on July 08, 2009, 06:31:14 AM
great video. still the wrong fet...
Title: Re: Claimed OU circuit of Rosemary Ainslie
Post by: Asymatrix 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.
Title: Re: Claimed OU circuit of Rosemary Ainslie
Post by: WilbyInebriated 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.
Title: Re: Claimed OU circuit of Rosemary Ainslie
Post by: Asymatrix 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...
Title: Re: Claimed OU circuit of Rosemary Ainslie
Post by: exnihiloest 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!


Title: Re: Claimed OU circuit of Rosemary Ainslie
Post by: TinselKoala 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.
Title: Re: Claimed OU circuit of Rosemary Ainslie
Post by: TinselKoala 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...))
Title: Re: Claimed OU circuit of Rosemary Ainslie
Post by: TinselKoala 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.

Title: Re: Claimed OU circuit of Rosemary Ainslie
Post by: allcanadian 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
Title: Re: Claimed OU circuit of Rosemary Ainslie
Post by: HeairBear on July 08, 2009, 06:42:01 PM
replicate
Verb
[-cating, -cated] to make or be an exact copy of; reproduce [Latin replicatus bent back]
replication n
Title: Re: Claimed OU circuit of Rosemary Ainslie
Post by: WilbyInebriated on July 08, 2009, 07:34:30 PM
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...))

lots of useless chatter and the endless litany of excuses continue...

any plans on doing it right?
edit: get the correct $4 fet, or the shoe fits...
Title: Re: Claimed OU circuit of Rosemary Ainslie
Post by: WilbyInebriated on July 08, 2009, 07:36:35 PM
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.

you mean build the circuit that you haven't built yet? or did you still manage to not find that fet in a major metro area...   ::)
Title: Re: Claimed OU circuit of Rosemary Ainslie
Post by: TinselKoala on July 08, 2009, 09:57:48 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

So far, we have an admission from Rosemary that the circuit in the Quantum article is in ERROR and was NOT used to gather the data in the article (or in the report of the same experiment in the EIT paper.)
And we now have the admission that she has NO patents, just has filed patent applications.
And we have her putting her foot in mouth over and over about the duty cycle issue--which is easily checked and has been confirmed here as well.

So why do you believe ANYTHING she has told you? There is NO evidence of any of her claims. Not a scope trace, not a copy of those "independent lab" tests, nothing--just the Quantum article and the EIT paper, both reporting the SAME experiment but with DIFFERENT circuits...

OK, pick on me all you want. But Rosemary Ainslie is feeding you a line of BS for sure.

And all you have to do to PROVE ME WRONG is to build that Quantum article's circuit and test it yourself. The problem has nothing to do with the MOSFET used.


Oh, and did you see where Wilby promised to send me the mosfet, and then reneged?


(And Rosemary has done nothing out of the ordinary either. So why should anyone expect out-of-the-ordinary results--especially when nobody else has gotten them...)
Title: Re: Claimed OU circuit of Rosemary Ainslie
Post by: TinselKoala on July 08, 2009, 10:13:08 PM
Oh, Allcanadian...did you notice that I have reproduced the load heating profile that Ainslie reports?

Even though Wilby refuses to send me the mosfet he promised?

Yes, that's right--at a true duty cycle of 3.7 percent ON from the FG, I get the same heating, the same rate of heating, the same final equilibrium temperature after the same amount of time,  in the load as Ainslie reports. And at the same average power levels that she quotes. Within experimental error, of course.

So this is another bit of evidence that the Quantum circuit is WRONG--as it does not have the flyback diode and generates the WRONG duty cycle to boot. Yet by NOT using it I am able to make the right heat.

What do you say to that? If I get the same heating as Rosemary, and I have the same average power input am I not also creating overunity? And tell me (because Wilby cannot) how the MOSFET choice could change these findings???
Title: Re: Claimed OU circuit of Rosemary Ainslie
Post by: WilbyInebriated on July 09, 2009, 04:04:13 AM
Oh, Allcanadian...did you notice that I have reproduced the load heating profile that Ainslie reports?

Even though Wilby refuses to send me the mosfet he promised?

Yes, that's right--at a true duty cycle of 3.7 percent ON from the FG, I get the same heating, the same rate of heating, the same final equilibrium temperature after the same amount of time,  in the load as Ainslie reports. And at the same average power levels that she quotes. Within experimental error, of course.

So this is another bit of evidence that the Quantum circuit is WRONG--as it does not have the flyback diode and generates the WRONG duty cycle to boot. Yet by NOT using it I am able to make the right heat.

What do you say to that? If I get the same heating as Rosemary, and I have the same average power input am I not also creating overunity? And tell me (because Wilby cannot) how the MOSFET choice could change these findings???

getting the correct mosfet would mean doing it correctly and tk doesn't want any part of correct science. he has demonstrated this again and again with his endless excuses and asinine justifications of why he can't or shouldn't get the correct fet.

all tk has put on the table is a couple hack attempts of replication (and still refuses to do it right) and an untested hypothesis for future research.

edit: independent confirmation with a sim?  LOL, you are funny. and the BU508A--an expensive experiment? but you still can't afford the $4 irfpg50?  ::)
Title: Re: Claimed OU circuit of Rosemary Ainslie
Post by: TinselKoala on July 09, 2009, 04:32:30 AM
And all you've put on the table is some sticky stuff dripping off your fingers.
Better be careful, you'll grow hair on your palm.


"send me your address and i will send you the part, you worthless bum"
Lying Troll.
Title: Re: Claimed OU circuit of Rosemary Ainslie
Post by: WilbyInebriated on July 09, 2009, 04:36:31 AM
And all you've put on the table is some sticky stuff dripping off your fingers.
Better be careful, you'll grow hair on your palm.


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

my circuit isn't posted for critique, your hack is (that one you've done wrong how many times now?) remember? stop trying to misdirect, it doesn't work.

still no plans to do it right? i know you're  pretty busy with all that ad hominem, you are probably tired from zig zagging all around with your excuses.
Title: Re: Claimed OU circuit of Rosemary Ainslie
Post by: TinselKoala on July 09, 2009, 04:55:49 AM
"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"

Gee, I just can't seem to get that phrase off my mind. It sounds like a LYING TROLL is lying to me again.

(If anybody actually wants to discuss Ainslie's circuit and her claims and my work with it, you may look at my YT videos and comment there. We won't be bothered by WilbyLaughedAt there.)
Title: Re: Claimed OU circuit of Rosemary Ainslie
Post by: WilbyInebriated on July 09, 2009, 05:03:03 AM
"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"

Gee, I just can't seem to get that phrase off my mind. It sounds like a LYING TROLL is lying to me again.

(If anybody actually wants to discuss Ainslie's circuit and her claims and my work with it, you may look at my YT videos and comment there. We won't be bothered by WilbyLaughedAt there.)

yes it's such a bother to have someone pester you to do it right...
i tried to comment on your video that you weren't using the correct fet, but it won't let me. banned by desertphile and TK...
Title: Re: Claimed OU circuit of Rosemary Ainslie
Post by: TinselKoala on July 09, 2009, 05:53:58 AM
yes it's such a bother to have someone pester you to do it right...
i tried to comment on your video that you weren't using the correct fet, but it won't let me. banned by desertphile and TK...

That's got to be a rare honor.

Desertphile banned me long ago, and I banned him -- and his effete brother NotSoYoungAnymoreHippy -- in return. Now you are banned by both of us. Sort of a mutual dis-admiration society.

Now, if we could only get you banned again from this site, we could get back to work.
Title: Re: Claimed OU circuit of Rosemary Ainslie
Post by: TinselKoala on July 09, 2009, 05:58:04 AM
replicate
Verb
[-cating, -cated] to make or be an exact copy of; reproduce [Latin replicatus bent back]
replication n

Ah, another helpful critic.

Could you, then, HeairBear, please explain, since I am getting similar heat output to my load as Ainslie claims, and my batteries are "not depleting" just as Rosemary's "aren't depleting", why my mosfet needs changing?

Because a certain other critic cannot seem to do so, and I'd really like to know.
Title: Re: Claimed OU circuit of Rosemary Ainslie
Post by: WilbyInebriated on July 09, 2009, 06:03:51 AM
Ah, another helpful critic.

Could you, then, HeairBear, please explain, since I am getting similar heat output to my load as Ainslie claims, and my batteries are "not depleting" just as Rosemary's "aren't depleting", why my mosfet needs changing?

Because a certain other critic cannot seem to do so, and I'd really like to know.

the answer is obvious, your mosfet needs changing for it to qualify as a "replication".

replicate
Verb
[-cating, -cated] to make or be an exact copy of; reproduce [Latin replicatus bent back]
replication n

there's that darn exact word you seem to have so much trouble with, you never have trouble with the misdirection and excuses as to why you won't get the correct fet though...
Title: Re: Claimed OU circuit of Rosemary Ainslie
Post by: Groundloop on July 09, 2009, 09:29:57 AM
@WilbyInebriated,

Like this?

http://home.no/ufoufoufoufo/

Groundloop.
Title: Re: Claimed OU circuit of Rosemary Ainslie
Post by: WilbyInebriated on July 09, 2009, 09:45:56 AM
@WilbyInebriated,

Like this?

http://home.no/ufoufoufoufo/

Groundloop.

nice work groundloop! and i see you are giving them away, bravo!

do you plan to start with the irfpg50?   ;)
Title: Re: Claimed OU circuit of Rosemary Ainslie
Post by: Groundloop on July 09, 2009, 11:36:57 AM
@WilbyInebriated,

Yes, I plan to start with the circuit as shown in the circuit drawing.

If it turns out to something positive then we can change things later on.

I will be giving away 23 PCBs in total, and GotoLuc will handle the delivery of
those PCBs in the US. He will be getting 15 of the PCBs and I will send
the rest over here in Europe. I will take some time, though, the PCBs will
arrive in the last week of August. Just PM GotoLuc for a PCB request if
you live in the US. PM me for the rest of the world.

BTW, RS do stock the irfpg50 mosfet.

I have also designed a powerful switch that can handle 110 VAC or 230VAC
and is capable of switching a space heater of up to 5000 Watt/h. I will open
source this switch later on. If we can use this system to at least save SOME
power by inductive switching, then it is worth the cost.

Groundloop.
Title: Re: Claimed OU circuit of Rosemary Ainslie
Post by: ramset on July 09, 2009, 02:47:02 PM
Groundloop
As always you are AMAZING!!

RS?=Radio shack

R  A  D  I  O   S  H  A  C  K  ???? 
TK what metro area of 10 mil do you live in
Zimbabwe ??

TK I'm making a road trip today to see Bill[Mag motor]
I'll see if they stock them in USA

Chet
Title: Re: Claimed OU circuit of Rosemary Ainslie
Post by: TinselKoala on July 09, 2009, 03:04:56 PM
Groundloop
As always you are AMAZING!!

RS?=Radio shack

R  A  D  I  O   S  H  A  C  K  ???? 
TK what metro area of 10 mil do you live in
Zimbabwe ??

TK I'm making a road trip today to see Bill[Mag motor]
I'll see if they stock them in USA

Chet

Hey GL did you build that 555 circuit you so nicely laid out for me? I'm curious as to the duty cycle you found.

Chet, the Radio Shacks around here are toy stores, "The Source", they don't even call them Radio Shacks any more. They stock fuses, some connectors, and a lot of cell phone and ipod stuff. Very few components. No IRFPG50 in stock around here. Don't you think I've looked? Weren't you the one that asked me to look into this in the first place? And see what trouble it's become.

Besides, someone has promised to send me one, so I'm checking my mail daily. Of course, that person is a known Liar and Troll...

And still, nobody can even hint at why the mosfet choice would make any difference in what I've found.

Even Rosemary herself has proclaimed that many different transistors would work. Without evidence, of course.

So if you don't see my circuit as replicating her main claim, perhaps you can wrap your mind around the fact that I am testing "many different transistors" according to Rosemary's claims, at least 3 of them approved substitutions for the IRFPG50 and some with even better specs.

So far, no free energy has been detected.

(However, the circuit seems to be an extremely good bullshit generator.)
Title: Re: Claimed OU circuit of Rosemary Ainslie
Post by: TinselKoala on July 09, 2009, 03:11:57 PM
Oh, and have you all been planning ahead for when I do start using this IRFPG50 and reporting the results?
Because you had better find something else to harp on.

Unless of course you want to accuse me of making the whole thing up, like Rosemary and her "experts".

I must be getting really good at CGI and photoshopping, I'll tell you.
Title: Re: Claimed OU circuit of Rosemary Ainslie
Post by: TinselKoala on July 09, 2009, 03:14:52 PM
the answer is obvious, your mosfet needs changing for it to qualify as a "replication".

replicate
Verb
[-cating, -cated] to make or be an exact copy of; reproduce [Latin replicatus bent back]
replication n

there's that darn exact word you seem to have so much trouble with, you never have trouble with the misdirection and excuses as to why you won't get the correct fet though...

Tell me, Mr Accuracy Incarnate, just which CIRCUIT I'm supposed to use then? Since there are two to choose from in her documents and we can't get a straight answer about which one was used to produce the results, nor a straight answer about the actual duty cycle used.

And keep stretching, maybe you'll get that foot out of your mouth eventually.
I mean after all, you really have no idea what's sitting on my workbench, do you?
Title: Re: Claimed OU circuit of Rosemary Ainslie
Post by: Groundloop on July 09, 2009, 03:20:40 PM
@ramset,

See this link:
http://www.rs-online.com/index.html

@TinselKoala,

I haven't build it yet. Will do that later on when my PCBs arrive.

Groundloop.
Title: Re: Claimed OU circuit of Rosemary Ainslie
Post by: ramset on July 09, 2009, 03:22:14 PM
TK

I would be flabbergasted if that particular mosfet made any difference

If it does, you better find out what kind of gum she chews when she runs the tests [that should be just as important]

R.S. opens in another Hr. here I will check

Chet

Groundloop I see the link above thanks
BTW how is your countryman doing [The fellow that had interest and results cop<2-5]

Title: Re: Claimed OU circuit of Rosemary Ainslie
Post by: Groundloop on July 09, 2009, 04:31:44 PM
@ramset,

I have been in contact with S.Roksund via email. He has
shared some information with me. He has asked me NOT to
post this information. I have described a test
method for him that will show if his circuit is o/u or not.
He is currently running this test.

Groundloop.
Title: Re: Claimed OU circuit of Rosemary Ainslie
Post by: ramset on July 09, 2009, 04:36:10 PM
Groundloop
Thank you for your response

Chet
Title: Re: Claimed OU circuit of Rosemary Ainslie
Post by: TinselKoala on July 09, 2009, 06:15:50 PM
@ramset,

See this link:
http://www.rs-online.com/index.html

@TinselKoala,

I haven't build it yet. Will do that later on when my PCBs arrive.

Groundloop.

Beautiful circuit board, as usual. But...

You did see the part where Rosemary says that the Quantum article circuit is wrong, didn't you?

Another confirmation that the Ainslie circuit in the Quantum article generates the wrong duty cycle:
http://www.steorn.com/forum/comments.php?DiscussionID=61848&page=1#Item_27
Title: Re: Claimed OU circuit of Rosemary Ainslie
Post by: Groundloop on July 09, 2009, 06:47:29 PM
@TinselKoala,

Yes, I saw that.

Groundloop.
Title: Re: Claimed OU circuit of Rosemary Ainslie
Post by: TinselKoala on July 10, 2009, 01:35:35 AM
@TinselKoala,

Yes, I saw that.

Groundloop.

It's extremely nice work. But I hope you haven't spent too much time or money.

Others are chiming in to confirm my original finding--this circuit does not generate a short ON duty cycle.
Title: Re: Claimed OU circuit of Rosemary Ainslie
Post by: ramset on July 10, 2009, 04:28:15 AM
TK

I hope you don't mind ,but I don't want to post this in The William Landon jr. thread [because now it comes up on a google search of his name]

I met with Bill again today ,once again he is like a man starving to share,
He told me he was in negotiations with an investor
His design ran for an hour [made of things he had around [not machined ]
I don't know [nor did I ask] what the mode of failure was ,
As you know he was an aerospace engineer Know retired and wanting to share this gift with the world
I tried to explain the pitfalls of not open sourcing ,but he has chosen a path
and assured me he could share in a few months
He asked me about the weight of electricity in a wire [regardless of current]
and how come the weight didn't change [this is a big part of how his motor works]
He spoke of magnets as if they were multi dimensional ,connected to gravity
some how.
I am quite sure Bill is not full of B.S.

I am sure I will remember more [his wife kept shushing him]
He is an amazing man to talk to hopefully someday soon he will share here
Chet
 
Title: Re: Claimed OU circuit of Rosemary Ainslie
Post by: Groundloop on July 10, 2009, 07:21:13 AM
@TinselKoala,

Thanks for the kind words. No, the boards is not that expensive. Only 33 Norwegian kroner (approx. 5$ US) for a single board. I needed 2 boards myself for testing but it is always cheaper to buy 25 of them than just 2. I just give away the other 23 boards since I just need two of them myself.

As I said before, people can use different values for the timing capacitors and timing variable resistor if they like. Then the board can switch other duty cycles. It is always nice to have a switch anyway when researching different circuits.

There is a board in there for you also. Just PM GotoLuc. He will be receiving 15 of the boards by the end of next month.

Groundloop.
Title: Re: Claimed OU circuit of Rosemary Ainslie
Post by: S.Roksund on July 10, 2009, 12:25:04 PM
Hi,
My power system has nothing to do with Ainslie's circuit at all. The reason I
posted here was to try and get informatiom about the validity of Rosemary Ainslie's
patent. Now that it is stated that there is no patent but a patent application,
I have got my information.

I also need more time on the charging test (mentioned by Groundloop) and test
several circuit configurations. Thank you for being interrested in my test
results. I will be back mid september.

Mvh. sroksund
Title: Re: Claimed OU circuit of Rosemary Ainslie
Post by: TinselKoala on July 10, 2009, 03:33:11 PM
@TinselKoala,

Thanks for the kind words. No, the boards is not that expensive. Only 33 Norwegian kroner (approx. 5$ US) for a single board. I needed 2 boards myself for testing but it is always cheaper to buy 25 of them than just 2. I just give away the other 23 boards since I just need two of them myself.

As I said before, people can use different values for the timing capacitors and timing variable resistor if they like. Then the board can switch other duty cycles. It is always nice to have a switch anyway when researching different circuits.

There is a board in there for you also. Just PM GotoLuc. He will be receiving 15 of the boards by the end of next month.

Groundloop.

Heh, that's pretty cheap all right. No, I don't need one, thanks.

It's good that you left room for a big heatsink for the mosfet. With a 10-ohm resistive/inductive load running at 90 percent or more ON, you might even need a small fan to protect that expensive mosfet. Mine rose very quickly to over 120 degrees C in just a couple minutes, due to the usual factors. Increasing the load to 85 ohms keeps most of the power in the load, even at longer duty cycles, so the transistor doesn't heat as much.

Title: Re: Claimed OU circuit of Rosemary Ainslie
Post by: Groundloop on July 10, 2009, 07:44:06 PM
@TinselKoala,

The mosfet you are using has an RDSon of approx. 2 Ohm. The one I will be using
has an RDSon of 0,01 Ohm. I will also run the 555 (with different parts) at a frequency
of 100KHz and duty cycle at 50%. Then the heat sink size will be perfect for MY usage
of the board.

I will also build ONE board with the parts shown in the RA papers and test that board.

Groundloop.
Title: Re: Claimed OU circuit of Rosemary Ainslie
Post by: TinselKoala on July 10, 2009, 09:44:04 PM
Ah, I see.

OK, my main concern here is vetting the claims of Ainslie, so I am looking at the performance of the circuit at 2.4 kHz, and with the component values she specified as used in the experiment she reported where she claims to have gotten COP>17 with a duty cycle of 3.7 percent ON--which is impossible with the published circuit. As you will see.

Her claims are quite specific as to that experiment, and that is what I am examining. 

But according to her there is wide latitude in general. The patent application says low freqs like 60-100 Hz,; she refers to 2.4 kHz as a "high" freq quite often...and she has said that most any transistor should work.

So you are planning to use some other mosfet as well? I see the data sheet for the IRFPG50 lists a Rds "on" of about 2 ohms, as you say, and the 2sk1548 is a bit higher.

What component do you intend to use that has Rds of 0.01 ohms? I don't think I could stick a piece of buswire in the transistor socket between the D and S pins and get that low.
Title: Re: Claimed OU circuit of Rosemary Ainslie
Post by: Groundloop on July 10, 2009, 09:56:43 PM
@TinselKoala,

Sorry, I was a little off with the RDSon number.
The correct number is less than 0,004 Ohm.
STP80NF03L-04 FET N-ch 30V 80A TO220 RDSon <0,004 Ohm.
I will not go into what I'm planning to switch with this mosfet.

I will use the IRFPG50 in when I test the claimed COP>17 circuit.

Groundloop.
Title: Re: Claimed OU circuit of Rosemary Ainslie
Post by: TinselKoala on July 11, 2009, 01:08:47 AM
Great minds think alike!
When I googled after reading above, that was one I picked as most probable, considering the package and the other components; I was surprised to see you working at such a low voltage, though. But high power anyway, that's an impressive little puppy indeed.
Good luck, whatever it is you're doing. I don't think I even want to know...
 ;)

Title: Re: Claimed OU circuit of Rosemary Ainslie
Post by: TinselKoala on July 11, 2009, 04:33:42 AM
I've just been reading the Ainslie thread at nakedscientists.
It seems the reception there wasn't very, well, receptive to her ideas.

http://www.thenakedscientists.com/forum/index.php?topic=23243.0

She really says some remarkable things there.

Such as this:

"No, I really do not know what a capacitor is.  You can safely assume that there is no limit to my lack of knowledge especially as it relates to electric circuitry.  I find all electric circuits quintessentially boring.  It was just a means to an end.  My only interest is in physics."

http://www.thenakedscientists.com/forum/index.php?topic=23243.msg255644#msg255644

Title: Re: Claimed OU circuit of Rosemary Ainslie
Post by: HeairBear on July 11, 2009, 04:54:26 AM
So what are you saying? She's an idiot and your trying to debunk her with your replication?
Title: Re: Claimed OU circuit of Rosemary Ainslie
Post by: TinselKoala on July 11, 2009, 05:17:25 AM
I'm saying that I do not like to be lied to, and insulted by the person doing it, simultaneously. Especially when they are ignorant and arrogant about it.

And I have demonstrated several, shall we say, misstatements of fact, in the Ainslie material. The report of the performance of the circuit in question, for example.

Build it and see for yourself.

And read the thread at nakedscientists, yourself. That's why I posted the link.

I'm quoting her words. I built her circuit. What is there to debunk? The circuit does not even do what she says wrt the duty cycle it generates, and her power/energy calculations depend on the duty cycle.

I have actual facts that can be verified by anyone, unlike her claims.

She is not telling the truth about the work done on her circuit, and she displays appalling ignorance of basic science facts and methodology.


Title: Re: Claimed OU circuit of Rosemary Ainslie
Post by: HeairBear on July 11, 2009, 05:29:09 AM
Then you admit it is a personal issue with you and her which in turn makes you biased...
Title: Re: Claimed OU circuit of Rosemary Ainslie
Post by: TinselKoala on July 11, 2009, 05:48:52 AM
Then you admit it is a personal issue with you and her which in turn makes you biased...

I admit that I built her circuit in good faith, then I noticed the very clear and blatant discrepancies, and when I began, very politely, to discuss it with her, she responded with a great deal of disrespect, and still will not acknowledge that she is wrong.

Yes, it has indeed become a personal issue. But I am always ready to be corrected by DATA.

If you can find any fact that I have stated that is WRONG, please tell me so that I may correct it.
If you find any fact that Rosemary has stated that is WRONG, please let her know, and see how far you get.

Come on, you seem to have a lot to say, Heair Bear. PROVE ME WRONG. For goodness sake.

(And before you bring up some particular mosfet part number, I will just ask you this: How do you know what's sitting on my bench?)
Title: Re: Claimed OU circuit of Rosemary Ainslie
Post by: HeairBear on July 11, 2009, 06:03:14 AM
Thank you for the offer, I would rather not beat a dead horse.
Title: Re: Claimed OU circuit of Rosemary Ainslie
Post by: 0c on July 11, 2009, 06:37:28 AM
(And before you bring up some particular mosfet part number, I will just ask you this: How do you know what's sitting on my bench?)

Wilby came through after all?
Title: Re: Claimed OU circuit of Rosemary Ainslie
Post by: TinselKoala on July 11, 2009, 08:13:16 AM
Wilby came through after all?

Of course not, the prevaricatious hamadryad. He probably is still waiting to be stiffed by the Ebay seller. Meanwhile Mr. Postman brought my DigiKey order. 56 bux plus tax and customs for 10 of those puppies. But I can use the ones I don't smoke in the Ains-lie, in the Groundloop/Gotoluc H-bridge to build a mean DRSSTC.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=T-ibD9YeUrE
Title: Re: Claimed OU circuit of Rosemary Ainslie
Post by: IceStorm on July 11, 2009, 08:17:07 AM
Thank you for the offer, I would rather not beat a dead horse.

Its simple what you have to do , can be made in 3 parts

Part #1
Build the circuit, take no more than 10-15min of your time, hook up your oscilloscope to it and came back to the forum and re-read what TinselKoala was saying about the circuit. I must agree the longest part will be to read what TinselKoala wrote but im sure you are able to do that.

Part #2
go here
http://www.thenakedscientists.com/forum/index.php?topic=23243.msg255644#msg255644 (http://www.thenakedscientists.com/forum/index.php?topic=23243.msg255644#msg255644)
and here
http://www.energeticforum.com/renewable-energy/4314-cop-17-heater-rosemary-ainslie.html (http://www.energeticforum.com/renewable-energy/4314-cop-17-heater-rosemary-ainslie.html)

Read all what Rosemary said about the circuit, that will reveal her background too(Maybe not) and what she know about the circuit and the principle behind it.

Part #3
Tell me where the dead horse is now ?

Best Regards,
IceStorm
Title: Re: Claimed OU circuit of Rosemary Ainslie
Post by: Paul-R on July 11, 2009, 04:02:27 PM
I admit that I built her circuit in good faith, then I noticed the very clear and blatant discrepancies, and when I began, very politely, to discuss it with her, she responded with a great deal of disrespect, and still will not acknowledge that she is wrong.
I wonder if you know any more about this Physics than you do about Lawrence Tseung's
Physics.

What is pathetic is that you do not care to learn.
Title: Re: Claimed OU circuit of Rosemary Ainslie
Post by: TinselKoala on July 11, 2009, 04:46:19 PM
I wonder if you know any more about this Physics than you do about Lawrence Tseung's
Physics.

What is pathetic is that you do not care to learn.

Teach me then, PaulR.

Show me what you've got.

Build a device using Tseung's "theory" and show it doing something, anything at all, that is not fully in line with conventional high-school physics.

Build the circuit under discussion here, test it however the flmp you like, and report your results.

In other words, put YOUR WORK where your mouth is.


(Oh, and by the way, there is only one "Physics", and it does not belong to anyone. It's testable and its results are public and may be repeated any time by anybody who has the right tools and the knowledge to use them. Mathematics being the primary tool.)
Title: Re: Claimed OU circuit of Rosemary Ainslie
Post by: TinselKoala on July 11, 2009, 04:57:46 PM
And just see what a dangerous thing the TRUTH is:

http://www.energeticforum.com/renewable-energy/4314-cop-17-heater-rosemary-ainslie-16.html#post60054

Title: Re: Claimed OU circuit of Rosemary Ainslie
Post by: ramset on July 11, 2009, 06:28:44 PM
At this point everyone at energetic is quite aware THERE IS A PROBLEM.

So now its playtime [fun for some]
Hopefully they will utilize some of Aarons parallel coil stuff or the tensor flat coil stuff In Stiffler's Thread [VERY interesting things being discussed the last few days][especially from the penguin fellow]

Here http://www.energeticforum.com/renewable-energy/3934-high-voltage-thin-air-26.html

Perhaps now the stops can be pulled out on a lot of these Ideas/facts?

Chet
Title: Re: Claimed OU circuit of Rosemary Ainslie
Post by: poynt99 on July 11, 2009, 07:46:43 PM
I have not been approved over at energetiforum, otherwise I would likely respond to some posts in the Ainslie thread and Gotoluc's bemf recirculating thread.

.99
Title: Re: Claimed OU circuit of Rosemary Ainslie
Post by: TinselKoala on July 11, 2009, 10:19:24 PM
I have not been approved over at energetiforum, otherwise I would likely respond to some posts in the Ainslie thread and Gotoluc's bemf recirculating thread.

.99

They say you are approved now.

You will have to carry the banner of truth and accuracy of information; I have been banned and my posts removed (the recent ones anyway). And I used no profanity, no insults, I just asked questions, pointed out discrepancies, and provided true information.

In my opinion, the fact that that forum's moderators will actively censor posts and remove them, even though they are not abusive or obscene, even though they are reporting on experiments that Ainslie requested, is a travesty of the entire concepts of truth, freedom of information, open-sourcing, and so forth. The site, which seems to be at root a religious one, is clearly fascistic and totalitarian in what it will allow to be discussed.

Not like this one at all.

Thanks, Stefan, for allowing contrary opinions and facts to flourish, and to be subject to the same tests as other extraordinary claims.

Skeptics perform a very necessary role in the quest. Some are more credible than others, just like the researchers they criticize. But a real discovery is skeptic-proof, and the harder skeptics try to knock it down, and fail, the "realer" the discovery. And the real researcher welcomes the challenge to attempt to disprove her ideas; indeed, cooperates with it. Most scientific papers reporting experiments include substantial error analyses, references to published support for ideas in the paper, and so forth, and on review, if the reviewers ask for the raw data, it almost always is provided. Certainly, references to calibration and other vetting must be real and traceable, if it is to be taken seriously.
Title: Re: Claimed OU circuit of Rosemary Ainslie
Post by: gyulasun on July 11, 2009, 11:09:35 PM
Hi Folks,

Do you know what happened to the energeticforum.com ?  it has been down for some hours now. Last time I visited their pages was about 6 hours ago and now my web browser says it cannot be found.

Gyula
Title: Re: Claimed OU circuit of Rosemary Ainslie
Post by: WilbyInebriated on July 11, 2009, 11:41:55 PM
They say you are approved now.

You will have to carry the banner of truth and accuracy of information; I have been banned and my posts removed (the recent ones anyway). And I used no profanity, no insults, I just asked questions, pointed out discrepancies, and provided true information.

In my opinion, the fact that that forum's moderators will actively censor posts and remove them, even though they are not abusive or obscene, even though they are reporting on experiments that Ainslie requested, is a travesty of the entire concepts of truth, freedom of information, open-sourcing, and so forth. The site, which seems to be at root a religious one, is clearly fascistic and totalitarian in what it will allow to be discussed.

Not like this one at all.

Thanks, Stefan, for allowing contrary opinions and facts to flourish, and to be subject to the same tests as other extraordinary claims.

Skeptics perform a very necessary role in the quest. Some are more credible than others, just like the researchers they criticize. But a real discovery is skeptic-proof, and the harder skeptics try to knock it down, and fail, the "realer" the discovery. And the real researcher welcomes the challenge to attempt to disprove her ideas; indeed, cooperates with it. Most scientific papers reporting experiments include substantial error analyses, references to published support for ideas in the paper, and so forth, and on review, if the reviewers ask for the raw data, it almost always is provided. Certainly, references to calibration and other vetting must be real and traceable, if it is to be taken seriously.

ohhh you got banned. poor poor pitiful you. i was gonna make a wager with you on how long that was going to take...

you were told in no uncertain terms that your posts were no longer welcome in that thread and to refrain from posting in that thread or your posts would be deleted... and yet here you are, acting all surprised and shocked that that's what happened after you continued to post.  again i have to ask, are you mental?

i saw you claim to have the correct fet now, no data yet? well, let us know when your 'i got myself banned' pity party is over and you get back to serious work.  ::)

can i cry too?  :'( since you banned me from your youtube channel for asking questions and pointing out discrepancies. hypocrite.
Title: Re: Claimed OU circuit of Rosemary Ainslie
Post by: Paul-R on July 11, 2009, 11:55:31 PM
Teach me then, PaulR.

Show me what you've got.

I did that - in Lawrence's thread. I shall not bother to
do it again.
Title: Re: Claimed OU circuit of Rosemary Ainslie
Post by: TinselKoala on July 12, 2009, 12:03:31 AM
Hi Folks,

Do you know what happened to the energeticforum.com ?  it has been down for some hours now. Last time I visited their pages was about 6 hours ago and now my web browser says it cannot be found.

Gyula

Still works for me. I can even still post there, although I won't anymore. As you can see, the odor is clinging.
Title: Re: Claimed OU circuit of Rosemary Ainslie
Post by: TinselKoala on July 12, 2009, 12:07:41 AM
ohhh you got banned. poor poor pitiful you. i was gonna make a wager with you on how long that was going to take...

you were told in no uncertain terms that your posts were no longer welcome in that thread and to refrain from posting in that thread or your posts would be deleted... and yet here you are, acting all surprised and shocked that that's what happened after you continued to post.  again i have to ask, are you mental?

i saw you claim to have the correct fet now, no data yet? well, let us know when your 'i got myself banned' pity party is over and you get back to serious work.  ::)

can i cry too?  :'( since you banned me from your youtube channel for asking questions and pointing out discrepancies.

Do I feel badly about the banning and censoring? Not really, as the experience supports my hypothesis: If a society is more concerned with Ego than with Truth, those who tell the truth at the expense of ego will eventually be censored and banned, even killed if necessary.

Surprised? Not at all. It is completely par for the course. If you ever learn to read, take a look at the Nakedscientists thread, you will see that by the 4th page Rosemary was pleading for it to be locked and certain critics removed or banned. And she started trying to get me banned as soon as I reported the first discrepancy, of many, between what she says and what is reality.

Am I mental? Absolutely. What's your excuse?

And am I back to work? Yes. Will I be sharing any of my data with you? Not specifically. But it will be public, and if you can get somebody to explain it to you in single syllables, I'm sure you'll enjoy it.

(And if you seriously think that I would ever wager with someone who reneges on a simple promise, you belong in Las Vegas.)

And the "questions" you asked over and over have been answered over and over, and the "discrepancies" (more than one?) have also been addressed. Unlike my questions and the discrepancies I pointed out over there. If you want to argue you should at least get your controller to load a new text file with some coherent arguments.
Title: Re: Claimed OU circuit of Rosemary Ainslie
Post by: TinselKoala on July 12, 2009, 12:08:04 AM
I did that - in Lawrence's thread. I shall not bother to
do it again.

Thank goodness for small favors.
Title: Re: Claimed OU circuit of Rosemary Ainslie
Post by: WilbyInebriated on July 12, 2009, 12:15:57 AM
And am I back to work? Yes. Will I be sharing any of my data with you? Not specifically. But it will be public, and if you can get somebody to explain it to you in single syllables, I'm sure you'll enjoy it.

(And if you seriously think that I would ever wager with someone who reneges on a simple promise, you belong in Las Vegas.)

LMFAO, will you be using the correct fet this time? like you should have done from the start if you were at all concerned with good science.

i promised you nothing. there you go making stuff up again. using words that don't apply like 'identical', 'exactly', 'fascist' and 'totalitarian'... show 'exactly' where i said "i promise".
whoops, there i go pointing out your discrepancies again...
Title: Re: Claimed OU circuit of Rosemary Ainslie
Post by: TinselKoala on July 12, 2009, 01:32:54 AM
LMFAO, will you be using the correct fet this time? like you should have done from the start if you were at all concerned with good science.

i promised you nothing. there you go making stuff up again. using words that don't apply like 'identical', 'exactly', 'fascist' and 'totalitarian'... show 'exactly' where i said "i promise".
whoops, there i go pointing out your discrepancies again...

Remember when you posted this?

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

The phrase "I will" would be interpreted in any court of contract law as a promise to perform.
If, that is, it was uttered by an entity competent to enter into a contract.
Which you, being a troll of the first magnitude, clearly are not.
Title: Re: Claimed OU circuit of Rosemary Ainslie
Post by: allcanadian on July 12, 2009, 02:32:14 AM
@TK
Quote
Do I feel badly about the banning and censoring? Not really, as the experience supports my hypothesis: If a society is more concerned with Ego than with Truth, those who tell the truth at the expense of ego will eventually be censored and banned, even killed if necessary.

I started writing a reply and half way through understood how futile it was, LOL. I can only be thankful I do not live in your little world where one can never be wrong.
Regards
AC
Title: Re: Claimed OU circuit of Rosemary Ainslie
Post by: allcanadian on July 12, 2009, 02:33:06 AM
DBL Post
Title: Re: Claimed OU circuit of Rosemary Ainslie
Post by: LarryC on July 12, 2009, 02:52:08 AM
@allcanadian, you're right it is futile, but this post from you on 9-24-08 was so excellent that I had to save it for future events such as this:

Quote
I would like to make a point about skeptics, skepticism to a point can be a healthy thing but you should understand where this path leads.Take a look at this website and read the posts for a while and you will get the picture.---http://forums.randi.org/
These guys must be the most self rightious, egostical bafoons I have ever had the displeasure of talking with. They are hard core skeptics who believe reason and logic must dictate everything as such they cannot imagine how "there" logic could be flawed in any way,so they continually degrade and humiliate each other. In essence there logic concludes that 99.99% of the people on this planet are misguided, delusional or stupid relative to them. But there logic has a flaw, the individual, there logic cannot explain the wright brothers airplane, goddards rockets or Teslas alternating current. Because at that time all these technologies were "unproven" to the skeptics the key word being "unproven", the skeptic needs concrete proof before he will believe anything as such he believes almost nothing which is why I have yet to hear of any true skeptic accomplish anything that could be regarded as beneficial to society in any way.
I usually simply ignore the skeptics as they have absolutely nothing to offer me in the way of understanding, they come to degrade and humiliate to make themselves feel superior----that is there nature.

Regards, Larry
Title: Re: Claimed OU circuit of Rosemary Ainslie
Post by: IceStorm on July 12, 2009, 03:00:44 AM
LMFAO, will you be using the correct fet this time? like you should have done from the start if you were at all concerned with good science.

If you look at energeticforum.com , Rosemary said that the Fet is not a critical part
http://www.energeticforum.com/renewable-energy/4314-cop-17-heater-rosemary-ainslie-8.html#post59195 (http://www.energeticforum.com/renewable-energy/4314-cop-17-heater-rosemary-ainslie-8.html#post59195)

Title: Re: Claimed OU circuit of Rosemary Ainslie
Post by: ramset on July 12, 2009, 03:17:21 AM
Larry
Thanks for sharing that post
Chet
Title: Re: Claimed OU circuit of Rosemary Ainslie
Post by: ramset on July 12, 2009, 03:40:36 AM
TK
PLEASE don't get banned !!
Your contribution is more important then rubbing Mary's nose in her "Article"

Please take a breath [count to ten ,bite your lip etc...]

Chet
Title: Re: Claimed OU circuit of Rosemary Ainslie
Post by: WilbyInebriated on July 12, 2009, 04:16:16 AM
If you look at energeticforum.com , Rosemary said that the Fet is not a critical part
http://www.energeticforum.com/renewable-energy/4314-cop-17-heater-rosemary-ainslie-8.html#post59195 (http://www.energeticforum.com/renewable-energy/4314-cop-17-heater-rosemary-ainslie-8.html#post59195)

are you suggesting that when attempting a 'replication' one should use whatever parts they can substitute rather than the specified components? is that your idea of good science?
Title: Re: Claimed OU circuit of Rosemary Ainslie
Post by: IceStorm on July 12, 2009, 04:50:03 AM
are you suggesting that when attempting a 'replication' one should use whatever parts they can substitute rather than the specified components? is that your idea of good science?

No, i dont mean to use whatever part but in same time that dont invalidate the result that TinselKoala and I got, Rosemary already said that the Fet is not a critical part and she used other fet's too. When you take a circuit who should use 3.7% ON duty cycle and finaly you find that in reality its 96.3% ON duty cycle, that kind of thing can invalidate all the circuit, if the 555 part is erroneous, can you trust the rest of the circuit ? no.

Think about that, if you was "CLAIMING" to have a OU Device, and in same time you want to share it with the rest of the world, im sure you will take GREAT care to make the schematic exactly the same as what you used, no ? you will not burn your name on something that is not what you created, and you will be "THE MAN" to explain exactly how it work and why you choosed each parts of your circuit and what can be used if X part is not available.

Dont get me wrong , i whish it was a OU device, the world need that right now. But when i see people unable to answer clearly to any simple question, that make me think its BS, and when lab test testify its BS , then its ...

Best Regards,
IceStorm
Title: Re: Claimed OU circuit of Rosemary Ainslie
Post by: TinselKoala on July 12, 2009, 06:27:48 AM
@TK
I started writing a reply and half way through understood how futile it was, LOL. I can only be thankful I do not live in your little world where one can never be wrong.
Regards
AC

I am quite willing to be PROVEN wrong, and I will be grateful when it happens, because that is the only way I will be able to learn.
So if you think I am wrong about ANYTHING, please provide some evidence that supports your position. Whenever I say that something is wrong, you will note that I always provide some support for my position.

Come on, PROVE ME WRONG about something.  In this thread, please provide some evidence that I am wrong about anything that I have posted about the Ainslie circuit. So that I may correct it. Because I, unlike some others apparently, do not want my name or identity attached to something that is clearly in error.

Now, if you want to read some posts from someone who actually does fit your description, please take a look at Ainslie's thread on nakedscientists.

Thanks in advance.
Title: Re: Claimed OU circuit of Rosemary Ainslie
Post by: TinselKoala on July 12, 2009, 06:34:28 AM
are you suggesting that when attempting a 'replication' one should use whatever parts they can substitute rather than the specified components? is that your idea of good science?

What part of "Rosemary said that the Fet is not a critical part" are you having trouble understanding?

Is your idea of good science identical with trolling? You are making the same post over and over, a point which I happily conceded many pages, many days ago. That is a textbook definition of trolling.

Especially since your point has no longer even the slightest trace of validity, if it ever did. Because you see, I've been using the IRFPG50 mosfet for some time now, and if I didn't tell you which one I was using for any particular test, you would not be able to tell the difference with any instruments you might know how to use. Like a hammer.

Can't you come up with something constructive, or at least not so damn monotonous?
Title: Re: Claimed OU circuit of Rosemary Ainslie
Post by: TinselKoala on July 12, 2009, 07:15:57 AM
I've uploaded a couple more videos. I see that one of my fans has already assigned a "one star" rating to #4.

In the second one (#5) I show an effect that I found interesting. I'm not sure of the explanation. Perhaps some of the actual scientific thinkers on this thread can give some kind of explanation.

I'm sure the trolls will have their opinions too.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lXielVyBauo
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4x0wQJrc9To
Title: Re: Claimed OU circuit of Rosemary Ainslie
Post by: WilbyInebriated on July 12, 2009, 07:36:47 AM
What part of "Rosemary said that the Fet is not a critical part" are you having trouble understanding?

Is your idea of good science identical with trolling? You are making the same post over and over, a point which I happily conceded many pages, many days ago. That is a textbook definition of trolling.

Especially since your point has no longer even the slightest trace of validity, if it ever did. Because you see, I've been using the IRFPG50 mosfet for some time now, and if I didn't tell you which one I was using for any particular test, you would not be able to tell the difference with any instruments you might know how to use. Like a hammer.

Can't you come up with something constructive, or at least not so damn monotonous?

she said that long after you used the incorrect fet. my point still has the same validity it always did. which is, substituting what you have on hand while attempting a 'replication' is not good scientific method, even if it turns out later that the part may be acceptable. why do you have such trouble understanding that? nice try at the misdirection though. too bad you don't know the textbook definition of exactly, identical or replicate. ::)
Title: Re: Claimed OU circuit of Rosemary Ainslie
Post by: IceStorm on July 12, 2009, 07:46:19 AM
she said that long after you used the incorrect fet. substituting what you have on hand while attempting a 'replication' is not good scientific method, even if it turns out later that the part may be acceptable. why do you have such trouble understanding that? nice try at the misdirection though.

I hope you do understand that there a world between "1 part not identical" and "Circuit not doing what it should be". Personaly if i was not getting the effect Rosemary was claiming with all the circuit working, i will think that maybe the fet make realy a big difference, but when the circuit dosent work at all like it should be from start... i hope you do understand that the FET part make no difference at all.

Best Regards,
IceStorm
Title: Re: Claimed OU circuit of Rosemary Ainslie
Post by: TinselKoala on July 12, 2009, 07:48:37 AM
she said that long after you used the incorrect fet. substituting what you have on hand while attempting a 'replication' is not good scientific method, even if it turns out later that the part may be acceptable. why do you have such trouble understanding that? nice try at the misdirection though.

No, she actually said it long before--years ago. I suppose you will read the material, eventually. And I'll put my scientific method up against yours, any day of the week.

Done much classroom teaching at the university level? Got any credentials from universities? Got a job in a scientific field? Got any publications in major peer-reviewed scientific journals? Good, I'm glad. Because I have, and I do, too. I still get about a dozen reprint requests a month, and it's been nearly ten years since that particular paper was published.

Nice straw man, though.

Now, will you ffs change your tape?
Title: Re: Claimed OU circuit of Rosemary Ainslie
Post by: WilbyInebriated on July 12, 2009, 07:48:50 AM
I hope you do understand that there a world between "1 part not identical" and "Circuit not doing what it should be". Personaly if i was not getting the effect Rosemary was claiming with all the circuit working, i will think that maybe the fet make realy a big difference, but when the circuit dosent work at all like it should be from start... i hope you do understand that the FET part make no difference at all.

Best Regards,
IceStorm
have you read my posts re: the fet where i said i agree with him? (mostly) ::)
Title: Re: Claimed OU circuit of Rosemary Ainslie
Post by: WilbyInebriated on July 12, 2009, 07:52:15 AM
No, she actually said it long before--years ago. I suppose you will read the material, eventually. And I'll put my scientific method up against yours, any day of the week.

Done much classroom teaching at the university level? Got any credentials from universities? Got a job in a scientific field? Got any publications in major peer-reviewed scientific journals? Good, I'm glad. Because I have, and I do, too. I still get about a dozen reprint requests a month, and it's been nearly ten years since that particular paper was published.

Nice straw man, though.

Now, will you ffs change your tape?
you didn't know that at the time. nice misdirection though. the point remains, you used a circuit diagram which specified a irfpg50 among other components and you substituted whatever you felt like. and then proceeded to use words like identical and exact and then compared your hack to good scientific method. that's what i have always had an issue with, 30 pages running now.

as i said before, i don't care what you did on who. it's irrelevant.
Title: Re: Claimed OU circuit of Rosemary Ainslie
Post by: TinselKoala on July 12, 2009, 07:53:24 AM
If you fkn agree, mostly, and if I have long ago conceded your point, then why in the world do you keep on harping on it?
It's getting to be quite ridiculous. You seem fairly intelligent for a troll, and it might be nice to actually discuss something substantive with you, if only you would change your meds or something.

Oh, I get it--you are a paid lackey of the Free Energy Gurus In White, and you are keeping me uselessly distracted on this thread, answering your inanities, while everybody else is happily developing their gravitymagnoSECgenerator, without skeptical interference.
Title: Re: Claimed OU circuit of Rosemary Ainslie
Post by: WilbyInebriated on July 12, 2009, 07:57:34 AM
If you fkn agree, mostly, and if I have long ago conceded your point, then why in the world do you keep on harping on it?
It's getting to be quite ridiculous. You seem fairly intelligent for a troll, and it might be nice to actually discuss something substantive with you, if only you would change your meds or something.

Oh, I get it--you are a paid lackey of the Free Energy Gurus In White, and you are keeping me uselessly distracted on this thread, answering your inanities, while everybody else is happily developing their gravitymagnoSECgenerator, without skeptical interference.
because you still haven't shown any data with a correct replication, obviously...
just do it, put it to rest.
Title: Re: Claimed OU circuit of Rosemary Ainslie
Post by: TinselKoala on July 12, 2009, 07:57:57 AM
you didn't know that at the time. nice misdirection though. the point remains, you used a circuit diagram which specified a irfpg50 among other components and you substituted whatever you felt like. and then proceeded to use words like identical and exact and then compared your hack to good scientific method. that's what i have always had an issue with, 30 pages running now.

Wrong yet again. The very first thing when I started this fiasco was to read everything I could find, and it's in her early material. I knew she said the mosfet wasn't critical before I did the first thing with this project.
And I did not use whatever I felt like, I used the closest match I could find at the time, after pouring over data sheets for hours.

And you will be happy to know that I have just burned up my dinner, ruined a pan, and I have nothing else to eat in the house.

So troll along off, little troll, I'm not playing with you any more. You can't even come up with a proper criticism.
Title: Re: Claimed OU circuit of Rosemary Ainslie
Post by: TinselKoala on July 12, 2009, 07:58:40 AM
because you still haven't shown any data with a correct replication, obviously...
just do it, put it to rest.

I don't have to show you no stinkin badges.
Title: Re: Claimed OU circuit of Rosemary Ainslie
Post by: WilbyInebriated on July 12, 2009, 08:00:27 AM
Wrong yet again. The very first thing when I started this fiasco was to read everything I could find, and it's in her early material. I knew she said the mosfet wasn't critical before I did the first thing with this project.
And I did not use whatever I felt like, I used the closest match I could find at the time, after pouring over data sheets for hours.

And you will be happy to know that I have just burned up my dinner, ruined a pan, and I have nothing else to eat in the house.

So troll along off, little troll, I'm not playing with you any more. You can't even come up with a proper criticism.
no you didn't or you would have pulled out the 'zipons' ad hom right away. and, if that was the case, which it's not, why wouldn't you have said that in this reply to my first critique of your 'replication'?
OK, several points to address.
First, yes, when I can find them I will use identical components to Ainslie's circuit. Her MOSFET is kind of pricey and will have to be ordered; the one I'm using is...well, you can look up the data. It's pretty close, good enough for prelim testing. I will replace the shunt with .25 ohm today.
wow, what an amazing confabulation you have there tk...

nobody cares... mint?
Title: Re: Claimed OU circuit of Rosemary Ainslie
Post by: TinselKoala on July 12, 2009, 08:09:56 AM
You will please stop making things up about which you have no idea.
I first mentioned the "zipons", I believe, in my very first post on this issue. Which is not in this thread. It's in the post where I replied to ramset when he asked me to look into this matter. I'm sure you could find it, if you could just get your head out of that dark smelly place you live in.
Title: Re: Claimed OU circuit of Rosemary Ainslie
Post by: IceStorm on July 12, 2009, 08:10:26 AM
have you read my posts re: the fet where i said i agree with him? (mostly) ::)

No, ive not seen it

Best Regards,
IceStorm
Title: Re: Claimed OU circuit of Rosemary Ainslie
Post by: TinselKoala on July 12, 2009, 08:11:08 AM
no you didn't or you would have pulled out the 'zipons' ad hom right away. and, if that was the case, which it's not, why wouldn't you have said that in this reply to my first critique of your 'replication'?wow, what an amazing confabulation you have there tk...

nobody cares... mint?

Lying troll, you cannot even get your own facts straight. Now go away and bother someone else.
Title: Re: Claimed OU circuit of Rosemary Ainslie
Post by: TinselKoala on July 12, 2009, 08:16:38 AM
Wilby, just what will it take to get you off my back? I have long ago conceded your only point.
I really do not want to continue this ridiculous exchange. Why don't you seriously go pick on Rosemary, who has clearly made manymany more of the kinds of statements you seem to object to, and where it might do some good?
You are not doing good here.
Title: Re: Claimed OU circuit of Rosemary Ainslie
Post by: WilbyInebriated on July 12, 2009, 08:17:29 AM
Lying troll, you cannot even get your own facts straight. Now go away and bother someone else.
that's your justification for not saying right then and there that the fet didn't matter? LOL this is rich, hold on, i gotta grab a chair this is sure to be classic...
Title: Re: Claimed OU circuit of Rosemary Ainslie
Post by: WilbyInebriated on July 12, 2009, 08:18:10 AM
Wilby, just what will it take to get you off my back? I have long ago conceded your only point.
I really do not want to continue this ridiculous exchange. Why don't you seriously go pick on Rosemary, who has clearly made manymany more of the kinds of statements you seem to object to, and where it might do some good?
You are not doing good here.
i've told you several times now. do it right, for the love of zeus.
you and i are not talking about RA, we are talking about your bad scientific method. i've seen your definition of 'good' in regards to your scientific method. i think i'll stay, i got heathens aplenty right here...
Title: Re: Claimed OU circuit of Rosemary Ainslie
Post by: TinselKoala on July 12, 2009, 08:20:04 AM
i've told you several times now. do it right, for the love of zeus.
you and i are not talking about RA, we are talking about your bad scientific method. i got heathens aplenty right here...

That is it. Goodbye. You get the last word. Enjoy playing with yourself.
Title: Re: Claimed OU circuit of Rosemary Ainslie
Post by: Paul-R on July 12, 2009, 03:20:12 PM
If you look at energeticforum.com , Rosemary said that the Fet is not a critical part
http://www.energeticforum.com/renewable-energy/4314-cop-17-heater-rosemary-ainslie-8.html#post59195 (http://www.energeticforum.com/renewable-energy/4314-cop-17-heater-rosemary-ainslie-8.html#post59195)
Also, Tinselkoala appears to have been slung off that thread. Nice use
of red ink:
http://www.energeticforum.com/renewable-energy/4314-cop-17-heater-rosemary-ainslie-16.html
Title: Claim no OU of Rosemary's circuit
Post by: henieck on July 12, 2009, 03:46:13 PM
Hello TinselKoala (and others as well),

You seem to be very reasonable guy. I know you from the other forum and I am happy I have found you here because I would like to ask you a question. You are well seasoned member of wide interest of this community while I am just a fresh one, and my little request to you is if you could express what is your perspective on “free energy” field in terms of what seems to be bull s. or what has been successfully replicated by some people. So far I have proved just to myself that Rosemary’s circuit is a joke. I hope others will be able to make it working – but I really doubt it.

The worst is that years later there will be people who will be trying out this stupid circuit and be puzzled by the surface effect of the flyback loop – what a waste of time. So after my first encounter in this field it seems to me that designer is uneducated- but made a virtue from this fact and reframed it into open-mind-ness, emotional about the outcome, childish about criticism, not capable of objective, down to the point thinking, not being able to detect her own errors in judgments and trace her own mind deceit. I was shocked to discover that the “inventor” did not know basic operational facts about electric current, energy or even her very simple circuit.

This woman was not even aware of the fact that it takes energy to make magnetic field exist, and that a coil can store some energy in the form of magnetic field, until it is disconnected form the current! This is just most shocking of all. The woman who was gong to energetically save the world had no most basic understanding about energy. It wasn’t somebody who knew it, saw a flaw in it and proposed different, better theory– it was somebody who had an amazing informational “hole” in this region and in few others (the battery example). There was no model about this piece of reality in her mind at all– so instead of getting educated she was forced to make a new zipon theory.

Even when I pointed out how energy is stored in a coil - nothing helped, like there was total blockage for any new input. Just her littlie world of sick hallucinations and zero capability to processing any new information – just deletion. She had no other choice - she had to delete all the contradictory information because otherwise she would be forced to rebuild her entire pitiful world and all the past experiences about this circuit. Infinitely pitiful. I didn’t want to put new convictions through throat – I just wanted her to process new information somehow. She must have had sensed, that asking questions expose to herself her inconsistencies – so she insisted on deletion of those who asked inconvenient questions.

Some other users of forum disappointed equally – evidently they want to live in entirely other semi scientific, semi religious world and don’t want to be disturbed by any sober, they call “debunkers”. I think that first of all she was trying to debunk widely accepted point of view – and the fact that they call me debunker confirms that they had readily swallowed her infantile, yet complicated zipon theory like Lindemann swallowed gravity wheel idea. Seeing this great “nothingness” compared to her great claims I have to admit I have got carried away a bit – so they blocked me entirely that I can’t even read what is next there. Does it happen very often here as well?

Scientifically, playing with this idiotic circuit for few days was a pure waste of time, although one learns all the time something new. Conversely, from psychological point of view – it was fascinating to have first hand experience in this field how psychology of one such “inventor” really operates. Priceless experience – and I am wondering – do you think that other pseudo-scientific “inventors” in this field are equally contaminated by this sort of psychological problems as well? But most of all, like I wrote above – I would love to hear your opinion about other things potentially worth of at least looking at. Are there any preliminarily promising things in this “free energy” field? I consider this Rosemary’s idiotic thing finished for me and need new inspiration. What is yours now?

Best regards, henieck.
Title: Re: Claimed OU circuit of Rosemary Ainslie
Post by: ramset on July 12, 2009, 04:07:32 PM
Quote from All Canadian

I would like to make a point about skeptics, skepticism to a point can be a healthy thing but you should understand where this path leads.Take a look at this website and read the posts for a while and you will get the picture.---http://forums.randi.org/
These guys must be the most self rightious, egostical bafoons I have ever had the displeasure of talking with. They are hard core skeptics who believe reason and logic must dictate everything as such they cannot imagine how "there" logic could be flawed in any way,so they continually degrade and humiliate each other. In essence there logic concludes that 99.99% of the people on this planet are misguided, delusional or stupid relative to them. But there logic has a flaw, the individual, there logic cannot explain the wright brothers airplane, goddards rockets or Teslas alternating current. Because at that time all these technologies were "unproven" to the skeptics the key word being "unproven", the skeptic needs concrete proof before he will believe anything as such he believes almost nothing which is why I have yet to hear of any true skeptic accomplish anything that could be regarded as beneficial to society in any way.
I usually simply ignore the skeptics as they have absolutely nothing to offer me in the way of understanding, they come to degrade and humiliate to make themselves feel superior----that is there nature.

BTW  TK is NOT a skeptic  ,
He is a scientist/experimenter with a very good bullshit meter

Chet 
Title: Re: Claimed OU circuit of Rosemary Ainslie
Post by: Asymatrix on July 12, 2009, 04:59:42 PM
Perhaps Rosemary is Mylow's cousin...
Title: Re: Claimed OU circuit of Rosemary Ainslie
Post by: ramset on July 12, 2009, 05:15:00 PM
 witsend  [Rosemary ]
Quote

Ramset - I looked at the video and simply can't comment because it's impossible to say what the circuit is. And it seems that he's got a resistive load and a motor in parallel - but I have no idea where the diode is?

I wish people would make their circuit references clearer.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

This is the vid she is referring to

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4x0wQJrc9To
Title: Re: Claimed OU circuit of Rosemary Ainslie
Post by: TinselKoala on July 12, 2009, 05:56:20 PM
witsend  [Rosemary ]
Quote

Ramset - I looked at the video and simply can't comment because it's impossible to say what the circuit is. And it seems that he's got a resistive load and a motor in parallel - but I have no idea where the diode is?

I wish people would make their circuit references clearer.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

This is the vid she is referring to

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4x0wQJrc9To

ROLLING On THE FLOOR LAUGHING MY bleeping ASS OFF!

On the second-to-the last post of  mine on "her" thread, which was REMOVED by the "moderator", I photographed the circuit, and the diagram from HER OWN PAPERS, to show her just what circuit I am using--so far the only one to do so that I can see--in a direct response to her query there. No flames, no comments, just "here is the circuit I am using" with a photograph--this photograph--and the post was removed.

Perhaps, Chet, you could get her to look at this photo here, since it has been censored over there.

(Since this photo, and before the video above, I took out the hardwired diode, put in a SPDT center off toggle switch and a terminal block, so that I could mount several diodes and switch between them easily to see their effects on the circuit. This modification is clearly visible in this video, and in the previous one I show it specifically and explain its slight effect on the waveform (although with my low bandwidth analog scopes it is hard to see, so I did not show it.) This is why I am so surprised that it made such a "macroscopic" effect with the motor and bulb.)
Title: Re: Claimed OU circuit of Rosemary Ainslie
Post by: TinselKoala on July 12, 2009, 06:04:09 PM
Now, anyone with eyes to see can see what circuit I am using--it is the published circuit of Rosemary Ainslie.

BUT--can anyone tell me just what circuit Rosemary Ainslie used to generate the data in the Quantim article and the EIT.pdf paper? And how it was clocked?

Anyone?
Title: Re: Claim no OU of Rosemary's circuit
Post by: TinselKoala on July 12, 2009, 06:14:51 PM
Hello TinselKoala (and others as well),

You seem to be very reasonable guy. I know you from the other forum and I am happy I have found you here because I would like to ask you a question. You are well seasoned member of wide interest of this community while I am just a fresh one, and my little request to you is if you could express what is your perspective on “free energy” field in terms of what seems to be bull s. or what has been successfully replicated by some people. So far I have proved just to myself that Rosemary’s circuit is a joke. I hope others will be able to make it working – but I really doubt it.

The worst is that years later there will be people who will be trying out this stupid circuit and be puzzled by the surface effect of the flyback loop – what a waste of time. So after my first encounter in this field it seems to me that designer is uneducated- but made a virtue from this fact and reframed it into open-mind-ness, emotional about the outcome, childish about criticism, not capable of objective, down to the point thinking, not being able to detect her own errors in judgments and trace her own mind deceit. I was shocked to discover that the “inventor” did not know basic operational facts about electric current, energy or even her very simple circuit.

This woman was not even aware of the fact that it takes energy to make magnetic field exist, and that a coil can store some energy in the form of magnetic field, until it is disconnected form the current! This is just most shocking of all. The woman who was gong to energetically save the world had no most basic understanding about energy. It wasn’t somebody who knew it, saw a flaw in it and proposed different, better theory– it was somebody who had an amazing informational “hole” in this region and in few others (the battery example). There was no model about this piece of reality in her mind at all– so instead of getting educated she was forced to make a new zipon theory.

Even when I pointed out how energy is stored in a coil - nothing helped, like there was total blockage for any new input. Just her littlie world of sick hallucinations and zero capability to processing any new information – just deletion. She had no other choice - she had to delete all the contradictory information because otherwise she would be forced to rebuild her entire pitiful world and all the past experiences about this circuit. Infinitely pitiful. I didn’t want to put new convictions through throat – I just wanted her to process new information somehow. She must have had sensed, that asking questions expose to herself her inconsistencies – so she insisted on deletion of those who asked inconvenient questions.

Some other users of forum disappointed equally – evidently they want to live in entirely other semi scientific, semi religious world and don’t want to be disturbed by any sober, they call “debunkers”. I think that first of all she was trying to debunk widely accepted point of view – and the fact that they call me debunker confirms that they had readily swallowed her infantile, yet complicated zipon theory like Lindemann swallowed gravity wheel idea. Seeing this great “nothingness” compared to her great claims I have to admit I have got carried away a bit – so they blocked me entirely that I can’t even read what is next there. Does it happen very often here as well?

Scientifically, playing with this idiotic circuit for few days was a pure waste of time, although one learns all the time something new. Conversely, from psychological point of view – it was fascinating to have first hand experience in this field how psychology of one such “inventor” really operates. Priceless experience – and I am wondering – do you think that other pseudo-scientific “inventors” in this field are equally contaminated by this sort of psychological problems as well? But most of all, like I wrote above – I would love to hear your opinion about other things potentially worth of at least looking at. Are there any preliminarily promising things in this “free energy” field? I consider this Rosemary’s idiotic thing finished for me and need new inspiration. What is yours now?

Best regards, henieck.

Hi Henieck and well met.
I am glad to hear from you here. You bring up a lot of important points.
First, let me say that this forum is in general more tolerant of skepticism and positive "debunking" efforts. The owner, Stefan, is, I believe, a real seeker of truth, and is also highly experienced in working with many of the types of designs you might see discussed here. Sometimes he allows individuals to moderate specific threads, and these moderators may be more, or less, forgiving of skepticism.
However, this openness also tends to let people make the kinds of posts that would be considered blatant trolling on many other forums. That can get annoying--if you read back through this thread you will see some good examples.
In fact, as you can see, I am now very leery of posting here, because of the trolling problem. I do not mind reasoned criticisms and rational arguments, I even can take and dish out the occasional drunken insult with equanimity, but the useless harping on an already-conceded minor point is quite ridiculous, especially when combined with lies and distortions about what I actually do and post.
As far as the other questions you have re my general take on the OU field I will send you a PM here later this afternoon. I really need to get out of the basement for a while.
Thanks again, and welcome to the forum.
--TK
Title: Re: Claim no OU of Rosemary's circuit
Post by: 0c on July 12, 2009, 07:10:01 PM
As far as the other questions you have re my general take on the OU field I will send you a PM here later this afternoon.

Awww, c'mon TK. Post it publicly. Lotsa folks would like to know what really goes on in that head of yours.  ;)
Title: Re: Claimed OU circuit of Rosemary Ainslie
Post by: ramset on July 12, 2009, 07:14:42 PM
http://www.overunity.com/index.php?action=dlattach;topic=7620.0;attach=35896

test
Title: Re: Claim no OU of Rosemary's circuit
Post by: TinselKoala on July 12, 2009, 07:18:22 PM
Awww, c'mon TK. Post it publicly. Lotsa folks would like to know what really goes on in that head of yours.  ;)

Including me.
 ::)
Title: Re: Claim no OU of Rosemary's circuit
Post by: TinselKoala on July 12, 2009, 07:37:36 PM
Awww, c'mon TK. Post it publicly. Lotsa folks would like to know what really goes on in that head of yours.  ;)

Some of my own whacky ideas have been discussed, but it always brings out the trolls so I don't do it very much.

But let's just say that I "have faith" in the Standard Model and in Quantum Electrodynamics (QCD I'm not so sure about). And in the usual suspects: the conservation laws, the utility of mathematical modelling (with Korzybski's caveat that "the map is not the territory". Unless you're a cartographer.)
I have faith in these things--because I don't have the ability to understand them fully, so I cannot say that I know them (cf. Feynman)-- but everytime I've tested them I find them to be correct, to within measurement accuracy. And I test them quite frequently--like with every step, breath, and eyeblink I take.

Now, within that context obviously I do not believe energy can be obtained "for free". Do I believe that one may obtain useful energy without economic cost? Yes, absolutely. But one must find a source, a flux, and a sink, and one must position oneself in the flux in such a manner and with such technology that some of the flux may be diverted to be wasted in driving your pitiful Earth machinery. Er, I mean put to good use in our society.

What's the flux? I dunno. I still think the main flux is going to turn out to be electrodynamic; I believe there is a tremendous energy reservoir made up by the capacitor of the earth and its atmosphere and ionosphere; I think that this reservoir, which ultimately powers lightning discharges, is continually recharged by the sun; I hope that someday someone might be able to position some apparatus that would be able to exploit this reservoir in two main ways: First of course as a power "source", and second, as a means of global power transmission, perhaps from some central plant that down-converted the Schumann cavity's energy store to a form that is perhaps more useful to puny Earthlings, er, I mean to us...and then re-inject it by "ringing" the cavity at harmonics of its fundamental resonant frequency.

Do I perhaps think that Nikola Tesla was on the right track? Sure. Plus he made a bunch of really neat apparatus that sparks and makes ozone--and I love that stuff.

There, that should feed the trolls for a while.

--TK

(Edit to add, no, I do not consider 0c to be a troll. )
Title: Re: Claimed OU circuit of Rosemary Ainslie
Post by: TinselKoala on July 12, 2009, 07:39:20 PM
http://www.overunity.com/index.php?action=dlattach;topic=7620.0;attach=35896

test

Worked for me as a download link. No image until I downloaded it.
Title: Re: Claimed OU circuit of Rosemary Ainslie
Post by: ramset on July 12, 2009, 07:41:02 PM
 H ,

Some Nasa and other FE stuff

http://www.energeticforum.com/renewable-energy/3809-interesting-articles-free-energy-etc.html#post46942

Chet


For banned folks http://ntrs.nasa.gov/archive/nasa/casi.ntrs.nasa.gov/20030033916_2003038530.pdf
                       http://ntrs.nasa.gov/archive/nasa/casi.ntrs.nasa.gov/20050170447_2005172301.pdf
complete post
 lamare 
NASA: Advanced Energetics for Aeronautical Applications
NASA publishes 2 interesting volumes "Advanced Energetics for Aeronautical Applications":

http://ntrs.nasa.gov/archive/nasa/ca...2003038530.pdf
Volume 2: http://ntrs.nasa.gov/archive/nasa/ca...2005172301.pdf


Volume 2 contains some very interesting chapters on ZPE:

Chapter 3: ADVANCED ELECTRIC CONCEPTS
Chapter 4: BREAKTHROUGH ENERGETICS—ZERO POINT ENERGY


Chapter 4 handles specifically about free energy:

Zero Point Energy Principles in the Similar Technologies of Nikola Tesla and E.V. Gray
4.3.1 Dr. Peter Lindemann
4.3.2 ZPE Principles Suggested in E.V. Gray's Technology
4.3.3 The Energy Science of Dr. Nikola Tesla
4.3.4 Dr. Lindemann's Definition of "The Electro-Radiant Event"
4.3.5 Comparing E.V. Gray's Technology with that of Tesla
4.3.6 Summary of Principles for Accessing ZPE
Title: Re: Claimed OU circuit of Rosemary Ainslie
Post by: ramset on July 12, 2009, 08:10:07 PM
H,
also look here :o :o :o :o :o
http://www.overunity.com/index.php?topic=7679.msg190845#new
Title: Re: Claim no OU of Rosemary's circuit
Post by: 0c on July 12, 2009, 08:15:26 PM
(Edit to add, no, I do not consider 0c to be a troll. )

(a stalker maybe?  ;) ) Thanks for being so candid.
Title: Re: Claimed OU circuit of Rosemary Ainslie
Post by: ramset on July 12, 2009, 08:28:31 PM
TK
Yes thanks for sharing [and all the doing!!!]
Chet
Title: Re: Claim no OU of Rosemary's circuit
Post by: TinselKoala on July 12, 2009, 08:28:59 PM
(a stalker maybe?  ;) ) Thanks for being so candid.

Let's say, "A fellow traveller." I think that would be most accurate.
 8)
Title: Re: Claimed OU circuit of Rosemary Ainslie
Post by: TinselKoala on July 12, 2009, 08:41:05 PM
OK, back to "work". (EEK, I scared myself.)

I would really like to know the make and model of the function generator used, if one was used, to drive the Ainslie circuit for her reported experiment. She's not telling me, but it's an important question.
I need to know its adjustment capability and characteristics: Peak output voltage into 50 ohms; pulse width range; DC offset capability; sweep functionality or not; and so forth.

In the Quantum report of the experiment, of course, the FG is not mentioned AT ALL and the clocking is assumed to be from the accompanying circuit diagram--the infamous 555. There is also NO MENTION of the flyback diode and it does not appear on the diagram.

Yet in the EIT.pdf report of the same experiment:
In the EIT.pdf paper, the only mention of a FG is the little symbol on the diagram in that paper, and this phrase in the text:
"The oscillator is adjusted to output a frequency of 2.4KHz at a 3.7% duty
cycle on time. Adjusting the variable resistor in series with the gate of the
MOSFET reduces the gate current and results in random oscillation that
overrides the predetermined frequency and duty cycle."

The oscillator. And in the equipment list she makes much of the fact that her Fluke 199C is calibrated, and other equipment parameters are noted with calibration information. Yet the FG is not mentioned.
And now the flyback diode has mysteriously appeared and is a critical component of the experiment.

So, you have to see how this makes me think that the 555 circuit WAS in fact used in the reported experiment.
But if it wasn't, the information about what WAS used to clock the circuit is necessary, to make sure that what has been called a "typical first year EE mistake" (in reference to ME in the second video!!??!!) has not been made all through Ainslie's work.

I am coming to the opinion that we are being Mylowed, yet again.

(I note that in the NakedScientists thread she several times refers to the Fluke 123 scope she used. OOPS, in the papers I have it's a 199C. It's an easy mistake to make--the 199C is only twice the physical size of the 123, and when you google them quickly for a picture of a scopemeter you might get confused, especially if your eyesight is even worse than your memory...
No matter, as I have shown, I have BOTH a 199C and a 123 at my fingertips, and as soon as she gets her story straight I can use whatever she used in my replication attempt.)


Oh, and another question: with so many people building her circuit, with her right there giving instructions, and the circuit is supposed to be making COP>17, and the all the sophisticated measurements being made, many of which according to her are showing OU...

Why hasn't anyone reported burning their fingers!!??!!???
Title: Re: Claimed OU circuit of Rosemary Ainslie
Post by: ramset on July 12, 2009, 09:01:09 PM
Aaron said
For the record, TK is knowingly posting false information.

In the video description, "And finally, the thread where Ainslie is currently posting, from which most of my relevant posts have been removed by "moderation":"

Take note that nothing has been removed.
__________________
With Gratitude, Aaron

Aaron again    commenting    
:
Originally Posted by witsend View Post
Hoppy - to yet again involve you, if you don't mind. Here's the thing. Regardless of the level of efficiency I do see a recharge value in that returning energy from the collapsing fields. Does this fall in line with classical thinking?

In other words, is it acknowledged that a battery supply source can be recharged from energy supplied by the circuit? This sort of goes to the heart of the thesis? Academics have only commented that the measurement of the energy is correct. But if so, then their own measurements protocol allows for this benefit. And logic therefore points to a gain over the energy dissipated? I'd be very glad to have a discussion on this point. If not Hoppy someone? Allcanadian, Aaron? anyone?
Rosemary, there is an extreme psychological collective block on all of these concepts.

"I do see a recharge value in that returning energy from the collapsing fields. Does this fall in line with classical thinking?" - This concept is self-evident in many natural events I believe.

"is it acknowledged that a battery supply source can be recharged from energy supplied by the circuit?" - I'm not sure if it is acknowledged in any honest way, but it IS being applied in many instances. One example is Solar powered yard lights that have small rechargeable batteries are ALL charged very efficiently by the inductive spike coming off of a coil AFTER the transistor is turned off. It is the only way they can get those batteries to charge like they do instead of putting the solar cell straight to the battery. Solar cell charges primary then power turns off and the collapsing spike charges the battery. Again, the battery is charged AFTER input power is disconnected from the circuit.

Another example is every photoflash unit in cameras. Those caps are charged many times above the voltage of the battery powering it. The caps are all charge with the inductive spikes coming back AFTER input power is disconnected from the circuit.

These aren't the "source" battery but they do demonstrate utilizing energy AFTER source energy is taken away.
__________________
With Gratitude, Aaron



witsend
Thanks very much for answering the question Aaron. So then it's significant. In other words - if this can be generally proved that a battery can, in fact, recharge itself, then that will represent some unequivocal proof of over unity?

I say this because this is definitely measurable on our circuit. It's so quick. No fancy measuring instruments required. Surely then, all that is needed is to have everyone replicate the circuit to prove this. Thereafter we can play with that resonating frequency? That extreme overunity effect is not difficult - but for some reason is not happening. I'm sure that Donovan can help in this regard.

I'm trying to assist in the problem that Dr Stiffler pointed to where the thread will go on into infinity without standard parameters. Just a thought.EDIT in other words let's knock the OU claim on the head and then we can move on? Classicists won't argue the measurement of this. The real boffins gave me the required parameters to measure it. And other experts - the accreditors - could not argue this point.

Title: Re: Claimed OU circuit of Rosemary Ainslie
Post by: TinselKoala on July 12, 2009, 09:12:05 PM
Aaron said
For the record, TK is knowingly posting false information.

In the video description, "And finally, the thread where Ainslie is currently posting, from which most of my relevant posts have been removed by "moderation":"

Take note that nothing has been removed.
__________________
With Gratitude, Aaron

        
:
Originally Posted by witsend View Post
Hoppy - to yet again involve you, if you don't mind. Here's the thing. Regardless of the level of efficiency I do see a recharge value in that returning energy from the collapsing fields. Does this fall in line with classical thinking?

In other words, is it acknowledged that a battery supply source can be recharged from energy supplied by the circuit? This sort of goes to the heart of the thesis? Academics have only commented that the measurement of the energy is correct. But if so, then their own measurements protocol allows for this benefit. And logic therefore points to a gain over the energy dissipated? I'd be very glad to have a discussion on this point. If not Hoppy someone? Allcanadian, Aaron? anyone?
Rosemary, there is an extreme psychological collective block on all of these concepts.

"I do see a recharge value in that returning energy from the collapsing fields. Does this fall in line with classical thinking?" - This concept is self-evident in many natural events I believe.

"is it acknowledged that a battery supply source can be recharged from energy supplied by the circuit?" - I'm not sure if it is acknowledged in any honest way, but it IS being applied in many instances. One example is Solar powered yard lights that have small rechargeable batteries are ALL charged very efficiently by the inductive spike coming off of a coil AFTER the transistor is turned off. It is the only way they can get those batteries to charge like they do instead of putting the solar cell straight to the battery. Solar cell charges primary then power turns off and the collapsing spike charges the battery. Again, the battery is charged AFTER input power is disconnected from the circuit.

Another example is every photoflash unit in cameras. Those caps are charged many times above the voltage of the battery powering it. The caps are all charge with the inductive spikes coming back AFTER input power is disconnected from the circuit.

These aren't the "source" battery but they do demonstrate utilizing energy AFTER source energy is taken away.
__________________
With Gratitude, Aaron



witsend
Thanks very much for answering the question Aaron. So then it's significant. In other words - if this can be generally proved that a battery can, in fact, recharge itself, then that will represent some unequivocal proof of over unity?

I say this because this is definitely measurable on our circuit. It's so quick. No fancy measuring instruments required. Surely then, all that is needed is to have everyone replicate the circuit to prove this. Thereafter we can play with that resonating frequency? That extreme overunity effect is not difficult - but for some reason is not happening. I'm sure that Donovan can help in this regard.

I'm trying to assist in the problem that Dr Stiffler pointed to where the thread will go on into infinity without standard parameters. Just a thought.EDIT in other words let's knock the OU claim on the head and then we can move on? Classicists won't argue the measurement of this. The real boffins gave me the required parameters to measure it. And other experts - the accreditors - could not argue this point.

Then where's my post with the photograph? Why didn't Ainslie see it?

It is Aaron  who is lying--or mistaken. The photo was posted between posts 455 and 470--in which post Aaron chides me for posting again after he "asked" me not to. But where's that post? It is gone, and I sure as flmp did not remove it.
Title: Re: Claimed OU circuit of Rosemary Ainslie
Post by: TinselKoala on July 12, 2009, 09:17:03 PM
AARON, for the record, your slur is actionable, because there have indeed been relevant posts of mine removed from your thread. You will either retract your slur or I will pursue it, to the ends of the earth.

And if we want to talk about "knowingly posting false information"...there is that whole Ainslie thread of yours. Most of the "information" in there is false, Rosemary knows it, and many other people do too.

The Quantum article is a good example. Clearly false information that has not been retracted in the SEVEN years since its publication.

AARON's post # 479:
"Anyone that wants the publicly available gripe sessions in this thread, please copy them now within 12-24 hours from this post. I have decided to delete a certain amount of them so that we do not a lot of irrelevant information that will not help replication attempts."

He (or somebody) just started early with mine, I guess. And I can't seem to find some of Henieck's posts either.
Title: Re: Claimed OU circuit of Rosemary Ainslie
Post by: Cloxxki on July 12, 2009, 09:19:13 PM
Just checking... is the http://www.energeticforum.com/ site also unreachable for you guys? It has been for some time. I got a misunderstanding email from one member there, and soon after I could not even see the site anymore. Probably coincidence. Thanks!
Title: Re: Claimed OU circuit of Rosemary Ainslie
Post by: TinselKoala on July 12, 2009, 09:22:01 PM
Just checking... is the http://www.energeticforum.com/ site also unreachable for you guys? It has been for some time. I got a misunderstanding email from one member there, and soon after I could not even see the site anymore. Probably coincidence. Thanks!

Oddly enough, I can still see it. They sometimes will block people from even reading the site, by IP number, I have been told. Try a proxy server or a hardware firewall with NAT translation. If you use a different IP number you might be able to see it. Let us know if this is actually their policy.

I have not used any such subterfuge; I'm just on a Rogers system, behind the usual router. Perhaps they've forgotten to block my read access (although I cannot even PM anyone or post there at all).
Title: Rosemary's circuit doesn't generate any free energy
Post by: henieck on July 12, 2009, 09:29:33 PM
There, that should feed the trolls for a while.

;D  ;D  ;D

That is why I think people like that are reasonable - except sense of humor, strong philosophical fundaments (Korzybski -but this is just a model ;), valid method of cognition (senses + logic), extended knowledge base and some faith in something what worked so far but in the same time open mindedly searching if there is possibly anything else, and constantly evaluating one’s position.

Conversely, Rosemary is incapable of going to meta-position and seeing herself from a healthy perspective. She thinks that her model is the reality itself (interesting model ;) and has very limited knowledge in the field she is trying to operate in. But her bad science and mysticism, especially mixed with this tricky circuit, is like a mind virus. Well, you can’t get rid of an informational virus if your system is already attacked. One has to go one operational level higher – and that is what this African, poorly educated, yet somewhat intelligent woman is entirely incapable of doing. Fascinating case to me.

Interestingly, nobody from this forum and other one, answered that there is some free E device many people were successfully replicating. So I assume, that the situation is not much different from that from few years back - everybody are searching, every second guy is trying to spin Bedini’s wheel, some claims to have something but nobody can replicate that - others make a fuss but do not disclose any details of the device, and someone is always somewhere going already into the “mass production phase”...
Title: Re: Claimed OU circuit of Rosemary Ainslie
Post by: Cloxxki on July 12, 2009, 09:30:26 PM
Thanks TK. I'll presume a technical mishap at my end and try to remember attempting from work tomorrow.
The uptight and inconsistent posting style there does make me wonder though. I probably p'd off someone while only meaning good. Certainly the case with the member I corresponded with by email.

With plenty of due respect... Your personal attitude may also not work very well over there, but IMO they could have done better dealing with you and your wise-behind questions. Because they do warrent serious answers.
In this RA discussion, for me it's nearing the point where I think your efforts are now better used coming up (or replicating) something newer than to try and get this inventor admit oversight or incomplete documentation. Your talents and resources may bring the OU world more elsewhere. Which doesn't mean I'd love to fast forward and learn the ins and outs.
Title: Re: Claimed OU circuit of Rosemary Ainslie
Post by: Cloxxki on July 12, 2009, 09:42:53 PM
If I did get banned there, then probably for my general commentary with regards to publishing OU inventors, for failing to get their devices out there. Rosemary's for instance, once working in a lab, can be copied quite easily, boxed, and sent off. Couple hundreds dollars worth of material, and receiving parties would only hook up their own measuring equipment. OU, after all, should be determined on the most and least reliable measuring equipment alike. An AA battery bringing a 1 litre (or 10) bowl of water from ambient temperature to bowling, that's something unmistakeble.
Recharging batteries, run times, voltage spikes, duty cycles, it's all nonsence until you get a small input to do great work. Who boils most water, from a standardized externally provided battery and water bowl?

The OU community needs stricter "rules", to avoid wasting time on Mylows and more sincere inventors on the wrong track (like recently Tommey Reed's with this BEMF circuits).
We are doing this together, so once you think you have something, replicate YOURSELF and ask an expert you respect.

[/off topic]
Title: Re: Claimed OU circuit of Rosemary Ainslie
Post by: TinselKoala on July 12, 2009, 09:50:55 PM
Thanks TK. I'll presume a technical mishap at my end and try to remember attempting from work tomorrow.
The uptight and inconsistent posting style there does make me wonder though. I probably p'd off someone while only meaning good. Certainly the case with the member I corresponded with by email.

With plenty of due respect... Your personal attitude may also not work very well over there, but IMO they could have done better dealing with you and your wise-behind questions. Because they do warrent serious answers.
In this RA discussion, for me it's nearing the point where I think your efforts are now better used coming up (or replicating) something newer than to try and get this inventor admit oversight or incomplete documentation. Your talents and resources may bring the OU world more elsewhere. Which doesn't mean I'd love to fast forward and learn the ins and outs.

I agree mostly. I just went back and looked at the early pages of this thread. I see that I was very mild and calm, honestly trying to replicate the circuit and performance--I even put "exact" in quotes and joked about my component substitutions--which by the way are no longer substituted--. And it wasn't until the end of Page 4 or so that I discovered the duty cycle problem, and when I tried to see if I had made an error by asking the people at the energetic forum, I got dissed really badly and insulted as to my capabilities and work. Coming from someone with Ainslie's admitted qualifications, I took that as an extreme insult, in addition to being a travesty of "science" and the entire open-source concept. So yes, I am personally engaged by this one, even more than with Mylow--at least he admitted on a comment to my video that I had caught him fair and square.

Then when I realized that she wants people to believe that she has actual patents, when she really only has applications filed, I began to understand a bit more about Ainslie herself. This really is a situation with parallels to Mylow. Ainslie is telling a story that has internal inconsistencies that are so glaring it is impossible to believe that she does not see them as well. The two different reports of the same experiment, for example--different circuits, different claims, different emphasis...but the same data. The distortions about what the vetting labs and consultants found and reported. The random chaotic oscillations. The energy balance calculations.
All of it seems to add up to me to a little more than a simple mistake or two.

The patent issue is an example. She has NO patents issued, only applications filed. Anybody can file an application for a patent about anything at all. It means exactly zip, except to establish a date, and that can be done by mailing yourself a letter. Yet, on the NakedScientist thread, she engages a fully experienced EE with several actual awarded patents, who clearly is under the impression that when Ainslie refers to her "Patent" she is talking about something that has been vetted and granted.

You are right, I am trying to just walk away. And I could, if I didn't feel so personally insulted. Those people flamed me for being wrong, without trying it themselves...and now that many have tried it and find out that I was RIGHT all along, do I get un-flamed? Do I get even a hint of an apology? No--I get accused of Knowingly Posting Incorrect Information or some shit, when that itself isn't even true, as I have hopefully shown.

So I will continue testing this circuit and the experimental protocol in general, and I will continue to post my findings and rants, somewhere or another, until Rosemary retracts the Quantum article or otherwise addresses the "error", and until I can definitively fail to show excess energy in her paradigm, regardless of the "exactness" of my replication (or the damned logic of failure to reproduce results.) It's personal. I don't need a personal apology, I already know I don't want to be Rosemary's friend. I just want her misrepresentations of reality, in publication form, to be corrected or to stop.
Title: Re: Claimed OU circuit of Rosemary Ainslie
Post by: ramset on July 12, 2009, 10:03:11 PM
 RAMSET 
just one question
Rosemary,
would you know the make and model of the function generator used, if one was used, to drive the circuit for your experiment.
I need to know its adjustment capability and characteristics: Peak output voltage into 50 ohms; pulse width range; DC offset capability; sweep functionality or not; and so forth.
If you could provide the Info that would be great
Chet

witsend
Ramset - your question as to what functions generator I used? May I ask why you are asking this? I've never used one other than for testing purposes in sundry engineering labs. I've always used a 555
Title: Re: Claimed OU circuit of Rosemary Ainslie
Post by: TinselKoala on July 12, 2009, 10:03:31 PM
@henieck:
Actually I do know of a single device that works. It's called the Farnsworth Fusor, and it does indeed produce fusion on the tabletop. Emits neutrons and everything.
Unfortunately its COP is like 1.000000000000000000000000001 or something, and it does not appear to be scalable.

http://www.earthtech.org/experiments/fusor/bigsys3.html

(Look at other pages on that site, if you aren't familiar with it already.)
Title: Re: Claimed OU circuit of Rosemary Ainslie
Post by: the_big_m_in_ok on July 12, 2009, 10:03:58 PM
Cloxxki said:
Quote
Just checking... is the http://www.energeticforum.com/ site also unreachable for you guys? It has been for some time.
This is EnergeticForum's home page.  Works for me, and I have a 'Net Nannie' filtering block on this borrowed computer.
I also have a copy of a Mandriva freeware 'Net browser with Mozilla Firefox bundled with it to get around that.  Maybe you have a software compatibility issue?  Hard to say.

--Lee
Title: Re: Claimed OU circuit of Rosemary Ainslie
Post by: TinselKoala on July 12, 2009, 10:06:10 PM
RAMSET 
just one question
Rosemary,
would you know the make and model of the function generator used, if one was used, to drive the circuit for your experiment.
I need to know its adjustment capability and characteristics: Peak output voltage into 50 ohms; pulse width range; DC offset capability; sweep functionality or not; and so forth.
If you could provide the Info that would be great
Chet

witsend
Ramset - your question as to what functions generator I used? May I ask why you are asking this? I've never used one other than for testing purposes in sundry engineering labs. I've always used a 555

BINGO.

Thanks Chet, I appreciate it. That should put some nails in the coffin. I really hope the readers over there can connect the dots.
Title: no free energy there
Post by: henieck on July 12, 2009, 10:09:47 PM
Oddly enough, I can still see it. They sometimes will block people from even reading the site, by IP number, I have been told.

I have tried different ethernet card, IP, and removed the cookie - can't even see if they removed my posts - and now I don't even try anymore – there are only blind believers in theirs messiah (Rosemary) left there anyway. If they are serious about replication and measurements - it is just a question of time when poor woman will have many negative results reported. Then there will be interesting to watch her reaction. But if the guys will get lost in paying attention to the fact that one resistor is warmer than the other, instead of concentrating on the input/output energy values – than the Rosemary’s virus may spread and stay here for longer.

I have pissed off Lindemann openly making jokes about his excitement about every piece of shit which has “free energy” in the title and was a bit harsh for blunt Rosemary who couldn’t answer the key questions - so perhaps they started messing up in the system to block me like Peter warned.
Title: Re: Claimed OU circuit of Rosemary Ainslie
Post by: Cloxxki on July 12, 2009, 10:20:34 PM
Thanks for the elaboration TK. I was seeing it in a most similar WAY.

As an outsider though (I only started to read - and spam - this OU scene recently) I do notice that your prior reputation and attutude slip later in the discussion, is working against you in your efforts. And, in the way I've gotten to know the human mind, proving you wrong is now more important to Rosemary's admirers, more than someone actually accomplishing signifant over unity, in any field. This is all most counter productive.

What amazes me when reading into OU fields and prior research, is how the foremost scientists, who has done actual significant non-OU work, treat their OU work much like a religion. No doubts, just references to existing devices, not unlike citing a bible verse or merely its number.
"OU is established and true, and this new device I'm proposing here is merely different or better."
Globally respected highly educated scientist are backing up OU inventors, endorsing their work, yet we all still have a utility bill every month. We all still get to go to the gas station, buy Alcaline batteries for our camera's, etc.
Windmills and solar panels are looking better and better. Who doesn't have a roof?

I see many very promising technologies, to improve efficiency, reduce toxis exhaust gasses, etc. Yet, very little happens, and the limiting factors, as always, is again the human mind. Too little co-operation. Panacea seems to be doing the best job in trying to overcome human's inability to get technology fully developed, and out there.

TK, with your experience of all things that DON't work, I'd be interested to hear from you where you think we should be looking for things that MIGHT work. Mechanical, electrical, biological.

But whether anything is going to beat a solar panel or windmill for kWh/kg...
Title: Re: no free energy there
Post by: Paul-R on July 12, 2009, 11:19:27 PM
I have pissed off Lindemann openly making jokes about his excitement about every piece of shit which has “free energy” in the title...
They don't need you.

And if Stefan does not do something about the troublemakers here, then he will end up owning a big box with nothing in it.
Title: Re: no free energy there
Post by: fuzzytomcat on July 12, 2009, 11:33:52 PM
I have tried different ethernet card, IP, and removed the cookie - can't even see if they removed my posts - and now I don't even try anymore – there are only blind believers in theirs messiah (Rosemary) left there anyway. If they are serious about replication and measurements - it is just a question of time when poor woman will have many negative results reported. Then there will be interesting to watch her reaction. But if the guys will get lost in paying attention to the fact that one resistor is warmer than the other, instead of concentrating on the input/output energy values – than the Rosemary’s virus may spread and stay here for longer.

I have pissed off Lindemann openly making jokes about his excitement about every piece of shit which has “free energy” in the title and was a bit harsh for blunt Rosemary who couldn’t answer the key questions - so perhaps they started messing up in the system to block me like Peter warned.

Hi henieck,

Thought I'd stop by with "three" friends from Energetic Forum, and I read that your having problems with accessing the Forum ...... TK is exactly correct about the options of banning someone and one is by IP address, sorry dude. The only way around this is if you have a broadband connection is to unplug it for 8 - 12 hours or use the reset button on the back of the modem to gain a new IP address from your ISP provider through automated means, the other is to use a proxy server. This I know being a moderator on several Forums (not energetic forum) and being able to use SMF and vBulletin software.

As your familiar with the RA circuit and have a good knowledge of electronics I think you wold agree that if the circuit works great ...  if it doesn't the first person that figures out whats wrong and corrects the problem using the old "copyright" notice will have some exclusive rights, so maybe it's off to the races so to speak? I find the circuit interesting, possibly unique and RA is the one that came up with what is being discussed no one else but her co-author "years" ago, and no one can take that away .....

Oh ya ..... many times semi conductor manufactures years ago and even today like many other company's sell mis-marked or out of tolerance items to 3rd world countries, so as not to lose money on products.

Fuzzy
 :)



Title: no free energy here
Post by: henieck on July 13, 2009, 12:15:35 AM

witsend says:
Ramset - your question as to what functions generator I used? May I ask why you are asking this? I've never used one other than for testing purposes in sundry engineering labs. I've always used a 555

- guys, Rosemary said in few places if you add everything she says together – that her “revelation” will work with many different transistors, very wide range of frequency, rather low duty cycle and (implicitly) almost any resistive coil (I would add that it can be any coil – even one winding of a transformer+ resistor). You don’t have to copy her circuit literally and search for special resonance and you  don’t have to hang up on the specific components form that article – please ask her about it if you don’t believe. She even wonders “how is it possible that anybody can not see it”. Reading her words it seems like what she is talking about is almost “everywhere”. I have an impression that she doesn’t understand why exactly all of you are trying to use IRFPG50 (or something) transistor or asking about some strange to her technicalities about the timer or something or wire. It doesn’t matter so much. Just take any transistor within the range of the specification, any spiral of wire  and start pulsing this idiotic circuit. You will see, that when you connect the flyback diode – the current measured from the battery to the coil will increase. In fact it will increase in response to any other load - its own battery is just the special case which makes things hard too see at first. Now sweep a little the duty cycle (or freq) so after when you connect the diode to the battery again – the gain will be the biggest (can be almost double – “but always little less than that” – her own words.) This is it, leave the diode permanently connected now. There you have it. According to her this current which is now flowing from the battery to the coil is the magical free energy flyback (which can both charge the battery and give heat at the same time)  ;D while it is just increased intake to compensate the flyback’s load (battery charging). There is deceiving LOOP, which she cannot properly understand, she makes serious logical errors about its nature and based on that makes entirely wrong calculations. It is like swapping multiple times a small amount of  money between bank accounts (loop) and later seeing the volume of trade (amperage) thinking that she is a millionaire(free energy). This is all that is to it. It is painfully pitiful. You are searching for the magical frequency or transistor in the clouds – while it is a piece of shit on the pavement… Look there!  ;D
Below I just paste my results which are exactly the same as those on the other forum already – so it +-complete set in one place of one replication attempt.

*****

 I  have been busy on an uninterrupted basis for two days with this project. The core I have made from an ordinary brick using diamond blade cutter and drill machine. It is 200mm long, has 35mm diameter, weights 300g and has 10mm diameter hole for temperature probe. On this I wound 111turns of unknown resistive wire I have already had somewhere. The coil of wire is 138mm long. Using coil calculator http://www.captain.at/electronics/coils/ I determined its inductance – 96.62 microH. Its resistance is determined by measurements and calculations form Ohm law and checked by multimeter – so it is 4,64Ohms. I have 12V motorbike flooded battery of unknown capacity. Because of that I made 10 hours controlled discharge using known resistance to determine its characteristics. Every 15 minutes I measured voltage (under load) and in that way determined how many Joules it can deliver from full charge correspondingly to any lower voltage, correspondingly to any degree of discharge (within reasonable range of course, I didn’t discharge it lower than 10,5V). From full charge to 10.5V (under average 0.3A load) it delivered 3Ah – so I don’t know- perhaps it is rated 5Ah or something…
I used 2SK1120 transistor http://www.datasheetcatalog.org/datasheet/toshiba/2998.pdf and BY448V diode for the flyback http://www.datasheetcatalog.org/datasheet/vishay/86006.pdf As a signal source I used home made signal generator based on timer chip NE555 made in such a way that I had possibility to change duty cycle as well (influencing at the same the f, but it is sufficient). For measurements I used only most typical mulimeters (analog display type for Amperes). I didn’t use shunt resistor, because I think there is already calibrated one inside the multimeter, so all the current went through ammeter. Voltage meter was all the time hooked directly to the battery terminals.

First of all I played a little bit to get acquainted with the mysterious circuit. By varying adjustable resistor I found that the flyback gains the most when I have minimal setting on the variable resistor, so only the value of protective resistor 510Ohms which I had in place from different application was left between timer and transistor. In this setup I have noticed that when the flyback diode is connected back to battery – than amperage almost doubles comparing to the situation with the diode disconnected. This flyback gain, like Rosemary said, was present in very wide spectrum of frequency and duty cycle except higher frequencies, and was always less then the input value. To investigate further the nature of this flyback I collected its charge to capacitor 47000microF. It took 25s to reach over25Volts on that capacitor– and using the calculator http://www.electronics2000.co.uk/calc/capacitor-charge-calculator.php  I have determined quantity of the collected energy. Unfortunately the result of this simple calculations is that catching the energy to capacitor makes input amperes (translated further to Joules) go exactly directly proportionally higher. At ca. 13V the amount of current flow increased by approximately 50mA during this exercise. That means that by using the flyback diode we recycle the same energy :( Clearly, unlike proposes Rosemary -  my coil “knows” that somebody switched off the current and is trying to collect the impulse from collapsing magnetic field – and automatically, proportionally increases its energy input to “compensate” this so to speak. No free energy here… Perhaps other transistor or other “freaquency” will do… ;) Btw, I don’t know exact frequency yet – I have to move my circuit and hook up to computer to see what was my final choice in terms of kHz, but probably I ended up somewhere between 2-3kHz, and 5-10% duty. I don’t know yet…

But I was determined to check if maybe there was something in interaction with the battery like Bedini maintains, or that by other mysterious phenomenon it would result in much less discharging of the battery. So I fully charged the battery again, and logging everything started to pulsate the coil with disconnected flyback diode from the positive terminal of the battery. The test duration was 3h. Using on average 3.51W it rose the temperature of my resistive coil by max 9.4 degrees C while the temperature of transistor’s heat sink rose more distinctively to touch although being aware of it’s drainage of energy I didn’t measure that at this stage. Similarly to the way I determined the characteristics of my battery – I collected all the records and made charts (temperature to time, voltage drop to time, energy cumulatively delivered to time. That was my baseline very nicely comparable to the previously obtained characteristics, and I was ready to connect the magical flyback diode now…(!)

Again fully recharged the battery (every step takes hours, but at least recharging goes by itself). I have noticed that my long time unused battery every successive charge was gaining somewhat higher initial voltage – but all that was without any flyback diode whatsoever, only thanks to intensive charging of that long time unused battery (only refreshing charge once every few months). Anyway, having all the collected reference points in the form of previous measurements of performance I started the great final experiment with the magical flyback diode…

There was slightly higher initial voltage (0.16V higher comparing to no flyback example), but the battery was very freshly recharged and I have started the experiment almost immediately. I was one step from proving to myself existence of free energy, so I was excited probably almost as much as Lindemann sitting in self perpetuating lavatory…

Yes, indeed since the temperature went higher than without the diode, but nothing like10-fold increase of input energy would do, or even 30% :( This time instead of 9.4 degrees – it was 11.4 – so quite some sudden percentage gain, beyond possibility of measurement error. (btw, I used home purpose electronic thermometer).
I thought perhaps there was a little gain and some tweaking would increase it, but very quickly I have noticed, that during this flyback operation – the transistor is completely cold. So that is the answer to the slightly higher temperature of the coil – the heat normally dissipated in transistor, thanks to higher voltage was “transferred” to the coil. To finally check this I was ready to put both transistor and the coil into small insulation box – so together it might achieve over 40 degrees or something – and this way measure the total energy dissipated as heat and get the ultimate confirmation of the second law of thermodynamics– but to me at this moment that would be additional waste of time. I saw the flyback in action, thanks to relatively good inductance to resistance ratio it was almost as big as the input (but less of course). It cannot be much bigger – because even Rosemary says it is always smaller than the input – so there is no room for magic – unless other components will enable some different kind of electricity come into existence. But again, I doubt it because Rosemary says that it “works” with many different transistors. This also explains why there is very little “gain” in Rosemary’s opinion in AC 50Hz applications – because the voltage drops very slowly, and this causes very little voltage spike comparing to abrupt disconnect of current in “our” circuit we were concentrating on…

Anyhow – no matter how you translate the energy: either high voltage and few amperes – or low voltage and many amps – the amount of energy in it is exactly the same. I saw something like transcript of Tesla’s interview and he explained the time-compression of electricity quite clearly. He compared it himself to a hammer. To swing a hammer you don’t need very high force (analogy to voltage) – but you do it using some distance (amperes). Now- when hammer hits something it decelerates on extremely short distance compared to what it took to make a swing. The harder the surface – the shorter way to stop – and by the laws of physics it generates enormous force, because the higher acceleration, the more it has to compensate by increased force. If deceleration was entirely sudden- that is in zero of time and distance – the force would be infinite... Think about this for a while… Literally infinite, it is no joke, every physics teacher will confirm this to you. Take a closer look at the F=ma formula. In reality there is always some plasticity of material and deceleration occurs at certain, greater than zero distance- tiny fractions of mm – and because of that generates unbelievable high, short surge of force (equivalent to voltage spike with almost no amperes- distance). So there is no magic amplification of energy in hammer action – exactly the same in and out – but force can be enormous, it term of pressure that most people would refuse to believe the numbers. The coil to my knowledge works exactly the same way. But there is something like information war in energy field – and judging form examples of legendary Howard Johnson, who was supposed to invent permanent magnet “perpetum mobile”, but who didn’t have any turning device in his workshop; form Rosemary’s example and probably others – I am getting more skeptical about this free energy thing. Does anybody know any other device which is a bit more promising than that one, worth of duplicating? Seriously, there is so much to dig through, that perhaps somebody could help with this – what happened to magnetic Vankel idea, water fuel cell, Bedini’s motors or other. Is any of that successful? Can anybody generate any “free” E? or everybody is generating free E but nobody mysteriously can close the loop :/ Is everybody in this field going to end up the same way – advising to use less electricity and drive 20HP automobiles, at best? Don’t you plane to accelerate at all? This is the same problem with understanding simple F=ma equation and its consequences (force equals mass time acceleration). Can work only if you lower the whole mass proportionally, or agree to accelerate many, times slower, not even talking about maximal speed or going uphill.

In the final conclusion - the circuit, thanks to the diode, circulates the same energy twice. Ammeter shows almost double value of what really is dissipated as heat. In the end of the multi hour exercise, the total sum of Joules which went through the meter is ridiculously high – nearly double of what is really available in the battery (determined in the previously conducted controlled discharge) – therefore it may give the false impression that battery is not discharging that quickly. (so many amps went through but the battery still keeps strong :). Moreover, during operation without the flyback diode the transistor gets hot. During operation with that diode connected back to the battery -  the transistor does not get that hot. That energy is being “moved” to, and finally turned into heat in the coil – what may give another faulty impression, that not only we have battery charging – but also the same extra energy which charges the battery, also somehow rises up the coil’s temperature :)

*
It has tried to trick me to believe that it used 56000J while it really used 34000J to heat up the resistive element which can be heated directly to the same degree without transistor switching losses using just 18000J :)
The main point is that thanks to the flyback diode there is a redundant, almost doubled flow of energy permanently present in this circuit. It is always less than double, because the coil is not capable of giving back more than it was delivered to make the magnetic field establish, and always loses some part of energy as heat in the process How much - depends on timing. With the additional, looped current you can interpret it differently. I say “it tried to trick me to believe it used 56000J” - because I measured total amount or current flowing. Depends where you place the meter you may come to the conclusion, that this additional current can be not added like I did but subtracted if you measure the reverse flow to the battery, and in this case you may come to equally false conclusion, that it used not 34+22=56 but 34-22=12. In this case I should have written, that “It has tried to trick me to believe that it used 12000J while it really used 34000J...” Doesn’t matter either way.

The point is that the flow goes to the battery terminal and returns to the coil – and if you measure “backward” ghost flow (but real!) to the battery it falsely represents itself as charging current. Then at the battery terminal you can think of it, that it turns to the coil again in the loop – and if you measure it in this direction like I did – it shows that almost double current is present. The point is that this ghost current doesn’t do any work, just circulates here, introduces confusion and shouldn’t be taken into account in power distribution, either way. It is like having the same constant multiplier on both sides of an equation – you can just forget about it as well, it doesn’t matter to the equation at all, and the whole story behind the equation will become clearer.

So to have the external, objective reference point I have made the discharge curve of my small battery. During the course or 10h I discharged it to 10,6V and calculated all the Joules along the way. This way, by referring to it the actual battery voltage (under the same load) I know how much energy the battery has already spent to this point. By this reference I know, that despite strange current present, in which I don’t know how much is really dissipated and how much of it is just going round and round – I can obtain how much from the battery was really extracted, even if there was any charging present. The battery makes all the real time measurements – it is just the matter to get them translated to real energy reading- that is why I made this controlled discharge first. After 180min of the circuit’s work, the battery’s voltage was 11,73V – what by reference to the freshly obtained battery’s characteristics curve means that there was ca 34000J missing from the battery’s full capacity. I have the exact measurements, this is just rounded… This is generally exactly the same value compared to the run without the diode connected at all. In this case after 180 min run the voltage was 11,71V and the Joules obtained form 15min intervals measurements and further interpolated were also very close. 37450 Joules corresponds to 11,71V in the reference curve – and value calculated during the course of the experiment shows, that it was used 38200J (as I mentioned I had slightly better voltage after every next battery charging, so it may account for this small difference). Meantime, measurements of flyback run shows that in this time frame 56800J were traveling from the battery terminal to the transistor. It is as simple and as idiotic as that… If you place the meter differently and just look in this one place loosing the big picture from the sight entirely - you will be enabled to subtract and have in your thoughts free energy for a while. Rosemary has had for many years, for example…

Finally, I have also had the temperature curve from both runs at my disposal. For the flyback operation it showed maximal temperature (reached after 90min) 33,4deg C, but for the next two hours it stabilized between 32,7 and 33,1 degC. So I have connected variable power supply and figured out after few hours of adjusting and stabilizing the temp output, that I only need 1,68W of ordinary DC power to obtain the same temperature at the same level. This gives us that at the same point of time there would be just 18150J needed to obtain the same curve. I am aware, that output from the battery is lowering with time and the power supply is not – but we could estimate this and perhaps change the final number to 18500 or 19000 to have perfect common denominator characteristics– which doesn’t change much…

Title: Re: no free energy there
Post by: henieck on July 13, 2009, 12:30:48 AM

The only way around this is if you have a broadband connection is to unplug it for 8 - 12 hours or use the reset button on the back of the modem to gain a new IP address from your ISP provider through automated means.


- I did that, waited just seconds, but didn't check if I really had new IP. I didn't know I had to wait hours for new one. Thanks.

Quote
Oh ya ..... many times semi conductor manufactures years ago and even today like many other company's sell mis-marked or out of tolerance items to 3rd world countries, so as not to lose money on products.

- I am from Poland, very probable may have many out of tolerance parts here as well.
Title: Re: Claimed OU circuit of Rosemary Ainslie
Post by: ramset on July 13, 2009, 12:55:29 AM
henieck
No beating around the bush from you [I like that]
Welcome to the forum,you come at a good time a lot of things going on.
My personal view on OU is very similar to TK
and perpetual motion?Its the norm in our world ,every thing, every where is Always in motion

Welcome
Chet
Title: Re: Claimed OU circuit of Rosemary Ainslie
Post by: allcanadian on July 13, 2009, 12:57:21 AM
@henieck

Quote
There you have it. According to her this current which is now flowing from the battery to the coil is the magical free energy flyback (which can both charge the battery and give heat at the same time)  ;D while it is just increased intake to compensate the flyback’s load (battery charging). There is deceiving LOOP, which she cannot properly understand, she makes serious logical errors about its nature and based on that makes entirely wrong calculations. It is like swapping multiple times a small amount of  money between bank accounts (loop) and later seeing the volume of trade (amperage) thinking that she is a millionaire(free energy). This is all that is to it. It is painfully pitiful. You are searching for the magical frequency or transistor in the clouds – while it is a piece of shit on the pavement… Look there!  ;D

Wow, you deduced all that from a circuit you can't seem to get working, I sense a Nobel in your future. At least you are doing the experiment, there is more here than meets the eye and if you want to understand it you will.
Regards
AC
Title: Re: Claimed OU circuit of Rosemary Ainslie
Post by: henieck on July 13, 2009, 01:16:48 AM
@henieck

Wow, you deduced all that from a circuit you can't seem to get working

- show me your results from your "working circuit" then. This is just my sick point of view, Rosemary is gonna show to all of you how to have COP 17 very soon.

She said at first that I got it all right but I had to interpret the results differently – or something like that. By placing the ammeter in different place or deciding to interpret differently I can subtract bogus loop current and show that the circuit used much less Joules than it is read from the battery capacity. That would be successful replica, I could get a hug form Rosemary and kiss in the forehead form Lindemann – but I simply refuse to tweak my logic in an attempt to satisfy anybody’s ego, including mine. I much higher value honesty to the reality.


Quote
Maybe you can get your simulator to figure out how I can light up a 40w bulb 20 feet away with only one wire and zero measurable current in that wire.

- look, I meant that "one resistor warmer than the other" phenomenon Rosemary was so excited about just lays within the most typical model range - of inductive collapse, 150V and several mA.
Title: Re: Claimed OU circuit of Rosemary Ainslie
Post by: henieck on July 13, 2009, 01:24:17 AM

how I can light up a 40w bulb 20 feet away with only one wire and zero measurable current in that wire.

- while you have thousands of Volts why are you so excited about very little Amps anyway? Better show me some energy GAIN there, for which all we came here for :)
Title: Tinsel Koala and Disinformation
Post by: qiman on July 13, 2009, 01:43:08 AM
TK is absolutely knowingly spreading disinformation not only about this circuit, about me and the forum.

In his youtube post, he said:

"
TinselKoala (1 hour ago) Show Hide
Marked as spam
Reply
There seem to be certain individuals who are having trouble figuring out the exact circuit used here. Hopefully those individuals will read the description to the upper right of this page, and follow some of the links to Ainslie's original documents, where the circuit I am using is described.
Or, Rosemary, maybe you can ask Aaron to undelete the post where I showed the photo and the circuit.
See, that's one of the problems with allowing censorship. You might miss something you need to know."
"

Tk, you can post your pics and schematics here. I have asked TK not to participate in the thread I started because he is disruptive, lacks respect and tactfulness and is incredibly arrogant. I don't know if his attitude is welcome here but it isn't welcome in my own forum. I always encourage different points of view if it is on target but when someone starts to argue the difference between a patent application and a patent, it is obvious what the persons intent is and it has nothing to do with sharing replication attempt data. It is to cause trouble.

I asked him not to post 3 times, once in a PM and twice in the thread. He continued to post, which is an obvious sign of his true colors and willful intent to have zero respect for anyone starting a thread or moderating a forum.

I deleted the two messages because I asked him not to post anymore to begin with and I said I WOULD delete any more posts that he makes.

So many people with nothing to offer but disrespect and lack of results always wants to claim CENSORSHIP because for people that don't know better, believes that it implies that there was something worthy to be censored - an egotistical way of elevating one's own worth through deception.

Again, it is common sense that he can post any pic, video, opinions elsewhere on the web and his deleted posts were because of blatantly disrespecting the wishes of the person that started the thread (me) and has ZERO do to with censorship. We have links back to this thread here in OU so don't flatter yourself on the censorship claim because it is bogus.

TK is ANONYMOUS and is not confident enough to use his real name or show his face while he hides behind a username and insults others. He claims others have met the same failure as his and again, failed to provide their names or their willingness to show the failures themselves.

Any childish prankster can hide behind the phone while calling someone up and insulting them.

Good luck to you all and your replication attempts and remember that TK's failure to produce results only is a failure for him and only applies to him and over time, more attempts will reveal the value of the circuit and not one individual's attempt coupled with arrogant disrespect.

There are members that are getting interesting and positive results with heating at very low duty cycles, which is something that TK has been unable to figure out how to do. Results are results and documentation beats conversation any day.
Title: Re: Claimed OU circuit of Rosemary Ainslie
Post by: henieck on July 13, 2009, 01:52:15 AM
Welcome to the forum,you come at a good time a lot of things going on.

- what would you recommend to take a closer look at first, well, second? What is “hot” now? There is so much going on that it is hard to get the big picture.

Quote
Welcome
Chet

- thank you very much. That was nice of you.
Title: Re: Claimed OU circuit of Rosemary Ainslie
Post by: ramset on July 13, 2009, 03:37:53 AM
post from Jolt

Hi
I did complete right now the Timer Circuit with the Parts from the Quantum article.
I had only a 5k Resistor instead of the 5,2k.

But the Timer does, what it says.


Its actually One Line, but i had to use a longer exposure time.
Clock is set there 2µS, Scale at 200µS Voltage 1V, Probe 1:1, Source 8,5V
Else i used all other Parts what are in the List.
I can adjust it as i need it.

So? i guess i save better my further Comments on that....

PS. Seems, some better bake a Cake as to make Circuits, and cry, when they dont work for her.
__________________
Title: Re: Tinsel Koala and Disinformation
Post by: TinselKoala on July 13, 2009, 03:50:30 AM
TK is absolutely knowingly spreading disinformation not only about this circuit, about me and the forum.

In his youtube post, he said:

"
TinselKoala (1 hour ago) Show Hide
Marked as spam
Reply
There seem to be certain individuals who are having trouble figuring out the exact circuit used here. Hopefully those individuals will read the description to the upper right of this page, and follow some of the links to Ainslie's original documents, where the circuit I am using is described.
Or, Rosemary, maybe you can ask Aaron to undelete the post where I showed the photo and the circuit.
See, that's one of the problems with allowing censorship. You might miss something you need to know."
"

Tk, you can post your pics and schematics here. I have asked TK not to participate in the thread I started because he is disruptive, lacks respect and tactfulness and is incredibly arrogant. I don't know if his attitude is welcome here but it isn't welcome in my own forum. I always encourage different points of view if it is on target but when someone starts to argue the difference between a patent application and a patent, it is obvious what the persons intent is and it has nothing to do with sharing replication attempt data. It is to cause trouble.

I asked him not to post 3 times, once in a PM and twice in the thread. He continued to post, which is an obvious sign of his true colors and willful intent to have zero respect for anyone starting a thread or moderating a forum.

I deleted the two messages because I asked him not to post anymore to begin with and I said I WOULD delete any more posts that he makes.

So many people with nothing to offer but disrespect and lack of results always wants to claim CENSORSHIP because for people that don't know better, believes that it implies that there was something worthy to be censored - an egotistical way of elevating one's own worth through deception.

Again, it is common sense that he can post any pic, video, opinions elsewhere on the web and his deleted posts were because of blatantly disrespecting the wishes of the person that started the thread (me) and has ZERO do to with censorship. We have links back to this thread here in OU so don't flatter yourself on the censorship claim because it is bogus.

TK is ANONYMOUS and is not confident enough to use his real name or show his face while he hides behind a username and insults others. He claims others have met the same failure as his and again, failed to provide their names or their willingness to show the failures themselves.

Any childish prankster can hide behind the phone while calling someone up and insulting them.

Good luck to you all and your replication attempts and remember that TK's failure to produce results only is a failure for him and only applies to him and over time, more attempts will reveal the value of the circuit and not one individual's attempt coupled with arrogant disrespect.

There are members that are getting interesting and positive results with heating at very low duty cycles, which is something that TK has been unable to figure out how to do. Results are results and documentation beats conversation any day.

Well, by now you have read at least 5, countem, 5 different "replicators" who have actually demonstrated heat in the load, as I have, and have explained why it happens and what the problem is with Ainslie's calculations.

So, if you accuse me of posting disinfo about you and or the circuit, Please Support Your Claims by pointing to ,or quoting, this 'disinformation" that I am posting.
Everything I post about this circuit and my experience with it is true. Much of what I have posted comes directly from Rosemary, or someone posting as witsend in her stead. I give references, links, and very clear video explanations of what I've done.
SO, where's the disinfo? Do you mean where I say "many of my relevant posts have been deleted by "moderation""? Is the beef over the use of "many" instead of "two"?? (EDIT: I suppose I have to concede this point. Only in some third world countries is "two" considered many. So I'll go and change my slanderous scandalous misinfo. When will you change yours? Rosemary's?)
Because it is undeniable that at least two relevant posts of mine were deleted, one of which was in answer to a direct question from Rosemary as to what circuit I am using.
Is it about the patent vs. patent application? Who's spreading disinfo here?
Do you think I should show my application for a driver's licence the next time I show ID, or is there actually a difference between an application and the thing applied for? It is apparent to me, from reading all the posts on various forums, that she wants people to think she has actual patents, when she doesn't.
Disinfo? No, speculation about what is true.
Now, there's the issue of the duty cycle. Do you not realize that some people are even having circuit boards manufactured with that circuit? Which as I have shown many times and others have shown as well, does NOT and CANNOT do what Rosemary says it does. Disinformation? Yes--but it's not coming from me.

I think it's wonderful that people may be trying to PROVE ME WRONG. If it's so easy, why hasn't anyone shown that the 555 circuit Rosemary keeps saying she used, does something different than what I say it does? Hmmm...?

There is nothing to replicate here. Rosemary does not even know herself what her patent contains--see the thread on NakedScientists, where she says she has never even read the "patent".
The duty cycle is wrong, the energy calculations are wrong, the two publications describing the same experiment with different circuits, one with and one without that pesky diode...wrong.

Yes, there is certainly a lot of disinformation and knowingly wrong material out there about this topic. But it isn't coming from me. I can PROVE or demonstrate all the assertions about the circuit that I have made.

Can you? Can Rosemary?

At least Mylow had something himself to demonstrate.

And as far as arrogant disrespect goes, read the early posts, and read how people responded to me when I politely reported the duty cycle issue...which should have set off a lot more real alarm bells than it did. In this case I didn't start it. But I will carry it through.

(EDIT to add: now we see Joit's scope shot showing what appears to be a long on duty cycle...time to bake a cake.)


Title: Re: Claimed OU circuit of Rosemary Ainslie
Post by: TinselKoala on July 13, 2009, 04:04:11 AM
Well, I can tell Joit won't be around over there very long.

And I see DrStiffler is trying to explain the very same thing Henieck has explained so well, here and there. He doesn't see the battery recharging, he knows the diode recirculates to the coil.

And in post 502 Aaron says:
"Take note that nothing has been removed." Which, even at the time he posted it, was and is a lie. In fact the post with the photo and another post were between 470 and 500 somewhere. And they are gone. And I obviously did not remove them. Since I can't even log on.
Title: Re: Claimed OU circuit of Rosemary Ainslie
Post by: TinselKoala on July 13, 2009, 04:50:42 AM
Inductance in a coil of wire, from physical dimensions:
http://hyperphysics.phy-astr.gsu.edu/hbase/electric/indsol.html

The light bulb that I used in #4 and #5 measures 0.109 milliHenry. ( !! )
The load used by Ainslie is stated to be 0.00864 milliHenry.

I am actually having trouble finding a resistive/inductive load that goes as low as hers. Tonight I tried a stock 0.0082 mH choke, it measured 9.6 ohms DC. But it was small, low power handling capability, wound with fine wire.
Why am I speaking of it in the past tense?
Do you really need to ask?? Damn, it's hard to get the smoke back into those little things.
 :P

I've been using several others that can handle the power, but their inductance is a bit high; I would like to get Ainslie's number more closely. Calculating the inductance using the applet above gives the right ballpark figure based on the stated physical dimensions. So I will obtain still more nichrome wire--ribbon this time--and wind Yet Another coil.

Using the low-power but fairly close otherwise inductor as the load, I found some very interesting differences in the waveform with and without the various recirculating diodes that I'm trying. If you like spikes, it looks to me like the slower 1n4007 is actually making sharper and cleaner spikes. It may be that the ultrafast diode is actually switching so much faster that the scope trace is just dimmer for that one. I'll have to look at this portion on a faster scope later in the week.
But the signal without the diode is really weird. Not random chaotic resonant, I still think that's a myth caused by faulty scope triggering. But weird anyway, like the spikes on a cartoon dinosaur's back. And even weirder is how the scope trace transforms when a diode is switched in. It smooths out that old dino's backbone all the way flat. Does it send those spikes to the battery? It tries to...but the battery fights back.

A problem that catches people who are pulse-charging lead acid batteries, is that HV pulses will raise the battery's indicated no-load voltage to anomalously high values, considering the state of charge of the battery.
Title: Re: Claimed OU circuit of Rosemary Ainslie
Post by: allcanadian on July 13, 2009, 06:04:50 AM
@TK
I watched your Electric OU 5: The Ainslie circuit as PWM Motor Controller--Effect of Recirculation Diode video. I think you have made a few very common mistakes in the video. One, your motor is a brushed dc motor which as Im sure you know shorts the inductive discharge through the commutator into the next winding each cycle, this cannot be considered as anything remotely close to a pure inductance. Two, you are simply pulsing a poor inductance at any old frequency with nothing resembling resonance, you know resonance. When an inductance is pulsed at resonance the input equals the output minus ohmic resistance or zero impedence. From your scope shots I will have to assume that either you do not know what you are doing or you do not know what resonance is. From your equipment I know you know better than this so I was wondering what it is exactly that you are trying to prove here?.
Regards
AC
Title: Re: Claimed OU circuit of Rosemary Ainslie
Post by: TinselKoala on July 13, 2009, 06:24:15 AM
@TK
I watched your Electric OU 5: The Ainslie circuit as PWM Motor Controller--Effect of Recirculation Diode video. I think you have made a few very common mistakes in the video. One, your motor is a brushed dc motor which as Im sure you know shorts the inductive discharge through the commutator into the next winding each cycle, this cannot be considered as anything remotely close to a pure inductance. Two, you are simply pulsing a poor inductance at any old frequency with nothing resembling resonance, you know resonance. When an inductance is pulsed at resonance the input equals the output minus ohmic resistance or zero impedence. From your scope shots I will have to assume that either you do not know what you are doing or you do not know what resonance is. From your equipment I know you know better than this so I was wondering what it is exactly that you are trying to prove here?. Your going to have to do a lot better than that, did I mention I have 30 years experience in electronics?
Regards
AC

Mistakes? What mistakes?

I am simply showing a phenomenon in that video. How could I make mistakes?
I show what the Ainslie circuit does when you hook a motor up to it with a light bulb in parallel.
You are drawing some conclusions. Where are the conclusions I am drawing from this video? How have I applied or implied what I show in this video, to the Ainslie problem?
I think you are flaming a straw man here. It might look spectacular, and give you a warm feeling, but still, it's a straw man.

I respect your experience. But what does that have to do with this demonstration of an interesting effect?

And from your remarks about resonance, I can tell you know resonance pretty well. Maybe it even visits your home once in a while.
So could you explain to me Rosemary's Random Chaotic Resonance, and tell me how to obtain it in this circuit? Not the one with the motor, I am talking about the circuit with the 0.00864 milliHenry inductance that she used. What is the expected resonant frequency of this circuit?

Thanks in advance.

(Oh, and if you are concerned about mistakes in circuits and claims made in error about them...well, there are some doozies for you to look at, you know where...I'd be curious to know how Rosemary will respond to you when you tell her, along with all those others, that her circuit making the duty cycle is WRONG and so is her explanation and understanding of it.)

(Edited a thypo.)
Title: Re: Claimed OU circuit of Rosemary Ainslie
Post by: allcanadian on July 13, 2009, 06:54:51 AM
@TK
When I read the comments below the video I thought it was pretty much implied that this is what the rosemary circuit was doing. Maybe Im losing it, LOL, I have been a bit cranky lately and stressed. I think maybe I need to stop posting for a few months again, keep at it Im sure you will get it.
Best Regards
AC
Title: Re: Claimed OU circuit of Rosemary Ainslie
Post by: TinselKoala on July 13, 2009, 07:34:25 AM
@TK
When I read the comments below the video I thought it was pretty much implied that this is what the rosemary circuit was doing. Maybe Im losing it, LOL, I have been a bit cranky lately and stressed. I think maybe I need to stop posting for a few months again, keep at it Im sure you will get it.
Best Regards
AC

Heh, believe me, I know what you mean.
No, I was just fiddling and I thot that since the circuit is a highpower pulse width modulator, it might work pretty well on that little DustBuster motor. I had already scoped the inductive ringdown and looked at the difference the different diodes make there, but with my slow scopes one could see it but it wasn't very photogenic. Of course that was with the low inductance Ainslie load, or the surprisingly high inductance (relatively) light bulb. The difference with those looked small on the scope. So I was kind of surprised that it made such a difference with the motor. And you've got to admit, seeing the 2 elements in parallel behave oppositely in response to the change is kind of counter intuitive.

I hope you enjoy your break. I need one too. But the only thing I really want to get from this, besides the experience fooling with the gadgets, is to get a retraction of evident errors in the published information.

But I don't think I'll get it. Here's my sealed prediction (to be opened in three years):
XXXXXXXXXXXXXX
xXXXXXXxXXXXXXx
XXXXXXXXXXXXXX

later--
TK
Title: Re: Claimed OU circuit of Rosemary Ainslie
Post by: Cloxxki on July 13, 2009, 11:08:27 AM
From my work I can reach EF just fine now. It also automatically logs me in. Maybe my internet provider (more evil than most) just doesn't like free energy research, and failed to spot ON.com just yet :-)
Title: Re: Claimed OU circuit of Rosemary Ainslie
Post by: Cloxxki on July 13, 2009, 11:09:37 AM
[Rosemary]

Joit - is your waveform proving TinselKoala's point? Is that 555 switch wrongly presented? To me it looks like it is. In which case, I must apologise to all concerned. Clearly the Quantum article was wrong.

So, to all concerned - to everyone who built the circuit as presented in that article, and if, indeed, it is wrong, my abject apologies. I had a shrewd idea it may have been wrong because, thinking back, a university professor kindly edited the quantum paper prior to presenting it to the IET. And his first recommendation was that we ommitted a detailed circuit of the 555 switch as being irrelevant to the claim. Which is why I was reluctant to endorse the Quantum article as being a correct presentation. I just wish, in retrospect, that he had pointed out the error. In any event, it seems that I have been entirely at fault. My own objection to it was due to the lack of the feedback diode - which was the entire subject of the exercise. I knew it was in the apparatus. It certainly was not in diagram.

I would point out though, that my reluctance to point this out is due to the fact that the person who presented that diagram was a good friend and he, like all of us, was 'giving' his time. I was not keen therefore to expose the problem before I could ascertain the facts. So, if you're reading this, don't even worry. It's not a train smash. In any event, the blame was not his. I should, at least, have had the circuit vetted - considering my own inability to read such.

So. Many apologies, even to TinselKoala and anyone in the entire world who duplicated that circuit. It is wrongly presented. I am sincerely sorry that I have wasted so much of your time. And Joit - you've put the question to bed. I would be very glad to refund you for your time and trouble - if required - and if I can get the money to you with our exchange control. Just send me an account on the PM system. You've done a very good thing here.

What I do assure you all is this. The switch may have been wrongly drawn. Our own duty cycle application is NOT. I have the experimental apparatus available and it has been checked by EE's even at universities. We have also, over the years, built many different 555 switches and by different people. And there are replicated experiments by others using nothing but a functions generator. And all this prior to publication. More to the point is that the battery duration is consistent with measurements based on the duty cycle. But, in point of fact, after publication I never experimented again for a period of 7 years and I certainly never even looked at the article again. The only reason I could scan a copy for the blog when I eventually did this, was because my children kept a copy of the original publication. I was just so dejected at the entire lack of interest it seemed to generate. I had no idea that the test would really ever be duplicated.

Therefore, please take this admission as a sincere apology to all those who have tried to build the switch according to the quantum article. I see that the Quantum article was the primary reference point as the IET paper was only posted to the blog after July. It seems that Ramset and TinselKoala started their thread on OU.COM in mid June. Unfortunate. But there you are. Sorry guys - It's all I can say.
Title: Re: Claimed OU circuit of Rosemary Ainslie
Post by: gyulasun on July 13, 2009, 11:54:57 AM
From my work I can reach EF just fine now. It also automatically logs me in. Maybe my internet provider (more evil than most) just doesn't like free energy research, and failed to spot ON.com just yet :-)

Hi,

I have been unable to access the energeticforum.com since last Saturday afternoon.  First I turned to my internet provider but I still wait for their answer (it was the weekend they have not done anything). 

This morning I have found I cannot access energetic forum from my office either (different internet provider in another location within the city).
From both my home and office I have accessed the forum without any problems for about 2 years now.  And I did not write any word yet in the Rosemary thread... lol

Though I cannot rule out a technical problem en route from my location towards the energetic forum server location, I wrote a polite letter to Aaron, what he thinks on this.

rgds,  Gyula
Title: x
Post by: henieck on July 13, 2009, 12:02:38 PM
[Rosemary]
So, to all concerned - to everyone who built the circuit as presented in that article, and if, indeed, it is wrong, my abject apologies.

- at least the woman is honest here. I hope she will also say I am sorry for your wasted time, when she finally gets the whole picture of her invention.
Title: Re: Claimed OU circuit of Rosemary Ainslie
Post by: henieck on July 13, 2009, 12:19:20 PM
Hi,

I have been unable to access the energeticforum.com since last Saturday afternoon.

- Gyula, somehow I haven't succeded to answer the message for you, so I have to post it here for a while.
I can't access their site - but different provider form my City works OK. Meybe they are so scared that henieck could come back under different name - that they have blocked entire Eastern Europe ;)
Title: Re: Claimed OU circuit of Rosemary Ainslie
Post by: henieck on July 13, 2009, 12:26:31 PM
I did complete right now the Timer Circuit with the Parts from the Quantum article.
I had only a 5k Resistor instead of the 5,2k.

But the Timer does, what it says.

- hi, one could double check it here:
http://clarkson-uk.com/555-timer/operation/hiframes.html
Title: Re: Claimed OU circuit of Rosemary Ainslie
Post by: gyulasun on July 13, 2009, 12:57:45 PM
- Gyula, somehow I haven't succeded to answer the message for you, so I have to post it here for a while.
I can't access their site - but different provider form my City works OK. Meybe they are so scared that henieck could come back under different name - that they have blocked entire Eastern Europe ;)

OK, thanks for your answer.  LOL  ;) :D ::)

Gyula
Title: Re: Claimed OU circuit of Rosemary Ainslie
Post by: henieck on July 13, 2009, 01:07:15 PM
It smooths out that old dino's backbone all the way flat. Does it send those spikes to the battery? It tries to...but the battery fights back.

- I would dress it in slightly different words - that you probably have real charging - but the very next milli second during the on phase, the battery gives everything back, plus some more energy (the net. quantity which is going to be turned into heat during that cycle). Closer look with the scope will reveal…

Actually that might explain why after every run I was able to recharge my old battery to slightly higher voltage. Perhaps it has been a little desulfated by the great quantity of those spikes.
Title: Re: Claimed OU circuit of Rosemary Ainslie
Post by: ramset on July 13, 2009, 01:54:21 PM
jolt says

@Witsend
it only prooves, that you are RIGHT and Tinselkoala is WRONG, and all his discreding and debunking Post here and at OU.com.
As i did write, the Timer does what IT says, not what HE(TK) says.
But they turn my Words allready at OU.com, as if TK is her God, what can not fail.

I know, the importend Things from here will go 1:1 over there to OU.com Thanks Ramset, to copy ours Posts and past them there to Ou.com
to feed the Trolls and her further insulting Comments.

You dont have to excuse to anyone, for me, you are right Witsend.
But what bother me is, that they still read here, and complain at OU.com
call it an idiotic Circuit, think they know all about Coils, and that we are a religious Forum, when we dont want to have such Troublemakers here.
Thats just another Proove and a bad Advertising for OU.com, what a crap comunity there do build up.

Thanks to the Admins, to take some Action in that Case.
I dont miss one of them.

Witsend the Wave is right, because the Peak from the Pulse can be adjusted with the Pot at the Base from the Transistor,
in what lenght it hits the Base, so alot Transistors should work.
I can adjust the Peak to a standing Triangle or a laying Triangle,
The Peak, what hits the Base can get adjusted over the Pot at the Base,
and therefor you get different Duty Cycles.
And i bet, when i play further around with it, i even get the same Results, as you did at your Tests at the Table from the Quantum Article.
I know, it works, because i had a different Thread about How to get extra Energy from a Coil, where the Point is, that you have to pulse the Coil at the right Moment, and get very much better Results from it.
But the Magneticfield, what is build up in the Coil does matter, when that Point of Time is.

And well, i use a RGP02-18 Diode here for the Timer, fast switching Diodes too, but i dont hink, that does matter.
My Circuit is easy and exactly adjustable from 0 - 11Khz right now.
__________________
Theorizer are like High Voltage. A lot hot Air with no Power behind but they are the dead of applied Work and Ideas. 
Title: Re: Claimed OU circuit of Rosemary Ainslie
Post by: ramset on July 13, 2009, 03:00:39 PM
Rosemary says,
Notwithstanding my apology to TinselKoala and others that the 555 circuitry was wrong - I've now been assured that it was, in fact, correct. I'm in the happy postion therefore of retracting my apology. I'm reasonably certain that Joit's representations will either not be acknowledged or not believed, but either way - TinselKoala has now lost all credibility in this matter.

I was going to marshall the evidence to prove not only a prejudice but the deliberate distortions that TinselKoala either alluded to, or specifically referenced or simply challenged us to refute. However it is possible that this was required as a function of his interests in any of these forums that look into overunity claims. Happily I don't need to prepare that schedule. We know the facts. And Aaron's instincts in this regard were unerring.

I think we must remember that there are those out there who's mission in life is to discredit any over unity claim. There are those who simply do not believe it possible, those who are prepared to argue it, those who know that over unity is possible and those who are prepared to fight to prove it. I think we can accommodate all such opinions on this thread excepting those in the very first category. They're toxic. Fortunately these detractors grossly underestimate our general intelligence or the expert opinion that is available to us from both within and outside this forum.

I'm relying on Ramset to post this in Overunity.com and trust that this will be his last function as it relates to this forum.
Title: Re: Claimed OU circuit of Rosemary Ainslie
Post by: henieck on July 13, 2009, 03:24:49 PM
(jolt?)... like High Voltage. A lot hot Air with no Power behind but they are the dead of applied Work and Ideas.

- while entirely IGNORING his provocative attempts I wonder what is this guy trying to say in his motto - that there is no power or work from high voltage? Of course not - the same way like there is no work from force alone or displacement alone. Similarly there is no surface “behind” one side of a square. Equally there is no work behind even 10000Amperes of Practice. You have to multiply both quantities Volts times Amperes to have Work - but it is just a Theory - some hot air and nothing behind it :)

Quote
Thanks to the Admins, to take some Action in that Case.
– men, try to get over this somehow. It is ok now…

Everything the best for this guy, God- I mean Rosemary bless, and have a lot of heat form this device during the winter time.
Title: Re: Claimed OU circuit of Rosemary Ainslie
Post by: henieck on July 13, 2009, 03:31:49 PM
Rosemary says,
I think we must remember that there are those out there who's mission in life is to discredit any over unity claim. There are those who simply do not believe it possible, those who are prepared to argue it, those who know that over unity is possible and those who are prepared to fight to prove it. I think we can accommodate all such opinions on this thread excepting those in the very first category.

- Amen ;)
Title: Re: Claimed OU circuit of Rosemary Ainslie
Post by: jibbguy on July 13, 2009, 04:13:47 PM
Someone else, from Eastern Europe as well i believe (not that it matters), has replicated at least some aspects of the circuit successfully now.

That and Luc's very interesting related findings make it more like "2 to 2" by my count.  So instead of being "Supreme Court Judges of Technology", some here would appear to have been "demoted" to being just members of the Jury  ;)  But don't worry, this is still an important and worthy position. We can argue the actual percentages of accuracy in these particular "replications" or similar circuits: But that is not the point... Which is that the opinions are NOT monolithic, nor are the present results as "conclusive" as some here make them out to be ;)

So let's wait until we get 8 more peeps (the more the better) to properly build and document this to get a full "Jury of 12 Peers". Thus the questions can be answered, the speculation ended, and the technology either moved forward into multiple applications with much importance both empirically and theoretically... Or "shelved" as being a good idea with much promise and interesting aspects, that didn't pan-out as expected in the end.

Imo one of the reasons we have not gotten more attempts to date here is because of all the constantly repeated negative results: It stands to reason that fewer peeps want to replicate something they heard over and over won't work.... But simply having a failed replication by a person, then trying to use the lack of more attempts as "proof"; does not work either.... Because the people who come to these forums all have their own projects, their own lines of research, and they replicate things on their own schedules... Not anyone else's.

Regarding Energetic Forums: No one there gives a hoot if the Members who frequent the Energy section have anything at all to do with the other sections there. As regards to it being "Religious", that is false: It is "Spiritual" in nature, and falls under the category of "self-help" ; but like i said you can take that part or leave it, and no one will care at all ;) 

What they do care about there is having polite, open-minded, meaningful, constructive, and sincere discussions and debates on technology. This means that those who participate should not attack others for their honestly-held views; nor should they try to use the forum as a advertising campaign for their own opinions, constantly repeating them like irritating ads on TV (or government propaganda)... Growing more insistent and less polite by the post.

Good forums, like this one, embrace the concepts of "Free Speech". However, if the Admins are wise; they do not allow some to use that as a weapon against the general health of the forum. Start you own forum, and see what it takes: It is not so easy to determine the best route, no one can look into another's heart. All there is to go on in making these decisions are the actions of the people in question. If you have been "mis-judged", perhaps you should have thought of that and thus changed your tack when warned, to keep from being "misunderstood". I'm sure the Admins themselves will tell you they are not omniscient; but they also have a duty to the others. And it is important to remember none of this exists in a vacuum: If you are rude and derogatory on another forum (this is a small F-E "world", after all), it can make an effect elsewhere; and it becomes "fair game" for these kinds of difficult considerations; possibly even tip the balance. Thus the danger of "widebanding" your opinions lol ;)

People had their say there; but with some it was becoming repetitious and starting to show signs of deep disrespect and lack of concern towards others, and so they were checked (meaning as in "chess").

No one there was really dissuaded from trying out the circuit, nor was anyone "afraid" of anything (a disgusting and demeaning suggestion).... We should not expect peeps to drop everything else they are doing to start a new build because of one person's results; no matter how insistently they post or how many forums they post it in. When dealing with others we must at least try to view from the other's perspective... If our interest really is finding the Truth, and not pushing our own version of it for some obscure reason. It is important to remember that the louder and more insistent the claims, the more personally invested the one making them becomes (because the "stakes" of possible loss of face grow with each pronouncement)... Thus their objectivity can begin to be legitimately questioned. This of course goes for both sides of any argument: And how this is handled by the person goes to their credibility.

But i believe the real Truth behind this circuit and possible discovery will come out in the end, either way: When the FULL JURY makes the deliberation, and not just the self-appointed Supreme Judges. Is there some critical time factor here that we are missing, that it is so important to rush to judgment? If so please let us know ;)
Title: Re: Claimed OU circuit of Rosemary Ainslie
Post by: the_big_m_in_ok on July 13, 2009, 04:45:53 PM
gyulasun said, on Reply #380, this thread:
Quote
I have been unable to access the energeticforum.com since last Saturday afternoon.  First I turned to my internet provider but I still wait for their answer (it was the weekend they have not done anything). 

This morning I have found I cannot access energetic forum from my office either (different internet provider in another location within the city).
From both my home and office I have accessed the forum without any problems for about 2 years now.  And I did not write any word yet in the Rosemary thread... lol
Really?  I just tried a GOOGLE search of "energeticforum" and then clicked on the link to bring up the site at once.  I do admit I'm using a freeware 'Web browser based on Mozilla, which you may not have anything like that to use.

It also occurs to me that some people in public venues(i.e., libraries) sometimes experience problems, while others nearby have no problems at all.  If there was a widespread virus, that shouldn't happen.  Everyone's computer should be affected.  It's also randomly intermittent.

--Lee
Title: Re: Claimed OU circuit of Rosemary Ainslie
Post by: wings on July 13, 2009, 05:25:29 PM
Hi,

I have been unable to access the energeticforum.com since last Saturday afternoon.  First I turned to my internet provider but I still wait for their answer (it was the weekend they have not done anything). 

This morning I have found I cannot access energetic forum from my office either (different internet provider in another location within the city).
From both my home and office I have accessed the forum without any problems for about 2 years now.  And I did not write any word yet in the Rosemary thread... lol

Though I cannot rule out a technical problem en route from my location towards the energetic forum server location, I wrote a polite letter to Aaron, what he thinks on this.

rgds,  Gyula

apart popup use:

http://www.englishtunnel.com/index.php/010110A/687474702s7777772r656r65726765746963666s72756q2r636s6q2s7365617263682r7068703s73656172636869643q313638333536

http://tools.rosinstrument.com/cgi-proxy.htm

Title: Re: Claimed OU circuit of Rosemary Ainslie
Post by: henieck on July 13, 2009, 05:38:13 PM
Someone else,has replicated at least some aspects of the circuit successfully now.

That and Luc's very interesting related findings make it more like "2 to 2" by my count.

- on which side did you count my findings (if any). I can tell that this circuit showed that uses 1J to give heat like 3J as well. A bit out of the full context -but no problem with me. Let us make it 3 to 1 - if this is going to increase the number of analysis of this circuit.

Wow- this is like almost everybody has replicated at least some aspects of the circuit successfully now.
Title: Re: Claimed OU circuit of Rosemary Ainslie
Post by: henieck on July 13, 2009, 06:29:53 PM
.
Title: Re: Claimed OU circuit of Rosemary Ainslie
Post by: TinselKoala on July 13, 2009, 06:35:11 PM
Absolutely amazing. Another person who cannot read an oscilloscope, apparently.

The 555 timer circuit has been constructed multiple times and tested multiple times by a lot of people. Using the component values in the Quantum article and Groundloop's cleaned up diagram, the circuit generates long, not short, ON times. This has been shown many times by several builders.

I stand by my work and I challenge Joit to a "duel." Send me his timer--or I will send him one that I build--and they can be compared side-by-side on the same oscilloscope. Or we can both send them to an agreed-upon third party for testing. Best is if we could have yet another person build yet another copy of the timer for testing as well. Anyone can then see what components are used, how they are connected, and what the performance is.

I don't know what JOIT is doing; his scope trace certainly does not look like a clean 555 timer trace. But I  and others have published good clear traces that clearly show that I am right and JOIT and Rosemary are wrong.
It's like I'm in Bizzaro World, or something.

Well, at least I know what's right, and I will be happy to demonstrate it and prove it to any detail requested.

I will even draw the parts out of bins and assemble the circuit and test it live on camera if necessary.

But is it really necessary?
Title: Re: Claimed OU circuit of Rosemary Ainslie
Post by: TinselKoala on July 13, 2009, 08:01:54 PM
I think it's pretty clear from this quote that Joit has made some kind of strangeness...

"Witsend the Wave is right, because the Peak from the Pulse can be adjusted with the Pot at the Base from the Transistor,
in what lenght it hits the Base, so alot Transistors should work.
I can adjust the Peak to a standing Triangle or a laying Triangle,
The Peak, what hits the Base can get adjusted over the Pot at the Base,
and therefor you get different Duty Cycles.
And i bet, when i play further around with it, i even get the same Results, as you did at your Tests at the Table from the Quantum Article.
I know, it works, because i had a different Thread about How to get extra Energy from a Coil, where the Point is, that you have to pulse the Coil at the right Moment, and get very much better Results from it.
But the Magneticfield, what is build up in the Coil does matter, when that Point of Time is."

The Peak, of course, should not be triangular at all. The 555 timer circuit, at whatever settings, should be producing a nice rectangular pulse. And the 100 ohm pot in the gate drive will not affect the duty cycle, except when the resistance is reduced to zero or near zero.
Title: Re: Claimed OU circuit of Rosemary Ainslie
Post by: ramset on July 13, 2009, 08:15:31 PM
TK
Good to know 99 has your back
I honestly don't understand how you got the bad guy roll,all you did was replicate [as required] this is bizarre

Chet
Title: Re: Claimed OU circuit of Rosemary Ainslie
Post by: TinselKoala on July 13, 2009, 08:33:02 PM
Thanks, poynt99.
http://www.energeticforum.com/renewable-energy/4314-cop-17-heater-rosemary-ainslie-19.html#post60343
Title: Re: Claimed OU circuit of Rosemary Ainslie
Post by: TinselKoala on July 13, 2009, 08:59:03 PM
TK
Good to know 99 has your back
I honestly don't understand how you got the bad guy roll,all you did was replicate [as required] this is bizarre

Chet

I understand it quite well. I reacted as I will, when I know for sure that I am right and someone with fewer facts at their disposal attacks me and accuses me of error. That is, I got (and still am) angry, and when Angry I do not mince words.
The very most amazing thing is that, when I reported the duty cycle error, several folks dissed me hard, without even trying it for themselves--even though, in every early post on this issue, I asked for people to build it to see if I had made some mistake.
I even thought that I had been "set up" to take a fall in public. So I built it again, and again. And it's still wrong.

Now, for the readers from over there that might still be interested in what I say::: Figure a 96.3 percent input duty cycle, and run the numbers on the energy calculations again.
And don't forget what Rosemary said: She did not use a FG, she always used a 555 circuit.

Oh, and just for the record, Rosemary, Watts measure Power, Joules measure power over a period of time, which is Energy.
Watts are not Joules, power is not energy. You cannot legitimately do what you are trying to do in your numbers.
Have you studied calculus? Did they cover that before you quit school at  age 16?

And why do you have to ask someone else to try to get the documents you would like to show, concerning your patent applications? Don't you keep important records? I would be perfectly happy to accept your own posts of your copies of the material, I know you wouldn't mislead anyone intentionally. As long, of course, as you post ALL the information.
By the way, Roesmary, have you read your patent application yet?
http://www.thenakedscientists.com/forum/index.php?topic=23243.msg254872#msg254872
Title: Re: Claimed OU circuit of Rosemary Ainslie
Post by: 0c on July 13, 2009, 09:06:17 PM
For any electronics dummies trying to make sense of all this like me, here's some 555 timer references that may help understand what all the "duty cycle" arguments are about. I especially like the animation in the first one.


555 Tutorial with a nice animation
http://www.williamson-labs.com/555-circuits.htm#timing

555 and 556 Timer circuits
http://www.kpsec.freeuk.com/555timer.htm#dutycycle

LM555 - ASTABLE OSCILLATOR CALCULATOR
http://home.cogeco.ca/~rpaisley4/LM555.html#3

Astable 555 Square Wave Calculator
http://www.csgnetwork.com/ne555timer2calc.html

555 Frequency Calculator
http://www.electronicdesignworks.com/utilities/555_frequency_calculator/555_frequency_calculator.htm

555 Component Finder
http://www.electronicdesignworks.com/utilities/555_component_finder/555_component_finder.htm


Looks like the waveform may depend on where you take your measurements.
Title: Re: Claimed OU circuit of Rosemary Ainslie
Post by: gyulasun on July 13, 2009, 09:29:46 PM
.....

It also occurs to me that some people in public venues(i.e., libraries) sometimes experience problems, while others nearby have no problems at all.  If there was a widespread virus, that shouldn't happen.  Everyone's computer should be affected.  It's also randomly intermittent.

--Lee

@Lee
Thanks for your answer, I tried 3 different web browsers Mozilla Firefox, Google Crome and Explorer, all reported the energeticforum.com could not be found...   

@wings

Thanks for the links, tried the first one and the energeticforum.com has loaded immediately.... now I can see it!  Without your link I cannot see it.

So what is the conclusion for my case?  My IP address (both at home and at the office) have been blocked? Can someone explain?
(I asked a friend to load it on his own computer yesterday, he lives near to the city where I am but he could not see it either, found the same error message, this may mean IP addresses for my country are blocked or there is somewhere a technical problem inside or near to my country which got out of function and blocks us?)

Thanks, Gyula

PS To the rest of the Folks here: sorry for the off topic!
Title: Re: Claimed OU circuit of Rosemary Ainslie
Post by: henieck on July 13, 2009, 09:44:01 PM

jibbguy, you made so strong point about the strong point that I am affraid that now we have to wait untill the FULL JURY makes the deliberation, and not just the self-appointed Supreme Judges. Is there some critical time factor here that we are missing, that it is so important to rush to judgment? If so please let us know ;)
Title: Re: Claimed OU circuit of Rosemary Ainslie
Post by: TinselKoala on July 13, 2009, 09:58:48 PM
For any electronics dummies trying to make sense of all this like me, here's some 555 timer references that may help understand what all the "duty cycle" arguments are about. I especially like the animation in the first one.


555 Tutorial with a nice animation
http://www.williamson-labs.com/555-circuits.htm#timing

555 and 556 Timer circuits
http://www.kpsec.freeuk.com/555timer.htm#dutycycle

LM555 - ASTABLE OSCILLATOR CALCULATOR
http://home.cogeco.ca/~rpaisley4/LM555.html#3

Astable 555 Square Wave Calculator
http://www.csgnetwork.com/ne555timer2calc.html

555 Frequency Calculator
http://www.electronicdesignworks.com/utilities/555_frequency_calculator/555_frequency_calculator.htm

555 Component Finder
http://www.electronicdesignworks.com/utilities/555_component_finder/555_component_finder.htm


Looks like the waveform may depend on where you take your measurements.

You mean, like Northern vs. Southern Hemisphere?

Actually it looks like whoever designed Rosemary's 555 didn't know about these (standard) circuits, because I don't see any diodes in these, and there also are more capacitors in her 555 circuit.

I took the measurements in my basement kitchen, with a 1 megohm impedance oscilloscope. Actually, now three different oscilloscopes: the Philips, which does NOT EVEN HAVE a trace invert or polarityreversal function; the Tektronix which does, and the Fluke 199 which also does, and also has a cycle select function that also could be reversed.
That's right, the Fluke-O-Scope has 2 modes that could have been selected in error...which means only one out of 4 possibilities will give the "correct" duty cycle, that is, one that goes in the right direction on the display and is also calculated correctly by the scope software.

Tonight I will be looking at the behaviour of the circuit with a Hitachi VC-7504.

If I can figure out how to turn it on.
Title: Re: Claimed OU circuit of Rosemary Ainslie
Post by: fuzzytomcat on July 13, 2009, 10:14:22 PM
So what is the conclusion for my case?  My IP address (both at home and at the office) have been blocked? Can someone explain?
(I asked a friend to load it on his own computer yesterday, he lives near to the city where I am but he could not see it either, found the same error message, this may mean IP addresses for my country are blocked or there is somewhere a technical problem inside or near to my country which got out of function and blocks us?)

Thanks, Gyula

PS To the rest of the Folks here: sorry for the off topic!

Hi Gyula,

It is entirely possible that your country ISP is banned, many forums block out trouble areas because of continued abuse from IP addresses .... some are shown here in a previous post of mine.

http://www.overunity.com/index.php?topic=3893.msg139759#msg139759

Fuzzy
Title: Re: Claimed OU circuit of Rosemary Ainslie
Post by: 0c on July 13, 2009, 10:22:15 PM
You mean, like Northern vs. Southern Hemisphere?

I mean like look at the animation at the top of the first link. See that sawtooth waveform on the upper left?

Actually it looks like whoever designed Rosemary's 555 didn't know about these (standard) circuits, because I don't see any diodes in these, and there also are more capacitors in her 555 circuit.

In the first link, look at the "Duty Cycle <50%" diagram. There's a diode there.
Title: Re: Claimed OU circuit of Rosemary Ainslie
Post by: TinselKoala on July 13, 2009, 10:44:57 PM
jibbguy, you made so strong point about the strong point that I am affraid that now we have to wait untill the FULL JURY makes the deliberation, and not just the self-appointed Supreme Judges. Is there some critical time factor here that we are missing, that it is so important to rush to judgment? If so please let us know ;)

Hi Henieck
It makes no difference what a "supreme jury" does or does not report. You will be greatly amused by the Mylow saga, if you haven't already read it. And of course, there is Steorn and their professional jurors--whose verdict was announced a few weeks ago--that jury gave a negative report, but Steorn won't accept it...
For example, even after Mylow was caught red-handed so to speak, and even had admitted faking some of his motors, some people still believed that other of his motors "worked" actually.
So I expect people to be trying to "replicate" Rosemary's reported results for years to come, no matter what any "jury" might say.

But no matter what any Jury might say, I doubt if we'll be seeing any actual home heaters or actual battery chargers using this circuit. Ever.
Title: Re: Claimed OU circuit of Rosemary Ainslie
Post by: TinselKoala on July 13, 2009, 10:49:02 PM
I mean like look at the animation at the top of the first link. See that sawtooth waveform on the upper left?

In the first link, look at the "Duty Cycle <50%" diagram. There's a diode there.

OK, thanks, I see it now. The ramp waveform isn't the output of the circuit, it's showing the relation between that cap charging and the square output pulse.
The diode, now...I'll get back to you on that.  Got to run right now

Oh, and I decided to use the LeCroy scope instead of the Hitachi--the Hitachi does not do integration on board, but the LeCroy does.
Title: Re: Claimed OU circuit of Rosemary Ainslie
Post by: ramset on July 13, 2009, 11:04:22 PM
 Joit  said
poynt99
I did my shot at the Output (Pin3) from the Timer.
Its an ST NE555N
I did not connect it now to the Base of any Transistor, for that, i play extra around.
This 'Line' what you see, is the laying Triangle, looks more like it generates a Sawtooth Wave. But you can turn it down or up.
With the 100Ohm Potentiometer at the Base of the Transistor you should can set the Duty Cycle.
You are using 3 Pots at all?
I will try to make a Video, and see, what i else can do with it.
__________________
Theorizer are like High Voltage. A lot hot Air with no Power behind but they are the dead of applied Work and Ideas.
Title: Re: Claimed OU circuit of Rosemary Ainslie
Post by: NerzhDishual on July 14, 2009, 12:36:33 AM
Hi Guys,

Just my 2cents.
I have beadboarded the Quantum's paper 555 timer CirCuiT.

It works fine. I can read (at pin 3) the less than 4% duty cycle with
a freq. of  2.4 khz. Of course, I have to swap the probes of my scope
(and the probes of my freq meter) to see these results....
;D

I mean: IMHO - and if I'm not mistaken - the Quantum 555 CCT
does *not* give the claimed results but just the opposite
as initially stated by NikolaTesla mingled (TK)....
My 555 circuit also  "generates (at pin 3) long, not short, ON times".

Now, some guys are telling that the Quantum 555 CCT actually works as claimed =
generates short not long ON times (at pin 3? with the probes correctly wired?)
I'm lost.... I guess I will have another drink. :P

Anyway, an extra 2N2222 (or similar) at pin 3 should inverse the wave.
Should it not?

BTW I have ordered some  IRFPG50.
http://www.awatronic.fr/index.php?_a=viewProd&productId=20219&added=1 (http://www.awatronic.fr/index.php?_a=viewProd&productId=20219&added=1)

Now, What about this circuit???  Sounds familiar. No?
Are the maths right?
More, In French (sorry) on : http://freenrg.info/Misc/FR_Zoltan_ZPE_Circuit/ (http://freenrg.info/Misc/FR_Zoltan_ZPE_Circuit/)

Very Best





Title: Re: Claimed OU circuit of Rosemary Ainslie
Post by: fuzzytomcat on July 14, 2009, 12:58:58 AM
Hi Guys,

Just my 2cents.
I have beadboarded the Quantum's paper 555 timer CirCuiT.

It works fine. I can read (at pin 3) the less than 4% duty cycle with
a freq. of  2.4 khz. Of course, I have to swap the probes of my scope
(and the probes of my freq meter) to see these results....
;D

I mean: IMHO - and if I'm not mistaken - the Quantum 555 CCT
does *not* give the claimed results but just the opposite
as initially stated by NikolaTesla mingled (TK)....
My 555 circuit also  "generates (at pin 3) long, not short, ON times".

Now, some guys are telling that the Quantum 555 CCT actually works as claimed =
generates short not long ON times (at pin 3? with the probes correctly wired?)
I'm lost.... I guess I will have another drink. :P

Anyway, an extra 2N2222 (or similar) at pin 3 should inverse the wave.
Should it not?

BTW I have ordered some  IRFPG50.
http://www.awatronic.fr/index.php?_a=viewProd&productId=20219&added=1 (http://www.awatronic.fr/index.php?_a=viewProd&productId=20219&added=1)

Now, What about this circuit???  Sounds familiar. No?
Are the maths right?
More, In French (sorry) on : http://freenrg.info/Misc/FR_Zoltan_ZPE_Circuit/ (http://freenrg.info/Misc/FR_Zoltan_ZPE_Circuit/)

Very Best

Hi NerzhDishual,

I really liked your link added a English version .......

http://translate.google.com/translate?u=http://freenrg.info/Misc/FR_Zoltan_ZPE_Circuit/&sl=fr&tl=en&hl=en&ie=UTF-8

Thanks
Fuzzy


Title: Re: Claimed OU circuit of Rosemary Ainslie
Post by: NerzhDishual on July 14, 2009, 01:22:39 AM
Hi FuzzyTomcat,

Thanks.
The google translation is not so bad...

I was expecting some Jean-Loup Chiflet's "Sky English"

Basically, Jean-Loup Chiflet, the author, translates word-for-word French expressions and then gives the actual meaning... Funny and useful...

Few examples:
Poser un lapin [To put down a rabbit] - To stand someone up
Ca ne court pas les rues [It doesn't run the streets] - To be rare
Rien à cirer [nothing to polish] - Not to give a damn
Un nom à coucher dehors [A name to sleep outside] - An impossible name

Very Best
Title: Re: Claimed OU circuit of Rosemary Ainslie
Post by: TinselKoala on July 14, 2009, 01:39:53 AM
I mean like look at the animation at the top of the first link. See that sawtooth waveform on the upper left?

In the first link, look at the "Duty Cycle <50%" diagram. There's a diode there.

I just tried shorting my diodes with a bit of wire while the 555 circuit is running.
Guess what.....



It makes a miniscule difference in the freq and duty cycle. Much less than I would have predicted.

Title: Re: Claimed OU circuit of Rosemary Ainslie
Post by: 0c on July 14, 2009, 01:46:11 AM
I just tried shorting my diodes with a bit of wire while the 555 circuit is running.
Guess what.....

It makes a miniscule difference in the freq and duty cycle. Much less than I would have predicted.

And you're sure you shorted where you should have shorted? Instead of shorted where you should have cut (opened)?

(Hey, if my comments are nonsense, just ignore me. As far as I'm concerned, those 'trons are mystical beings that do whatever they please anyway.)
Title: Re: Claimed OU circuit of Rosemary Ainslie
Post by: TinselKoala on July 14, 2009, 01:50:12 AM
Hi Guys,

Just my 2cents.
I have beadboarded the Quantum's paper 555 timer CirCuiT.

It works fine. I can read (at pin 3) the less than 4% duty cycle with
a freq. of  2.4 khz. Of course, I have to swap the probes of my scope
(and the probes of my freq meter) to see these results....
;D

I mean: IMHO - and if I'm not mistaken - the Quantum 555 CCT
does *not* give the claimed results but just the opposite
as initially stated by NikolaTesla mingled (TK)....
My 555 circuit also  "generates (at pin 3) long, not short, ON times".

Now, some guys are telling that the Quantum 555 CCT actually works as claimed =
generates short not long ON times (at pin 3? with the probes correctly wired?)
I'm lost.... I guess I will have another drink. :P

Anyway, an extra 2N2222 (or similar) at pin 3 should inverse the wave.
Should it not?

BTW I have ordered some  IRFPG50.
http://www.awatronic.fr/index.php?_a=viewProd&productId=20219&added=1 (http://www.awatronic.fr/index.php?_a=viewProd&productId=20219&added=1)

Now, What about this circuit???  Sounds familiar. No?
Are the maths right?
More, In French (sorry) on : http://freenrg.info/Misc/FR_Zoltan_ZPE_Circuit/ (http://freenrg.info/Misc/FR_Zoltan_ZPE_Circuit/)

Very Best

 ;D

Hey, Nertz. Thanks for doing that--have a drink on me!

I've finally gotten around to running some comparisons between the IRFPG50 and the 2SK1548.
Heh.
From a "traditional engineering" viewpoint the 2sk1548 diode performs MUCH better in this circuit...that is, if things like THD and proper pulse tracking concern you. The long turn off time of the IRFPG50 really messes with the signal at these excessively short (using the FG) or LONG (using the 555) duty cycles.
The IRF unit does seem to heat up less than the 2SK, but that's just an early impression.
I think if you are into spikes in your signal, the 2SK might be a better choice here too. It turns on and off better than the IRF unit (not surprising, is it, looking at the data sheets and considering the gate capacitances). And since it turns on and off with faster rise and fall times, it produces a higher inductive pulse from the coil. I think. Maybe.

So there goes my hypothesis that the two transistors would perform pretty much the same. I was wrong about that. The 2SK1548, when properly cooled, outperforms the IRFPG50, as far as I can tell. And it's smaller. And quite a bit cheaper. And locally available.

Title: Re: Claimed OU circuit of Rosemary Ainslie
Post by: TinselKoala on July 14, 2009, 01:52:35 AM
And you're sure you shorted where you should have shorted? Instead of shorted where you should have cut (opened)?

(Hey, if my comments are nonsense, just ignore me. As far as I'm concerned, those 'trons are mystical beings that do whatever they please anyway.)

Look at Rosemary's circuit. Opening those lines--well, I didn't try it, I tested my hardwired version and I didn't want to cut anything out---but I don't think opening those particular lines would have the desired effect. But OK, I'll try it.  Check back in an hour or two.
Title: Re: Claimed OU circuit of Rosemary Ainslie
Post by: henieck on July 14, 2009, 02:07:27 AM

It makes no difference what a "supreme jury" does or does not report.

- because the skeptics get paid from the big oil companies ;)

I have been observing information war in this field for some time and was always curious what is this fuss all about and who is right. Logically one side must have been heavily wrong. I was surprised to find uneducated guru with some blind followers, but most shocking to me was to experience how the guru operates psychologically. An anorectic can be literally dying of hunger, looking at herself in a mirror and being deeply convicted, that she is definitively too fat. This is phenomenal. Nothing helps, there is no argument nor evidence in such a situation which could change anything. Only professional therapy and pharmacology. Every incoming information, inconsistent with beliefs is just deleted, doesn’t even get processed. Rosemary is not in the worst stadium yet - but probably close. The same effect you can see in plastic surgery field (M. Jackson). No matter how razor blade-nose he had - it was still to big or to wide. It is well known phenomenon- and I am surprised to find it in work here (what was I thinking?) Actually I was more expecting liars in action - but on contrary - they are the most honest believers an fanatics. (perhaps not all).

Quote
You will be greatly amused by the Mylow saga, if you haven't already read it.

- in fact, that could be quite interesting to me. Can I find it on this forum somewhere?

Quote
But no matter what any Jury might say, I doubt if we'll be seeing any actual home heaters or actual battery chargers using this circuit. Ever.

- actually I have found yesterday, that it really works as promised ;)
It is in a way an interesting/unconventional circuit to study - but there is no way it can generate any free E.

Quote
So I expect people to be trying to "replicate" Rosemary's reported results for years to come, no matter what any "jury" might say.

- yes, like gravity wheels which were busted in the mediaeval centuries already.
Title: Re: Claimed OU circuit of Rosemary Ainslie
Post by: TinselKoala on July 14, 2009, 02:09:25 AM
And I have also just now been testing the circuit using the LeCroy 9370M digital sampling oscilloscope (1GHz bandwidth). This scope will do just about everything except butter the toast. It even has an internal thermal printer for screen dumps. 2-channel, 4-trace, more math functions than I know what to do with. This particular unit has "issues" with the #2 channel; it is queued up for repair which is why I was able to abscond briefly with it. But the #1 channel is fine and everything else is copacetic.
EXCEPT: the silly thing is even worse at resolving those really sharp spikes than my slow analog scopes. And yes, I have global BWL and local channel BWL off, and all that. Maybe the #1 has "issues" too, because I seem to remember this scope doing much better than that, and at 500 Megasamples/second you'd think you would be able to resolve some 2 Mhz spikes.
BUT: That's OK because it does integration, and (a constant) X (the integral of a function) is the same as the integral of ((a constant) X ( a function)).
If I remember my calculus. It's been a very long time.
So that means I can integrate the current trace over time, and if the battery voltage remains reasonably constant I can declare that it is constant, and multiply that times the integrated current trace, and still wind up with energy in Joules.
Can't I?

Anyway, I'll post a video showing off this fancy osk-kill-osk-o-pee later this evening.

(I still prefer analog scopes, especially for the kinds of work generally done around here. They are much easier to fix when they get zapped.)
Title: Re: Claimed OU circuit of Rosemary Ainslie
Post by: TinselKoala on July 14, 2009, 02:24:30 AM
@Henieck, re Mylow.

Oh, where to start.
Here, I guess.
LRCan's backups of the original Mylow video postings on YouTube:
http://www.youtube.com/user/LRCan1

And
http://www.overunity.com/index.php?board=117.0
is the "catalog" of the remaining Mylow threads, and
http://www.overunity.com/index.php?topic=7162.0
I believe is the first thread, where it started, on this forum. There may have been one or two threads removed by the moderator, I can't recall exactly.

(EDIT to add: I just read back over some of those threads, and I am flabbergasted at the amount of removals of posts that have happened. Down the memory hole! I suggest that if you make posts that are particularly entertaining while at the same time critical, you save them off-forum, because things sometimes disappear around here, it seems.)

I think most of the interesting links are still in the threads, but be sure to check out the PESwiki site and search for Mylow:
http://peswiki.com/energy/News

And, of course, there are many YT videos concerning the subject. Here's my personal favorite:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HvpTXdWAd1M

Title: Re: Claimed OU circuit of Rosemary Ainslie
Post by: jibbguy on July 14, 2009, 03:11:09 AM
Bringing up "Mylow" won't help the issue, lol. Mylow mylow mylow mylow mylow... See, it has no "ju-ju" power at all ;)

(Gee what a waste of time that was then for ALL CONCERNED hehehe)

As for Steorn, i've never had a real opinion on it, as there are some excellent arguments on both sides. Utterly screwing-up an important electronic device Demo in front of Customers has been done thousands of times before in the "real" world (unfortunately i've seen it happen a couple extremely uncomfortable and sweaty times lol), so that incident didn't weigh too much with me. But i gotta say being behind 5 years for Release is a bit much even for all-new concepts (although some may be surprised to hear that missing the Release date some marketing moron arbitrarily sets by 1 to 2 years is actually more common than not in the electronics industry) .

If you guys were suggesting from your paraphrasing / quoting of the last part of my previous post that i am convinced the circuit works... Well read it again because you obviously missed the points there. We should wait and not blindly take any one person's opinion on it, either way.
 
TK might be right but that is not the point ... The point is that despite whatever great talents he may have, they are not all-encompassing (i've never met anyone who's are), nor does his obvious bias exude confidence in his objectivity ;) This is not to suggest he is deliberately "tilting" results (which i don't think is the case), it is that his mindset in viewing it could be so pre-conceived as to cause him to miss something others' may not. That happens ALL THE TIME, even with professional top-notch EE's with many years' experience. I've seen that several times too: It is one of the worst dangers we all face in many endeavors, imo.

But should he indeed be proved wrong in the end, i would not crow, or even rejoice (about that specifically, anyway). Because, professionally, i've been there. And learned not to invest too heavily with only my own opinions and results to go on; as these things have myriads of possible unforeseen factors that WILL bite you in the ass, eventually... Even if you are the "Clint Eastwood" of electronic circuit building ;) . It's as simple as that.

In business we would not take any one person's word on whether or not to go with an all-new technology... Especially when there is any controversy at all attached to it, and even more so if a lot of R&D money and the company's future market share were riding on it. It would go before a Review of several Engineers, including some off-site independent consultants as well, so all possible factors would have a much better chance of being caught... Before any real decisions were made. That's how it is done.

But we can pretty much assume that while we are waiting a few weeks for more results, that the world won't suddenly be "fooled" into accepting the concepts of Free Energy... So none of the skeptics here need lose any sleep in the mean time ;)
Title: Re: Claimed OU circuit of Rosemary Ainslie
Post by: TinselKoala on July 14, 2009, 06:15:57 AM
You know, Jib, I agree with you almost, well, 96.3 percent.  :D

You might see that there are some things I know for certain, there are some things I am pretty sure about, and there are some things I speculate on, and there is a whole lot of stuff I have no idea about. I usually try to indicate, one way or the other, where I am on that continuum when I make statements of fact. When I come up with something (like the first discovery of the duty cycle issue) that seems odd or weird or unexpected, the FIRST thing I suspect is that I have made an errror.
Like that one. How many rrrrrrs are therrrrre in errorrrr? But here's the thing: I have learned that one should suspect error even more strongly when one gets results that are exactly as predicted and that are in line with one's theory. That is when error is particularly dangerous, and sadly that is where so many of us fail. To fail by confirming one's theory!! See how strange that is. No wonder high-school dropouts don't get it. Why, I even dropped out of 5 colleges and universities before I got it.
The general topic here is "cognitive bias" and there are many of them. There is even a formal study of the field, in social psychology mostly but getting more and more interdisciplinary as time goes on and scientists gradually figure out how to think.
The Adam Curtis documentary, The Way of All Flesh, relates a very interesting story along these lines. I can't find a link right now but it's out there.

The main factor that gets me in the Ainslie case is that she, once again, has apparently not done her homework, and that causes this profound misunderstanding of basic electricity and power measurement, coupled with her overweening holier-than-thou attitude about the whole thing. It would be OK if she was right once in a while--but to have her insult me when I am trying to do exactly what she's been asking for, without even addressing the theoretical aspects at all--that burns me up. In this case it really is about being right, because she dissed me while saying I was wrong and essentially full of crap--when we now know the inverse is true.   ;D   
She now says she wants to just forget the Quantum article, put it to rest. But in the EIT.pdf paper, she says:
"
EXPERIMENT
The following test was published in Quantum Magazine October edition, 2002.
RL
Rshunt
BAT 1
D1
Q1
0V Reference
OSCILLOSCOPE
0V Reference
CHA
CHB
Figure 1 Circuit schematic diagram
A 24 volt battery, (BAT 1) is applied in series with a 10 Ohm wire wound
resistive load (RL). A flyback diode, (D1) is placed in parallel with (RL) thus
connecting it back to the positive terminal of the battery. At the junction of the
diode and the inductor is an N Channel power MOSFET, (Q1), connected, in
turn, to a 555 switching circuit with variable duty cycles and frequency"

You see, she herself in the EIT paper refers to the Quantum article--and in fact it is the only searchable reference in the paper. And you will note that the flyback diode is not in the quantum article but is in the EIT paper. In the Quantum article it specifically talks about the mosfet's internal diode.
So, we don't just have a misprinted circuit diagram. We have 2 different descriptions that go with the diagrams in the 2 publications.
And we have Ainslie's statement to Ramset that she always uses or used 555 timers, not function generators...yet the EIT paper shows a FG pulse symbol and doesn't mention the clock at all---the other instruments are given, but no FG--because she used the 555 timer.

Hey, I'm still perfectly willing to accept that it is the diagram that is in error, if she will only correct it and say once and for all what the actual circuit, including whatever clock, was used to make the experiment described in these papers.
Once we've put that issue to bed, then I will move on to the power and energy calculations. Because even the folks over there are starting to realize the holes in her logic.

I just read back over that thread, and do you realize this: Most of what is actually known about that circuit comes from DrStiffler, Henieck, Hoppy, poynt99, and TK. Others seem to be working with other circuits altogether, or simply speculating without any builds or tests.

Traffic continues. Did you see my new video showing off the broken LeCroy?
--TK


Title: Re: Claimed OU circuit of Rosemary Ainslie
Post by: TinselKoala on July 14, 2009, 06:27:25 AM
Dear Aaron:

Congratulations on receiving your new Ohmite high-power wirewound resistor. I'm sure you will be very happy together, in love and light.

Oh, have you had a chance to measure its inductance? Remember, the number you are trying for is 8.64 microHenries. That would be .009 on my meter here, .011 if you count the lead inductance. I hope yours is closer than mine is.

May you find whatever it is you are really seeking. Or whatever it is you really deserve.

--TK
Title: Re: Claimed OU circuit of Rosemary Ainslie
Post by: TinselKoala on July 14, 2009, 06:50:45 AM
 ;D ;D

With enemies like these, who needs friends?

http://www.energeticforum.com/renewable-energy/4314-cop-17-heater-rosemary-ainslie-20.html#post60414


Joit, for goodness sakes please watch my video.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lXielVyBauo

Title: Re: Claimed OU circuit of Rosemary Ainslie
Post by: TinselKoala on July 14, 2009, 08:46:25 AM
Ainslie's recent answer to Joit and poynt99 shows that she is becoming less certain that she is properly in control.

I think it's time to have her explain the relationship between the mosfet conduction state (ON or OFF) and the oscilloscope trace at point A, or directly at the mosfet drain.

She says the 555 issue is irrelevant-- but of course it is not. It shows her profound misunderstanding of what's going on in her circuit. If she agrees that Joit's trace shows a 3.7 percent on duty cycle for the load, then clearly she has been constructing and performing and analyzing her experiment(s) incorrectly. That is, WRONG.

I have made and uploaded Yet Another Video showing the relation between the load conduction or not, the mosfet conduction or not, and the duty cycle, as produced BY THE FUNCTION GENERATOR, so there is no doubt that my trace is like Joit's, and it means when the drain trace goes HIGH, the mosfet is OFF and the load is not energised. This video should be clear enough for even a child to understand. And look, no 555 timer, just a FG--even though she used a 555 timer in her experiment.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QhIDnjmPjW4

Title: Re: Claimed OU circuit of Rosemary Ainslie
Post by: TinselKoala on July 14, 2009, 09:52:28 AM
OK, Rosemary, we really need to know.
It seems likely to me that the data in the EIT paper (why do you call it the IET paper? The filename on your website is EIT_paper.pdf, is it not?), I say it seems likely that the data was collected using a 555 timer making the inverted duty cycle. You don't think this matters--but it does. Since you did not use a scope's integration function to integrate an instantaneous power waveform, but likely used the assumed duty cycle figures in your calculations with the spreadsheet, it is possible that this error crept in somehow in spite of your care and expertise in circuitry and measurement.
So we really really need to know: what duty cycle was used, and how do you know? Because if you agree with Joit, you are waaaaayyyyy off in your calculations.

Or are you prepared finally to say, in spite of your constant denials to this point, that the MOSFET and the LOAD are OFF when the signal is high at point A....???

Because you must acknowledge this, if we are to believe your calculations, which perforce used the duty cycle figures you gave.

This is one reason that the 555 "error" is so significant. You used the wrong duty cycle figures in your energy calculations, not because the 555 is wrong, but because you have this misunderstanding of the state of the mosfet.

Or so we must assume, until you correct us, not with more words, but with actual data. You mentioned you still had the apparatus from the original experiment. Methinks it's time to dust it off and fire it up, to see what kind of duty cycle yours makes.

Come on, I've shown you mine. Let's see yours, Rosemary.
Title: Re: Claimed OU circuit of Rosemary Ainslie
Post by: TinselKoala on July 14, 2009, 09:59:20 AM
Do I sound pissed off? I wonder why. I had to order 10 of these magic mosfets, and they aren't even as good as the 2sk1548. I've been flamed, dissed, banned, lied to and lied about. Losing sleep, missing meals, missing work, losing weight. Spending waay too much time doing remedial circuit testing. It's getting harder, to describe, sailors, to the underfed...

This is even more fun than Mylow!!
Title: Re: Claimed OU circuit of Rosemary Ainslie
Post by: henieck on July 14, 2009, 11:41:57 AM
If you guys were suggesting from your paraphrasing / quoting of the last part of my previous post that i am convinced the circuit works...

- not at all.

Quote
We should wait and not blindly take any one person's opinion on it, either way.

- absolutely.

You have made a point that we shouldn't rush with judgment - but I have just noticed that doing that you have made judgment by saying this -and proposed to wait and see what the whole jury will tell about this statement of not making the statement. It looks to me that one needs to have possibility to make a statement - because without that possibility - you can't even make a statement about not taking this statement :)
Title: Re: Claimed OU circuit of Rosemary Ainslie
Post by: henieck on July 14, 2009, 12:41:03 PM
,,, that the MOSFET and the LOAD are OFF when the signal is high at point A....???

- with her understand of electronics she may have hard time to get this. It is going to be deleted or entirely ignored.

What a mess on Rosemary’s thread – so much time passed by and people can’t even figure out the timing readings on different parts of the transistor-coil circuit. Adding the loop effect on top of it – and I bet you will never agree on what is going on and how to properly measure the energy there (by using the oscilloscope). Such a simple looking circuit and such an insidious, messy trap…amazing. But what is worst is that this is being tried to solve mostly by amateurs, especially including Rosemary.
Title: Re: Claimed OU circuit of Rosemary Ainslie
Post by: BEP on July 14, 2009, 01:30:22 PM
It should be obvious the duty cycle is as reported by TK.

Well, maybe not for some. For those I suggest they replace the load resistor with a light bulb....also add one to the gate feed (tricky here because they'll be forced to figure out where to connect the reference for the bulb).
Then change a few caps to get the actions down to where they are visible.
All without changing the circuit function.

Light bulbs should be easier to read than a silly-scope?

>Edit...

I would suggest using LEDs but they are also considered mystical beasts by some folks in this field.  ;)
Title: Re: Claimed OU circuit of Rosemary Ainslie
Post by: TinselKoala on July 14, 2009, 04:20:54 PM
It should be obvious the duty cycle is as reported by TK.

Well, maybe not for some. For those I suggest they replace the load resistor with a light bulb....also add one to the gate feed (tricky here because they'll be forced to figure out where to connect the reference for the bulb).
Then change a few caps to get the actions down to where they are visible.
All without changing the circuit function.

Light bulbs should be easier to read than a silly-scope?

>Edit...

I would suggest using LEDs but they are also considered mystical beasts by some folks in this field.  ;)

Actually I posted one light bulb video two days ago, I think, and another one last night. I thought they were pretty clear and unambiguous. The amazing thing is that some of the people we are referring to actually saw the first vid, and THEN still are managing to connect foot with mouth.
The last night's one, I was pretty worked up, you can tell from my voice. But I still think I was pretty nice, direct and clear, showing FG (NOT the damn 555) driving the Ainslie circuit with light bulb as load, monitoring mosfet drain just as Joit, (already showed Point "A" in the earlier vid--same thing naturally) using the most expensive oscilloscope I could get my hands on (since that seems to be the important characteristic of a tool, to some) to show something a smart seven-year old could tell you just by looking.

Good grief, what if I have to explain using the "AC coupling" feature to display a small signal riding on top of a much bigger DC offset.....like all the channel A traces have been. It's clear from posts that she believes "AC coupling" is what you use when you want to measure AC, as opposed to DC.

**pours a stiff jolt of Henessey's into the coffee**

**forget the coffee...just use the cognac.**


Title: Re: Claimed OU circuit of Rosemary Ainslie
Post by: BEP on July 14, 2009, 06:36:17 PM
Oh no!
Not the AC component of a DC signal!

Do that and they will think it is AC out.
Come to think of it....
There are many who think variations in DC means the signal is AC. Better not go there.
Title: Re: Claimed OU circuit of Rosemary Ainslie
Post by: ramset on July 14, 2009, 07:28:05 PM
TK
I know you have Rosemary on the stove right now, but perhaps you could comment on Don Smith ?
We know you like to play with voltage and Sparky things
Besides there's movies to watch

Bolt posted
Re: Selfrunning Free Energy devices up to 5 KW from Tariel Kapanadze
« Reply #368 on: Today at 04:44:44 PM »

go and watch my 3 videos i posted here some time ago before you do anything else on this subject.

http://www.metacafe.com/watch/2820531/don_smith_free_energy/
Title: Re: Claimed OU circuit of Rosemary Ainslie
Post by: ramset on July 14, 2009, 10:38:11 PM

http://translate.google.com/translate?u=http://freenrg.info/Misc/FR_Zoltan_ZPE_Circuit/&sl=fr&tl=en&hl=en&ie=UTF-8
Title: Re: Claimed OU circuit of Rosemary Ainslie
Post by: TinselKoala on July 14, 2009, 10:48:59 PM
Rosemary says:


"YouTube - Electric OU 7: Up is OFF

This link has been provided by a friend from OU.Com. It's been posted by TK and apparently shows that a MOSFET is constitutionally unable to apply any effective duty cycle to a battery supply source."
http://www.energeticforum.com/renewable-energy/4314-cop-17-heater-rosemary-ainslie-21.html#post60482

This of course is NOT TRUE. I never said nor implied such. I show the mosfet delivering precisely any duty cycle it is sent at its gate. A mosfet is a switch, just as poynt99 explained. You tell it to turn on, it does. You tell it to turn off, it does. Depending on freq and drive current of course.

Rosemary said,
"Joit - TK is now going public with the complaint that no MOSFET can actually turn off. I think that's what he's saying. It's becoming pitiful. Certainly this is not a comment on your switch. In fact, I simply cannot understand his point. I've now viewed the video. Perhaps you can make sense of it. Very strange - to say the least. As I say - I have NO IDEA what he's trying to point to. Am not sure if .99 can explain what it's about. Is he saying the the MOSFET never turns off. Or is he just trying to ask the public why there's an apparent voltage during the off period. This is almost embarrassing."
http://www.energeticforum.com/renewable-energy/4314-cop-17-heater-rosemary-ainslie-21.html#post60500

This again is NOT TRUE. It is a LIE and I believe she knows it. Nobody who can use a computer could possibly be that stupid.

No mosfet can actually turn off? Where did I say or even imply that?

RIGHT BEFORE YOUR EYES I show a mosfet turning FULL ON and FULL OFF, and I show the relationship between the mosfet (switch!! it's a switch, not some magical device!!),  I show the relationship between the gate signal, the mosfet state (ON or OFF!!!) and the current in the load.

Rosemary, if you don't understand this, fine. Lots of other important people do, and I'm quite sure Robert Oppenheimer would also. But you don't have to--you can continue to delegate your understanding, just as you have for years.

But if you continue saying that I am saying things that I am NOT saying, you are just digging yourself deeper and deeper into a hole, like you did on NakedScientists. Because my statements are all here available in public and can be checked against what you claim about me.

And Joit!!! Good grief man, will you just hook up a simple light bulb to YOUR EXACT CIRCUIT and show us what it does---if you aren't too embarrassed.



Title: Re: Claimed OU circuit of Rosemary Ainslie
Post by: TinselKoala on July 14, 2009, 11:09:46 PM
And Aaron  with reference to your questions and diagram:
The answer to all 3 questions is of course "YES". ((EDIT: oops. The second answer is of course NO. When the DRAIN looks 3.7 percent HIGH, the mosfet is OFF 3.7 percent of the time. Earlier I misread drain as gate.))

But they are the wrong questions. 
The issue is whether or not Rosemary used the right numbers in her duty cycle calculations. Clearly an accurate number for the time the MosFet is ON is needed. But this corresponds to the Drain voltage being LOW. Not high, as Joit claims and as Rosemary appears to maintain.

If you are reading here, imagine a voltmeter or oscilloscope connected at the mosfet drain. Or at the top of the resistor where it connects to the positive rail. When the gate signal is ON and the mosfet is conducting, light is on, what is the voltage at these points? When the gate signal is OFF and the mosfet is NOT conducting, light is off, what is the voltage at these points??

(Don't use an LED, you will be missing half the action. Use an incandescent bulb like I am using, or gotoluc is using. Resistive-inductive, remember? Not an led.)

Do you get it now? Do you now see why Joit is wrong, Rosemary is wrong, and poynt99 is right and I am right?

When the mosfet is conducting the voltage at those points is LOW, not high. When the voltage at those points is HIGH the mosfet is not conducting, it is off. Joit's trace shows the voltage going HIGH at the mosfet drain for short periods. The transistor is OFF at these times. If you still don't believe it, after my vids and the real builders telling you so, just hook up a bulb like I have done. Try it!
For goodness sakes, try it for yourselves with the light bulb, since interpreting scope traces is sooo very difficult and confusing.

Light bulb, Aaron and Joit.
Slow the freqs down, and think about what you are seeing. Carefully.
And also think about the implications for energy calculations that are done manually using Rosemary's method.

Aaron's example drawing is fine, and yes, as I have clearly shown the mosfet STATE (on or off) clearly exactly follows the gate drive state: ON is ON, for sure. But that's not the issue: the issue is HOW LONG it's on, and how that on time is measured. If you are looking at the Point A in Ainslie's circuit or the drain of the mosfet in your diagram, the VOLTAGE that the scope is measuring--what it uses to give the duty cycle figure...that voltage is HIGH when the MOSFET ( and the light) IS OFF. Use that exact circuit and put a meter in the exact place Rosemary does. Push that damn button and tell us what the voltage is on your meter.

Title: Re: Claimed OU circuit of Rosemary Ainslie
Post by: ramset on July 14, 2009, 11:37:45 PM
I hope your done [for the moment]
Look up please
Title: Re: Claimed OU circuit of Rosemary Ainslie
Post by: henieck on July 15, 2009, 12:16:24 AM
Rosemary from energeticF.:
Quote
”Then comes the tricky part. The duty cycle changes. The battery is, in effect, no longer able to deliver any current. The fields on the resistor collapse to zero. And the strength of that collapse relates to the applied energy from the On cycle. Energy is energy. What comes in must go out.”

 
- can anybody ask her please how she explains the fact – that when I measure the coil – it conforms to the Ohms Law and there is never any extra energy entering the coil over what Ohm’s Law “permits” – therefore magnetization of the coil gets for free. In other words: both an ordinary resistor and her resistive coil conforms to the Ohm’s Law – so the magnetization was suppose to be for free! From zipoons!

This is getting really hilarious now. Hey, what happened to the zipons and the whole theory?

Rosemary is clearly making some progress – she doesn’t say anymore that the coil gets magically energized by itself or by zipons :) There was a big argument about that with me. She maintained just few days ago, that while measuring the resistor- it conforms to Ohms law – and that since there is no additional energy above that Law entering the coil = therefore the magnetization was far free. :) :) :) So there is a huge change in her brain taking place - but somehow it wasn’t sufficient to destroy the whole concept yet… That was the main base for the entire concept of free energy. It magical magnetization was the place where the free energy was suppose to magically enter the system. Now she is changing her model somewhat. Fascinating…Talking about being aware of one’s own processes – I wonder whether she is aware of her last change. Normally when somebody realizes that reality differs form the beliefs gets anxious. Maybe this is why she had to walk the dog today…;)

Rosemary:
Quote
„It takes full advantage of that 'moment' and developes a spike to carry the full force of the energy applied in the On time and kicks it back in nano seconds as a 'spike' that is always evident 'beween' the on and off period. That's the counter electromotive force.”

- it is always good to know something new. It is about the other CMF – collapsing magnetic field, it is not the same as BEMF. Counter electromotive force fights back the applied current- energy from collapsed magnetic field occurs when current stop to flow. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Counter-electromotive_force


Rosemary:
Quote
“We don't have to go into too much detail about the 'inductive component' as the inductive componenet here is in the resistor itself. Whatever it measures as 'heat' WILL also reflect the energy that was delivered.

- this is fundamentally false. It even contradicts the previous statement from the same letter –“And the strength of that collapse relates to the applied energy from the On cycle”. The way she thinks does not cease to amaze me. She clearly uses the unique human mind’s feature that it can believe in two contradictory statements at the same time : all energy delivered goes into heat – and:  “the strength of that collapse relates to the applied energy from the On cycle. Energy is energy. What comes in must go out.”



Rosemasy:
Quote
“But that energy is evidently also measurable on the shunt. And where does it go? It goes first through the battery, thereby recharging it - and then to the load thereby heating it up.”

- you have 10$ in the battery, take it and put into the resistive coil. Let us say 2$ turn into heat and 8$ turn into magnetic field (what is the exact ratio depends upon the resistive coil characteristics). When all 10$ are spent then the switch opens. What is heat –is not mutually convertible back to electricity in this setup-  but due to the magnetic field collapse you can have all the 8$ back in electric form again. This goes into the battery. End of the “off“ cycle. Therefore there is less in the battery, but taking additional 2$ from the battery you can make the new cycle again. What is tricky is that normally without the feedback the circuit would only take 5$ during on cycle (4 recoverable and 1$ for the heat). The circuit tries to automatically compensate for any load – so when you connect the battery – it takes all the collapsing energy – and as much you have to give in addition on the front end during the next cycle.

Now if you think about heat as a taxation (for poor conductivity) – that it is obvious that there is more tax form 2$ than from 1$. (one resistor hotter than the other one).This is how I see it…
Title: Re: Claimed OU circuit of Rosemary Ainslie
Post by: ramset on July 15, 2009, 01:21:02 AM
henieck
http://www.metacafe.com/watch/2820531/don_smith_free_energy/

You asked whats new 

Also   

 RAMSET 
An engineers opinion  [TK}
Aaron with reference to your question and diagram: imagine a voltmeter or oscilloscope connected at the mosfet drain. Or at the top of the resistor where it connects to the positive rail. When the gate signal is ON and the mosfet is conducting, what is the voltage at these points? When the gate signal is OFF and the mosfet is NOT conducting, what is the voltage at these points

When the mosfet is conducting the voltage at those points is LOW, not high. When the voltage at those points is HIGH the mosfet is not conducting, it is off. Joit's trace shows the voltage going HIGH at the mosfet drain for short periods. The transistor is OFF at these times. just hook up a bulb like I have done. Try it!


.
Slow the freqs down, and think about what you are seeing. Carefully.

Aaron the drawing is fine, and yes, as shown the mosfet STATE (on or off) clearly exactly follows the gate drive state: ON is ON, for sure. But that's not the issue: the issue is HOW LONG it's on, and how that on time is measured. If you are looking at the Point A in Ainslie's circuit or the drain of the mosfet in your diagram, the VOLTAGE that the scope is measuring--what it uses to give the duty cycle figure...that voltage is HIGH when the MOSFET ( and the light) IS OFF. Use that exact circuit and put a meter in the exact place Rosemary does. Push that button and tell us what the voltage is on your meter.


Spiritual Entrepreneur
    @@Aaron said
simple question
Ramset,

That is right but that does not answer the specific questions.

A closed switch is like taking a voltmeter and putting both leads next together on the same wire, there will be no potential difference even though current is flowing and there is voltage moving. That much is common sense. Actually, there will be small milivolt reading because there is a small potential difference but for all practical purposes, there is no voltage.

If the DRAIN has a 3.7% duty cycle, IS IT or IS IT NOT conducting current from a power source for 3.7% of the time per pulse?

It really is a simple yes or no question.



The ball is in your court TK
Title: Re: Claimed OU circuit of Rosemary Ainslie
Post by: henieck on July 15, 2009, 01:33:54 AM
ramset, I can see the both threads now, thanks. I just can’t send posts there.
Title: Re: Claimed OU circuit of Rosemary Ainslie
Post by: TinselKoala on July 15, 2009, 01:49:41 AM
Thanks, chet.  Aaron's question has an easy answer: NO. When the drain signal is at battery voltage (high) the mosfet is OFF and the load is non-conducting. Clearly. You can wire up that circuit, using a real bulb instead of an LED, and if your voltmeter is sensitive enough to pick up the small voltage drop, you will see it. What looks like a big signal on the scope traces is really a very small fluctuation sitting on top of a large DC offset---the battery voltage. This is why 'AC coupling' must be used to resolve it. If you use DC coupling, if the screen shows a line at battery voltage the fluctuation will be too small to resolve--the voltage doesn't drop very much when the mosfet is ON. But it drops, for sure. If an oscilloscope is relatively dumb, like the Fluke 199, it needs to be TOLD whether you are calling the "high" signal "OFF" or "ON" to give a duty cycle output. There are 2 separate controls in the FLuke that must be set properly: the trace invert function AND the duty cycle definition. Only ONE of the Four possible combinations of these controls is correct in this experiment.
Fortunately the LeCroy is smarter than that. And fortunately the Philips analog scope does not even have a trace invert function, and it is a true 2 beam scope, so no fancy fiddling is done with the signal, as in the 2-trace (not 2 beam) Tek 2213 scope, which does have a Ch2 trace invert function.

@Chet: thanks for posting those things over there. It's pretty ridiculous I know. Re Zoltan: I've known about him for some time now. It appears to me that he too does not understand that energy is the area under an instantaneous power curve. But I have not tested his circuit, nor do I have plans to.
Re Don Smith...him too I have been aware of for a while.
In the past I have tried to stay out of the electric and electronic OU discussions unless I see some obvious error, or an incredible claim, or both at once like here. It's not really my field (although I will pit my knowledge against the likes of Ainslie, Joit, and Aaron any day any where) and I don't like to get entangled doing remedial EE101.
I will take a look at those things you asked me to, later on. I just have too much going on right now to give it proper attention. For example, I mistakenly put the coffee pot in the refrigerator this morning.
Keep up the good work. I hope you don't wind up getting tarred with the same brush they are chasing me with.
--TK
Title: Re: Claimed OU circuit of Rosemary Ainslie
Post by: henieck on July 15, 2009, 01:50:50 AM
If the DRAIN has a 3.7% duty cycle, IS IT or IS IT NOT conducting current from a power source for 3.7% of the time per pulse?

It really is a simple yes or no question.

- what is a duty cycle? To me normally it indicates signal like from 555 timer where you have voltage and current in phase. What are you referring as duty cycle while talking about the Drain? Is it about voltage or current?
Title: Re: Claimed OU circuit of Rosemary Ainslie
Post by: TinselKoala on July 15, 2009, 01:55:27 AM
OK then, if Aaron thinks the way he does, how does he explain my video?

Am I faking something?
When anyone with a scope and a few components can do EXACTLY the same thing?

Where's the error here? Can't you SEE that when the drain signal is high, the mosfet is OFF?

How is that light lighting up when the drain signal is low, if  Aaron and Rosemary are right?

And, once again, "if" I am right, what does that do to the calculations in her paper?

Are you accusing me of faking this video? When ANYONE with a scope , the knowledge to use it, and a few components can do it for themselves?

And has Joit reported his light-bulb results yet?
Title: Re: Claimed OU circuit of Rosemary Ainslie
Post by: ramset on July 15, 2009, 01:55:28 AM
TK
I might get thrown off the buss [hopefully not under]
Chet
Title: Re: Claimed OU circuit of Rosemary Ainslie
Post by: TinselKoala on July 15, 2009, 02:08:51 AM
- what is a duty cycle? To me normally it indicates signal like from 555 timer where you have voltage and current in phase. What are you referring as duty cycle while talking about the Drain? Is it about voltage or current?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Duty_cycle

Henieck, a duty cycle is a parameter of a pulse train that gives the proportion of HIGH signal to LOW signal. A pulse train, that is a set of rectangular pulses like that we have been dealing with. Normally duty cycles are considered in percentages. So a perfect square wave would have a duty cycle of 50 percent.

Now, in a situation where the baseline is at zero volts and the peaks are at 10 volts like the 555 timer gives, you consider the time the signal is LOW (at baseline) compared to the time the signal is HIGH. One cycle, or many, it doesn't matter as long as you use complete cycles.

But the Ainslie paper is talking about current being conducted by the load, and she appears to believe (edit) (along with Joit and some others) that the load is conducting when the DRAIN of the mosfet is high. The peaks in Joit's trace, and in the last trace shown in my #7 video, those peaks are at battery voltage, and the low parts are somewhat (not much) lower. This signal must be read on AC coupling as the signal is much smaller than the DC offset. So, it's easy to see how the mistake was made. She appears to think that since the "duty cycle" at the drain is HIGH only 3.7 percent of the time, that the mosfet is ON at that time and conducting current through the load. But as I have shown, and as others agree, this is backwards.

Sure, the DRAIN duty cycle is 3.7 percent high, no argument there. That means the transistor is OFF for 3.7 percent of the time. That's where the argument is.

But that's not the duty cycle of interest---it's the LOAD's duty cycle we need to know for the calculations, and it's only the assumed shortness of that cycle that makes this OU claim possible. If the cycle AT THE LOAD is long, there's no mystery about the load heating up to 50 degrees over ambient.

And that's what I believe has happened.

So fine, if someone wants to call the drain signal a 3.7 percent duty cycle, that's OK with me, as long as everyone knows the MOSFET is OFF at that time. Not ON.
Title: Re: Claimed OU circuit of Rosemary Ainslie
Post by: ramset on July 15, 2009, 02:14:57 AM
TK
I must say you are a saint [not a religious one]
I sincerely appreciate your tolerance and sharing /teaching nature
And you got skills
Chet
Title: Re: Claimed OU circuit of Rosemary Ainslie
Post by: henieck on July 15, 2009, 02:35:08 AM
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Duty_cycle

a duty cycle is a parameter of a pulse train that gives the proportion of HIGH signal to LOW signal.

- I know that - but what is a SIGNAL then? My statement from the above : ...555 timer where you have voltage and current in phase. What are you referring as duty cycle while talking about the Drain? Is it about voltage or current?

- It is obvious for you and me, but they one time take voltage, another time the current for the power calculations or measure the voltage and think that the current is the same (phase) or mix everything the other way around or who knows what else. They need basic course on this. If you take any shortcuts on this they are going to throw you out from the forum again ;)
Title: Re: Claimed OU circuit of Rosemary Ainslie
Post by: ramset on July 15, 2009, 02:42:53 AM
TK
changes the thread
Headliner on first post by Aaron[just added]
NOTE: DO NOT USE THE CIRCUIT FROM THE QUANTUM ARTICLE. THE CIRCUIT FROM ROSEMARY'S PAPER ON THE EXPERIMENT IS WHAT NEEDS TO BE USED.
Title: Re: Claimed OU circuit of Rosemary Ainslie
Post by: ramset on July 15, 2009, 03:43:49 AM
 Aaron 
duty cycle
My question was:

Quote:
Originally Posted by Aaron View Post
If the DRAIN has a 3.7% duty cycle, IS IT or IS IT NOT conducting current from a power source for 3.7% of the time per pulse?
Quote:
Originally Posted by poynt99 View Post
The MOSFET switch needs to be set to exhibit a 3.7% ON duty cycle
Quote:
Originally Posted by RAMSET[TK] View Post
NO.
When the drain signal is at battery voltage (high) the mosfet is OFF and the load is non-conducting.

PS - If you want to call the drain signal a 3.7 percent duty cycle, that's OK as long as you know the MOSFET is OFF at that time. Not ON.
Right, but I never mentioned anything about determining 3.7% on by doing the voltage check as explained. Just that if there is a 3.7% duty cycle then the switch is on 3.7% of the time and if the drain is on that long, the whole switch has 3.7% duty cycle.
__________________
With Gratitude, Aaron

PS
TK
when your drinking your frozen coffee watch some of this

http://www.metacafe.com/watch/2820531/don_smith_free_energy/
99 you also please
Title: Re: Claimed OU circuit of Rosemary Ainslie
Post by: TinselKoala on July 15, 2009, 03:54:35 AM
Thanks again Chet...here's more fuel for the fire

I took Aaron's question circuit and breadboarded it up and shot a video. It's uploading and processing now. 

I am afraid my anger and frustration come through, and I apologize for that.

Now that I have hopefully shown beyond any doubt that the mosfet drain, or the load at point A in the Ainslie circuit, is HIGH when the mosfet is OFF. That is, the duty cycle produced by the original 555 timer circuit causes the MOSFET to conduct 96.3 percent of the time.

And, since AINSLIE has, until this moment, apparently believed that a HIGH signal or voltage here means the mosfet is ON and the load is conducting.....and the energy calculations were based on this mistaken duty cycle number.....well, you do the math.

So the point that I have been trying to make all along is this: Ainslie most probably generated the data in the experiment with a mosfet that was ON and conducting, 96.3 percent of the time.

So it was feeding much much more power to the load than her calculations indicate.
BUT until she tells us FOR SURE what the experiment was actually doing wrt duty cycle, and until she "shows her work" by actually showing how she calculated the energy--not with words but with example equations and results--until then, I think we must conclude that the entire paper is in error and the data invalid.

Not only is there no OU or battery charging here, we have all been wasting our time and money because of Ainslie's strong personality and mistaken ideas about circuitry.

Oh well, I will be able to make a spanky DRSSTC with these mosfets and the Groundloop/Gotoluc H-bridge circuit--which is extremely useful. So all isn't lost.
Title: Re: Claimed OU circuit of Rosemary Ainslie
Post by: ramset on July 15, 2009, 04:14:57 AM
I haven't seen the vid, but bight your lip these are very sensitive folks no anger just facts
please post a link to the vid
Chet
http://www.metacafe.com/watch/2820531/don_smith_free_energy/
99 you also please
Title: Re: Claimed OU circuit of Rosemary Ainslie
Post by: poynt99 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
Title: Re: Claimed OU circuit of Rosemary Ainslie
Post by: TinselKoala 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
Title: Re: Claimed OU circuit of Rosemary Ainslie
Post by: poynt99 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
Title: Re: Claimed OU circuit of Rosemary Ainslie
Post by: TinselKoala 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
Title: Re: Claimed OU circuit of Rosemary Ainslie
Post by: poynt99 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
Title: Re: Claimed OU circuit of Rosemary Ainslie
Post by: TinselKoala 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
Title: Re: Claimed OU circuit of Rosemary Ainslie
Post by: poynt99 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 ;)
Title: Re: Claimed OU circuit of Rosemary Ainslie
Post by: henieck 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.
Title: Re: Claimed OU circuit of Rosemary Ainslie
Post by: tishatang 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
Title: Re: Claimed OU circuit of Rosemary Ainslie
Post by: henieck 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.
Title: Re: Claimed OU circuit of Rosemary Ainslie
Post by: Cloxxki 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.
Title: Re: Claimed OU circuit of Rosemary Ainslie
Post by: TinselKoala 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.
 ::)
Title: Re: Claimed OU circuit of Rosemary Ainslie
Post by: TinselKoala 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.)
Title: Re: Claimed OU circuit of Rosemary Ainslie
Post by: TinselKoala 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?
Title: Re: Claimed OU circuit of Rosemary Ainslie
Post by: Yucca 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
Title: Re: Claimed OU circuit of Rosemary Ainslie
Post by: TinselKoala 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.
Title: Re: Claimed OU circuit of Rosemary Ainslie
Post by: TinselKoala 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.
 ;)
Title: Re: Claimed OU circuit of Rosemary Ainslie
Post by: TinselKoala 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.
Title: Re: Claimed OU circuit of Rosemary Ainslie
Post by: HeairBear 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.
Title: Re: Claimed OU circuit of Rosemary Ainslie
Post by: TinselKoala 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.
Title: Re: Claimed OU circuit of Rosemary Ainslie
Post by: NerzhDishual 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/ (http://quanthomme.free.fr/)
And more precisely here:
http://quanthomme.free.fr/qhsuite/circuitzolt.htm (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
Title: Re: Claimed OU circuit of Rosemary Ainslie
Post by: TinselKoala 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.
Title: Re: Claimed OU circuit of Rosemary Ainslie
Post by: tagor 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

Title: Re: Claimed OU circuit of Rosemary Ainslie
Post by: TinselKoala 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.
Title: Re: Claimed OU circuit of Rosemary Ainslie
Post by: TinselKoala 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.
Title: Re: Claimed OU circuit of Rosemary Ainslie
Post by: ddmdragon 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.
Title: Re: Claimed OU circuit of Rosemary Ainslie
Post by: fuzzytomcat 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/ (http://quanthomme.free.fr/)
And more precisely here:
http://quanthomme.free.fr/qhsuite/circuitzolt.htm (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
 :) 

Title: Re: Claimed OU circuit of Rosemary Ainslie
Post by: fritznien 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
Title: Re: Claimed OU circuit of Rosemary Ainslie
Post by: TinselKoala 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.
Title: Re: Claimed OU circuit of Rosemary Ainslie
Post by: TinselKoala 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.
Title: Re: Claimed OU circuit of Rosemary Ainslie
Post by: ramset on July 15, 2009, 09:39:00 PM
Well
99 is gonna run a sim ,if it shows OU ,that will be a first for him

Some Don Smith Stuff [Tesla coils simple things VERY BIG ""RESULTS""
http://www.free-energy-info.co.uk/Smith.pdf

his vids showing all AMAZINGLY SIMPLE

Chet
http://www.metacafe.com/watch/2820531/don_smith_free_energy/
Title: Re: Claimed OU circuit of Rosemary Ainslie
Post by: TinselKoala on July 15, 2009, 09:39:31 PM
Oh my goodness.

Hoppy said,

Quote
"We have all stated our various opinions and clearly and understandably there are still differences. My suggestion is to take Rosemary's circuit complete with 555 timer design and simply run it for sufficient hours to completely discharge the test battery at its C20 rating and take a before and after ampere hour capacity reading with a good quality battery capacity meter (BCM) on a battery with say a before test at rest voltage of 25.00V battery.

Rosemary has made it very clear to us that her circuit running at 90% plus duty cycle has been authenticated as being OU big time. If this is the case, then it will be easy enough to prove. I suggest that the test must be conducted to ensure that its duration be based on fully discharging the battery at a current based on that used for the DC control test which in Rosemary's case was 17.74W / 13.32V = 1.33A. This would require a battery of 25 - 30A/hrs. Assuming a seperate battery supply is used to run the 555 pulse circuit as was the case in Rosemary's test, then any loss of battery capacity measured after a good rest after the test, will strongly suggest under unity. Comparative 'before and after' test open circuit battery voltage measurements are not a reliable guide of capacity loss or gain."

Which sounds to me like he's saying, build the exact Ainslie circuit as published and test it using the correct protocol for battery discharge testing.

And Rosemary replied,

Quote
Hoppy - I would rather you do not dictate the terms and conditions for authentication. I have already stipulated what is required. I would also thank you and .99 to explain your dependence on simulator software that you are also confident will not allow for any overunity result.

I am awaiting the details of a post that apparently went to OU.COM - written by -.99 that speaks to this. When I have it I will address the issue again.

Which sounds like she is saying "OU is proven; if your tests don't show OU on my circuit your tests are (or will be) wrong."

In other words, "how can I lose, with the stuff I use?"

I am literally flabbergasted by this attitude. You can take any of my work and pick it apart using any tool you like ,and if a valid tool used correctly finds an error I want to know about it--so that I can correct it. If I don't understand something, it does NOT go out the door with my name on it.
It is a big mistake to delegate understanding.
Title: Re: Claimed OU circuit of Rosemary Ainslie
Post by: 0c on July 15, 2009, 10:24:33 PM
(Somebody please post this where Rosemary can see it.)

Rosemary,

To give the rest of the replicators a definitive baseline to work from:

1) Could you please locate the device you used for your experiments and post some detailed photographs of the circuitry? This should resolve any questions about the actual circuit construction (flyback diode, etc.).

2) Could you then provide a video of the experimental procedure described in your papers, using your original device, which clearly demonstrates the gains you have reported? Please include shots of your instruments, sampling points, settings, and waveforms.

This should help clear up much of the confusion.

Regards,
overconfident
Title: Re: Claimed OU circuit of Rosemary Ainslie
Post by: TinselKoala on July 15, 2009, 10:35:29 PM
And now she is accusing poynt99, of all people, of lacking the "required intellectual integrity" to vet her work.

And this one in particular really cracked me up:

"Nor did you point out that PSpice could not, under any circumstances, simulate anomalous conditions. That is less than intellectually honest - by its kindest assessment."

IF she knew what she was talking about, this might be sad. But since she has no clue about how to even use the "PM" feature of a web forum (don't you just click?) she probably won't be running any circuit sims any time soon.
So it's just ridiculous, not even sad.

I wonder about the "intellectual honesty" of continually referring to patent applications as "patents" when it is clear that the folks she is talking to believe they are actually granted patents. Is that intellectually honest? I wonder about the "intellectual honesty" of someone who allows an admittedly incorrect (OR WAS IT?) diagram persist in literature with her name on it, for over seven years. Is that intellectually honest? I wonder about the "intellectual honesty" of someone who praises you as long as you agree with her but as soon as you provide evidence that she MAY be wrong, she seeks to discredit you , to have you silenced,  and she starts slinging mud.

Welcome to the club, .99.
Title: Re: Claimed OU circuit of Rosemary Ainslie
Post by: TinselKoala on July 15, 2009, 10:40:05 PM
(Somebody please post this where Rosemary can see it.)

Rosemary,

To give the rest of the replicators a definitive baseline to work from:

1) Could you please locate the device you used for your experiments and post some detailed photographs of the circuitry? This should resolve any questions about the actual circuit construction (flyback diode, etc.).

2) Could you then provide a video of the experimental procedure described in your papers, using your original device, which clearly demonstrates the gains you have reported? Please include shots of your instruments, sampling points, settings, and waveforms.

This should help clear up much of the confusion.

Regards,
overconfident

Don't hold your breath. After all, why should she do any of that? That's what a "traditional" scientist would do. But we are dealing with an enlightened being, on the intellectual order of a Robert Oppenheimer, by her own humble admission.

She don' haff to show you no stinkin badges.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nsdZKCh6RsU

Title: Re: Claimed OU circuit of Rosemary Ainslie
Post by: TinselKoala on July 15, 2009, 10:51:33 PM
So let's see:

Aaron says you cannot use Spice, or the fact that using Spice reproduces all the behaviour of the circuit including load heating but NOT including OU...to disprove Rosemary's thesis.

And Rosemary says that you cannot use her actual circuit, like I did, which shows heating in the load like her published results, with conventional analysis which does not show OU, to prove that her circuit (which was what, now?) does not produce OU.

Apparently, only analyses that show OU on the Ainslie circuit are valid to test her circuit with. If it doesn't show OU, you (or I) didn't do it right. Since the OU has already been proven. So be sure to analyze this circuit (or a different one?) with a method that will show OU, otherwise the method is wrong. QED.

How can one argue with logic like that? I certainly cannot.
Title: Re: Claimed OU circuit of Rosemary Ainslie
Post by: NerzhDishual on July 15, 2009, 10:53:15 PM
@TinselKoala,

I was just giving some informations about "yet another claimed
OU CCT using squares waves and a coil" (YACOUCUSVAC).

We still had YACC (Yet Another Compiler-Compiler)
http://dinosaur.compilertools.net/#yacc
Now we have YACOUCUSVAC.

Due to the draconian specifications of this CirCuiT I do not intend to
reproduce it.

To be clear:
I'm not a skeptic. I do "believe" that "OU" (COP >1) is possible and not
only with heat pumps just because that there is an 'Aether' that could be harnessed.

I'm just wondering whether this "achievement of OU" were not (for the moment)
also a strange and elusive phenomenon that is reserved to some fortunate few ???
Something could only work with somebody or in some place or during some time.
Kinda paranormal ??? Go figure... See William A. Tiller.


@Tagor.
Merci.

@FuzzyTomCat,
Thanks.
I have amended my page. BTW: it was not up to date as the Quanthomme page
http://quanthomme.free.fr/qhsuite/circuitzolt.htm  (http://quanthomme.free.fr/qhsuite/circuitzolt.htm) was updated since March 2005.
Translation here:
http://translate.google.fr/translate?u=http%3A%2F%2Fquanthomme.free.fr%2Fqhsuite%2Fcircuitzolt.htm&sl=fr&tl=en&hl=fr&ie=UTF-8 (http://translate.google.fr/translate?u=http%3A%2F%2Fquanthomme.free.fr%2Fqhsuite%2Fcircuitzolt.htm&sl=fr&tl=en&hl=fr&ie=UTF-8)

Happy to see that you could get in touch with Zoltan SZILI.

Very Best
Title: Re: Claimed OU circuit of Rosemary Ainslie
Post by: TinselKoala on July 15, 2009, 11:01:30 PM
Quote
EgmQC - I need to endorse Armagdn03 here. Our paper shows what is well known as a Parastic Hartley Effect. It's a random oscillation that needs to be taken out of signal circuitry. It's well known and problematic. What has not been known is that it gives a remarkable overunity result as it applies to applications for heat.

The point is this. No-one seems to be able to duplicate that resonance. It is characterised by spikes that are entirely aperiodic - and it is, therefore, very tricky to compute. Hence the need for specialised measuring equipment.

Parasitic Hartley effect? Hmm...google is stumped too.

But that's ok because I have a "specialized measuring equipment"--the Fluke 199 ScopeMeter that she originally used (but on the NakedScientists forum she said it was a Fluke 123--no matter, I have both.)

This scope is a child's toy compared to the LeCroy that I have demonstrated, and it has well known (at least by scope users) triggering issues on spiky signals. I have even inserted trimmer caps in my circuit in an attempt to make it produce any non-regular behaviour--and it won't.

I am almost certain that what she is describing here is false triggering of the FlukeOScope, but without seeing a scope trace from her it's just a conjecture. But a strong one.

I will be posting a video tonight of this false triggering phenomenon, and maybe she can tell us if what she saw is anything like what I will show.

But I don't expect any real cooperation. After all, she is sitting at a computer, typing words, while I am lugging expensive test equipment around, building circuits and testing them, while swimming upstream with one hand.
Title: Re: Claimed OU circuit of Rosemary Ainslie
Post by: Cloxxki on July 15, 2009, 11:17:40 PM
Demanding recognition vs. requesting verification.

Perhaps you would spend your time wiser by just making a two-column list.

One for the firm believers, nomatter what. 
And one for those who put serious doubt in an inventor who chooses to discredit their long-awaited replicators when they post critical questions.

It's interesting how this circuit seems sufficiently complicated to maintain this myst of doubt, or hope actually, yet also simple enough to be replicated easily.

Really, if TK has it right here, the article should be corrected by the editors. It being out there discredits the OU community more than it helps now. Even if it does work, the inventor is not really cooperative. In a less serious thread the inventor would be accused of being as WIB. Drawing attention of the world's most energetic OU researchers, directing it away from things that really matter, obvious gains for technology to be made at the cost of the establishment.
Title: Re: Claimed OU circuit of Rosemary Ainslie
Post by: TinselKoala on July 15, 2009, 11:43:32 PM
@Nerzh:  ;D Yet another....

I suppose you are talking about Zoltan Szili, who is familiar to me. He says 99 percent of his work is done on simulations.
And Rosemary is very excited about Zoltan. Even though DrStiffler has cautioned us about the specific simulation program that Zoltan uses--it won't produce results contrary to CoE unless misused.
Somehow, this does not surprise me.

So, I guess the situation is like this: If your simulation doesn't produce OU behavior, you cannot use it to test Ainslie's circuit, because as everyone knows, simulations are unreliable and in the hands of intellectually dishonest researchers they could be used in an attempt to disprove OU, and that proves they are inappropriate tests.
And, if your simulation does produce OU behaviour, regardless of whether you are operating it correctly or not, it CAN and should be used to PROVE (not disprove) the Ainslie circuit is OU.
Somehow, this does not surprise me either.

Um.
Could I have another beverage, please? I don't seem to be drunk enough to understand this logic.
Title: Re: Claimed OU circuit of Rosemary Ainslie
Post by: TinselKoala on July 15, 2009, 11:48:14 PM
@Cloxxki: What do you mean, "IF"??
 ;D
Even the most die-hard deniers seem to have been convinced by my "critical thinking supplement." I showed it to my landlord's 7 year old daughter, and she got it. Drain HIGH = Load OFF. The hydraulic analogy even works here.
555 duty cycle as I said =  confirmed by many other builds and sims.
Probability that Ainslie used the wrong duty cycle in her manual calcs: extremely high, and not yet addressed by Ainslie.
But there's still that JOIT thing. Well, he will see too, eventually, if he ever bothers to test his circuit or read a textbook.
Title: Re: Claimed OU circuit of Rosemary Ainslie
Post by: tagor on July 16, 2009, 07:01:54 AM

@Tagor.
Merci.



NerzhDishual membership from  Aaron


He's all set. Please let him know.
Title: Re: Claimed OU circuit of Rosemary Ainslie
Post by: henieck on July 16, 2009, 10:59:20 AM
If anybody is going to make battery test –there is one more idea. You can easily add one more independent indicator -aerometer for battery’s acid. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Aerometer This will indicate density – which is directly related to number of ions – which is related to the degree of charging/discharging. I couldn’t use it in my test because I had too small battery to fill up my bulky probe. I would just measure the density at the extreme points. It is not extremely exact - but will entirely independently to voltage measurement confirm any substantial anomalies if any are present. If you are going to use it as a rookie – remember to wear work/old clothes – because if there is any invisible droplet of acid, after some hours will destroy the fabric- so after next washing you will see a little hole, or many holes…Just don’t make any mess with this idea again, because I don’t know if it was me who mentioned to use simulation first – but now people are trying to prove/disprove the whole over unity concept this way. I was mainly thinking about the fact that “one resistor warmer then the other one” phenomenon was not any supernatural occurrence – since it was defined in the software already. But ff there is any NEW zipon theory or over unity to be found – I think it is logical to search in reality, not in already existing software models.

I don’t know if I understood it right, but I think I saw comments that there is very little current going back from the coil. At one, random instance as example I recovered 31J into the capacitor out of every 185J delivered to the coil (unknown freq and duty cycle). Connecting the flyback to the battery – the increased current was even bigger, closer to 40:60 (probably due to different internal resistance or something). Like Rosemary says – you can sweep the frequency and duty - and find the range where the current circulating in the circuit almost doubles. Connect and disconnect the flyback to the battery’s positive terminal to see and detect that. The current measured between the battery and the coil will substantially increase.
On the other hand there is no overall charging visible – because in on cycle battery takes charge – and the very next one gives everything away, plus some more for heating.


NerzhDishual membership from  Aaron

He's all set. Please let him know.

Clearly Rosemary has a mission here to prove the concept- and everything contrary to this goal is being deleted. She acts like omniscient and enlightened sect master. She even asked her dedicated servant Aron to check the background of new members. Whoever turns “against” the master is condemned or accused of suspicious motives, discredited and ejected. Stalin would simply kill… Those who show just ANYTHING that can be interpreted her way are cherished.
Title: Re: Claimed OU circuit of Rosemary Ainslie
Post by: Yucca on July 16, 2009, 02:51:58 PM
She acts like omniscient and enlightened sect master. She even asked her dedicated servant Aron to check the background of new members. Whoever turns “against” the master is condemned or accused of suspicious motives, discredited and ejected. Stalin would simply kill… Those who show just ANYTHING that can be interpreted her way are cherished.

LOL,  :D, So funny, she certainly knows how to groom people by feeding them extra sugary compliments, calling them "angels" and so forth.

What I thought was particularly entertaining was when you entered her thread, at first she was all gushy and luvvy, trying to attract you into the fold, then as you kept hold of your logic she started to turn nasty and now you´ve rubbed shoulders with TK you´re on her execution list! :D
Title: Re: Claimed OU circuit of Rosemary Ainslie
Post by: poynt99 on July 16, 2009, 02:56:08 PM
henieck,

Yes it's the age old pattern. It's part of life on FE forums it seems, and there's no clear way to change it.

I've failed to do any real good over there and very little over here as well it seems. I had hoped that the folks who needed the info would have been discussing it. I suppose it is human nature to ignore information that requires a little time and open-mindedness to understand. I've been around long enough to have known beforehand the outcome of such a proposition, but I guess we all need reminders from time to time. Consider me "refreshed".

Time to re-focus on my own work, but I am interested in seeing what Zoltan has to present.

So far my simulation results are quite different than his. Basically, the wave forms I am obtaining are "mirrored" compared to his, and I am getting only about 1/10th the voltage and current he is.

Fundamentally, the circuit he used is predisposed to unrealistic results because the inductor model used is unrealistic. There is no series DC resistance, nor parallel capacitance included in the model. Also, the Gate drive is unrealistic as well, as there must be some finite resistance in the Gate path, which by nature will reduce the rise and fall times the MOSFET can switch. Albeit this is a somewhat minor omission, but is good practice to include when doing simulations.

I am a little surprised that at his level, these important elements were omitted.

.99
Title: Re: Claimed OU circuit of Rosemary Ainslie
Post by: ramset on July 16, 2009, 03:31:41 PM
99
please don't think your wasting time!!
Your Skills are quite obvious and you plant many seeds when you post
[and save people a lot of wasted time]

Besides Rosemary obviously doesn't know your a good guy[very smart and very skilled ] seeking the truth


Chet
Title: Re: Claimed OU circuit of Rosemary Ainslie
Post by: Cloxxki on July 16, 2009, 03:51:01 PM
Too bad EF has no overunity prize to collect.
With knowledge offered to us all in the RA thread, a semi-skilled researcher should be able to add some diffusing components and loops, and then use RA's unquestioned measuring methods in attaining triple digit COP.
With the present thread's members all behind the circuit, it will be hard for the RA posse to refute the even greater gains reached.
Title: Re: Claimed OU circuit of Rosemary Ainslie
Post by: TinselKoala on July 16, 2009, 05:32:09 PM
Two new vids up, EOU9 parts 1 and 2, playing with oscilloscopes
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qIALHiRL4PY
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=oTcG1dAsrdc

And I ran an experimental run this morning, comparing load heating vs. time for the 96 percent and 4 percent duty cycles from the FG, using a load of R = 3.8 ohms, L = 82 microHenrys.

Briefly, the time and temp endpoints were:

4 percent ON: about 11 degrees over ambient (target = ambient + 52 as per Ainslie) at 70 minutes.

96 percent ON: experiment terminated at 4 minutes; load temp 103.2 C and rising fast, about 80 degrees over ambient.

I'll give the full experiment parameters (voltages, currents, powers) later on today. I've got to go to work now.

As I continue the temperature testing, I will make the .csv files of the raw data available for public crunching. All comments welcome, pro and con. Of course, if you are too con, I'll send Owlsley to get you.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=X2HHtTtfDT0
Title: Re: Claimed OU circuit of Rosemary Ainslie
Post by: ramset on July 16, 2009, 08:44:49 PM
TK
Ramset I've just watched those videos. Strange 20 minutes of my life. Be that as it may - can someone advise TK that he needs to put his probes directly across the shunt resistor. The meter has got a dc coupling function. He needs to get a fairly wide range of sample waveforms because he's now dealing with some pretty aperiodic waveforms and some pretty hectic numbers. The scope meter will show him the voltage.

When he's found the number and measured a fair sample range, on the scope - then do a dump of those numbers and work it through a spread sheet. Then - take the sum of the voltages divided by the number of samples and it should tally with voltage value at the digital display at the scope. Then simply use that voltage number - divide it by his shunt (from memory 0.5v) will give the amperage. His shunt isn't ideal. It should be pure carbon - but it's ok.

That's the important number. He needs a temperature gauge for his energy measure dissipated at the load because of the complexity of his waveform. Then just compare those two values.
Title: Re: Claimed OU circuit of Rosemary Ainslie
Post by: fuzzytomcat on July 16, 2009, 09:13:36 PM
Hi everyone,

@TK and other interested parties ...

There is a posting of mine at Energetic Forum I'd like to share and get comments on, I feel there is some importance here because of the need for a "squeeky clean" ground so as there is no frequency's or harmonics induced into operation and measurements.

As you know I'm sure, in a residential area as many as five (5) homes can be connected  to one utility transformer supplying 120/240 volt "with a common neutral" to each home and bonded to a grounding system (if there) possibly inducing unwanted results in simulations of replications and measurements of results.

Any comment would be appreciated .......

http://www.energeticforum.com/60534-post635.html

Quote
Ground - Grounded - Grounding

Hi everyone,

There has been something that I have noticed looking at many older documents and illustrations of the term "Ground" as in Earth or "Terra firma" Terra firma - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia . As you all know common voltages from countries vary, the UK, Europe, Africa parts of Asia many more not to be named for example use 240 volt ..... but the United States and other North and South America countries use 120/240 volt ..... the big difference is how the "Ground" is connected and referenced.

Where 240 volt is and the only voltage available meaning "NO" 120 volt, a ground conductor is actually Grounded to "Ground", Earth or "Terra firma".

Where 120/240 volt is a ground conductor is bonded to the Neutral wire in a Electrical Service Panel (circuit breaker or fuse) whether in a residence, commercial or industrial application. This would also include "Bonding" of any ground rods, water pipes ( if metal ) and natural gas lines all bonded to the Service neutral conductor. SO A GROUND WIRE AND EVERYTHING CONNECTED TO IT ( neutral wire, pipes ) IS NOT A TRUE GROUND and anything connected to it can be subject to unwanted frequency's or harmonics induced into the grounding system through the neutral conductor.

How To Fix -

A separate "Ground" Earth or "Terra firma" connection must be used generally called a "Isolated Grounding System" using one 8'-0" ground rod a minimum of 6 (six) feet from any other ground rod system or underground water and gas lines. It must be totally isolated using a minimum of a #8 AWG insulated green conductor and must not be connected in any way to you existing grounding system ..... any questions you should contact a qualified person (disclaimer).

Testing equipment causing harmonics can be somewhat isolated during operation using a "UPS" power battery back up supply ( AC to DC to AC ) but that does not solve the ground reference problem.


http://translate.google.com/translate?u=http://freenrg.info/Misc/FR_Zoltan_ZPE_Circuit/&sl=fr&tl=en&hl=en&ie=UTF-8

Quote:
Not need an oscilloscope to demonstrate on the unit: it is enough to measure currents ex 2: between the earth and the resistance R2, and between the land and the resistance R1 "


Regards,
Fuzzy
 :)

Title: Re: Claimed OU circuit of Rosemary Ainslie
Post by: ramset on July 16, 2009, 09:37:32 PM
Busy day TK
Rosemary says
Ramset - how can he gauge energy dissipated without also knowing energy delivered? And how can he know energy delivered when he hasn't got the probe and earth directly across the shunt? And why is he not using the digitial display on his scopemeters. They are both state of the art. And why has he not got more waveforms.

I hope, once he's positioned his probes as required - that he will see the problem related to ground. The only way to measure the voltage over the resistors is to put the probe across the resistor with a direct reference to ground.

And if he then objects that my paper shows the probe directly across the circuit - please explain that this is a required convention. To take voltage measurements themselves the earth needs to be adjusted to ground as I've just indicated EDIT and tell him I'm sorry I've only just picked this up now. It's the first time I could read his waveforms.
Title: Re: Claimed OU circuit of Rosemary Ainslie
Post by: ramset on July 16, 2009, 11:58:01 PM
Man oh man
Tk you have the floor
You work to hard you should ask for a raise [unless your the boss ;D]
Chet
Title: Re: Claimed OU circuit of Rosemary Ainslie
Post by: TinselKoala on July 17, 2009, 01:34:42 AM
In fucking credible.

Time and time again, I have said and SHOWN that my probes are positioned and GROUNDED just as she has them in the EIT paper. The Channel B probe is positioned directly across the shunt resistor just as she "suggests" above. With its ground lead, as anyone (except, apparently, Rosemary)  can see, on the battery side (neg terminal) of the shunt resistor.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=trip8gjoxMQ&feature=related

Posted JUNE 17th.

Can you see this video? What are those two black things, hooked up to either side of the shunt resistor? Gee, I wonder...

OK, I'll tell you. The one on the right is the probe, and the one on the left is the probe's ground lead alligator clip.
It is connected to the terminal where I connect the negative battery terminal and also an Earth ground ( a wire to a cold water pipe under my kitchen sink which I always use in electrostatic experiments--which, by the way, show far far more "free" energy that any mosfet circuit can.

What is the matter with the reading and viewing comprehension here? I actually thought we were all speaking English, more or less. It is clear from her comments that she has some strange ideas about oscilloscopes--like the AC versus DC coupling issue, which I was apparently unsuccessful at explaining in the new vids. She apparently thinks that "ac coupling" is for measuring AC, and DC coupling is for DC. Uh-huh...

Is it really possible for anyone to watch my oscilloscope videos, and then seriously tell me that I do not know how to use an oscilloscope? Especially someone who manifestly does not know how to use one?
I would wager that the way she would use the Fluke-O-Scope would be to hook it up and press the "auto" button, and then believe everything it tells her, as gospel. After all, it's DIGITAL. So how could it be wrong?

And I can just see her reading this and saying to herself, "What is he talking about? How else could you use a scope? What's the "AUTO" button for if not to make the operator's task easier? And my scopemeter is Calibrated!! So it cannot be wrong."

Not only is she not paying attention, she apparently is either incapable of seeing what I am showing, or she is remaining willfully ignorant. I believe it is the latter, which is also the "worser".

Will someone please inform this woman that:

1) I am attaching the probes to her circuit just as she specifies in the EIT paper; and

2) I am and have been for many years a professional metrologist (no, not meteorologist); that is, I actually get paid lots of money--much more than I truly deserve-- to do what I am doing here for nothing;

3) The FLUKE 199 is FAR from a "state of the art" oscilloscope. It's more like a child's toy compared to most of the equipment I use daily. The only reason we even keep it around the lab is because it is reasonably portable. The main reason I used it at all in the videos is to show some of its problems when viewing spiky signals. The Fluke 123 hasn't even been out of its suitcase in months, it's so "sophisticated state of the art." The LeCroy was state of the art--ten years ago. When we get its second channel DC offset issue fixed, it will be able to do all the necessary measurements of electrical parameters in the Ainslie circuit simultaneously in real time including current x voltage trace multiplication, integration of the resulting instantaneous power trace to give energy, and so forth.

4) I didn't drop out of school at age 16 and decide I could understand the world thru "patterns." I have a solid university grounding in pure and applied mathematics, physics, engineering, chemistry, and psychology. My advanced degrees are in experimental cognitive psychology, specifically in the area of mathematical formal models of human perception and cognition. I have real, actual peer-reviewd publications in major scientific journals.

Please, Rosemary, do not presume to "teach" me how to use an oscilloscope. And don't pretend to understand things you do not, especially about me.

You can impugn my personal abilities, that's fine...but you, Rosemary, have no respect for education, which in my case was the best that money can buy, and I have had some truly world-class teachers. Maybe I even was able to learn something from them--because I continued to come to class.

5) My papers went through a fine-tooth shredder before they saw publication, and my thesis defense would have probably killed a sensitive individual like yourself. You should be able, IF your ideas are correct, to defend them against attacks from the Devil himself, and do it without begging moderators to ban critics or close threads. The people who are criticising your work are doing it because that is the way science works, and that is the only way to assure that what we "know" is really the way the world is.
If there is ANY POSSIBILITY AT ALL that a claim like COP>17 with the world's most basic mosfet circuit that will work more than once, is WRONG, then we have a DUTY to find out. Because if we, as scientists, let a WRONG result like that to be published, it sets back everyone's efforts who do any work in the area. You, as the originator of the work, have an OBLIGATION yourself to seek out any possible error and correct it. That is one reason that I am so upset about your continued lack of correction or retraction of the Quantum paper, and your failure to specify EXACTLY what circuit was used to make the experiment and the data. [bold]You , Rosemary, are not cooperating. [/bold] In fact you are obfuscating efforts to reproduce your results--because nobody has seen YOUR complete circuit diagram, nobody has seen YOUR scope shots, raw data, reports from all those vetting labs, statements from your "academics", NONE OF IT has been made public, beyond your mere words.


6) The most real and accurate information about this circuit and how it behaves has come from the people you have rejected or will soon reject: TK, Henieck, Hoppy, point99, DrStiffler, and one or two others. (apologies if I left any major contributor out.)

7) Again, your statements about what you think you see in my videos reveal that you are either not paying attention to what I am saying and writing, and/or you simply do not have the educational background to absorb and contemplate what I am showing. They are clear enough for a seven year old child to understand (my landlord's daughter gets them just fine). But since your world-view is already established, you see everything from a single perspective, behind your own blinders. That's fine for you, you are in your second Saturn, and will not change before you die. But do not go around trying to educate people who have more learning and experience than you do.
I suggest you sit down and use your computer to look at Professor Lewin's MIT lectures on YT. And also, if you can watch objectively instead of through your paranoid blinders, you should watch and read the descriptions for my YT videos. There are a lot to choose from, but you will of course be most interested in the Electric OU series, in progress.

Now, if you really want to make progress in TESTING your claims as opposed to PROVING them, you should learn to cooperate with your reviewers. Because they aren't attacking you, they are defending the delicate body of known things from being corrupted by POSSIBLY bad data and bad conclusions.

IF your data is good, nobody will be able to knock it down, so you should help them try.

IF, on the other hand, there are theoretical holes and bad procedures and misunderstandings of test equipment and improper and incomplete and contradictory documentation and calculations, then it is no wonder that you get very defensive and try to save matters by killing off the bringers of bad news.

But the bad news won't go away. It's still bad.

And that, dear one, is what is going on here.
Title: Re: Claimed OU circuit of Rosemary Ainslie
Post by: TinselKoala on July 17, 2009, 01:46:21 AM
Here is the link to the post where I published here the circuit photo that was censored and removed from energeticforum by their enlightened thread moderator in love and light.

http://www.overunity.com/index.php?topic=7620.msg190832#msg190832

Anyone with eyes to see will note the point indicated as "B" is the same place that she specifies to attach the probe--the current viewing shunt. And, all the way over on the other side of that little grey resistor, where it hooks to the negative battery power connector jack, that is where I connect that probe's ground lead.
That is, the probe is connected across the current-viewing shunt. Why is that so difficult to see..since I show it in EVERY video--"here is the shunt, here is the probe, here is the ground..."

And that's where I have always connected it. Because that is how you monitor the voltage drop across a current viewing resistor.

Rosemary, in her comments on energetic forum concerning my videos, is making it very clear that she has no clue about actual circuit measurements.
Title: Re: Claimed OU circuit of Rosemary Ainslie
Post by: TinselKoala on July 17, 2009, 01:57:27 AM
"EDIT and tell him I'm sorry I've only just picked this up now. It's the first time I could read his waveforms."

Picked what up? Some straw man that you are constructing re my waveforms or how I am obtaining them?

Take a look at the very first frames of This Video:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=trip8gjoxMQ&feature=related

Do you see the shunt resistor? Do you see the scope probe hooked to it on the right side? Do you see the big black alligator clip hooked to the other (negative, grounded) side? That, dear one, is the ground lead of the scope probe. Just as you have specified, and just as is shown in the diagrams.
And all vids where I show an input, channel B, measurement, are taken just like this. What's wrong with this?

And yet I've been posting them for nearly a month. Did Rosemary just now get a computer? I don't think so. There's that willful ignorance again. Has anyone else had trouble viewing my waveforms? I don't think so.

And wouldn't it be nice, if we had even a SINGLE waveform from Rosemary to compare? I especially want to see these Random Chaotic Hartley Resonant NonPeriodic Oscillations.

Or even a reference (not just "go google it", which I have done...) to a scholarly paper describing the phenomenon.
Title: Re: Claimed OU circuit of Rosemary Ainslie
Post by: 0c on July 17, 2009, 02:19:34 AM
5) ... your continued lack of correction or retraction of the Quantum paper, and your failure to specify EXACTLY what circuit was used to make the experiment and the data. [bold]You , Rosemary, are not cooperating. [/bold] In fact you are obfuscating efforts to reproduce your results--because nobody has seen YOUR complete circuit diagram, nobody has seen YOUR scope shots, raw data, reports from all those vetting labs, statements from your "academics", NONE OF IT has been made public, beyond your mere words.

7) ... if you can watch objectively instead of through your paranoid blinders, you should watch and read the descriptions for my YT videos. There are a lot to choose from, but you will of course be most interested in the Electric OU series, in progress.

IF your data is good, nobody will be able to knock it down, so you should help them try.

These are the things I was hoping to accomplish with the posts I asked to be forwarded to Rosemary (and nobody did).

1) I was trying to get her to review your circuits and procedures and point out anything which was not consistent with her experiments. Then these could be discussed in a rational manner.

2) I hoped she might actually share some photos, diagrams, procedures, and reports that were used to validate her experiments so these could also be discussed in a rational manner.

I think I know where all this will eventually wind up. It just seems like such a long and painful process getting there. Why can't both sides just turn all their cards face-up (most of yours already are) so they can be counted?

You are getting way too hot, TK. Chill!. Step back a bit and use that left brain of yours. Quit being so defensive and antagonistic. Same for Rosemary. This is no way to make progress.

I can relate only too well with both sides.
Title: Re: Claimed OU circuit of Rosemary Ainslie
Post by: ramset on July 17, 2009, 02:28:23 AM
Does anyone here have the ability to pull a still off TK"S vid and highlight the meter connections in RED?
Chet
Title: Re: Claimed OU circuit of Rosemary Ainslie
Post by: IceStorm on July 17, 2009, 02:53:34 AM
"EDIT and tell him I'm sorry I've only just picked this up now. It's the first time I could read his waveforms."

Picked what up? Some straw man that you are constructing re my waveforms or how I am obtaining them?

Take a look at the very first frames of This Video:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=trip8gjoxMQ&feature=related

Do you see the shunt resistor? Do you see the scope probe hooked to it on the right side? Do you see the big black alligator clip hooked to the other (negative, grounded) side? That, dear one, is the ground lead of the scope probe. Just as you have specified, and just as is shown in the diagrams.
And all vids where I show an input, channel B, measurement, are taken just like this. What's wrong with this?

And yet I've been posting them for nearly a month. Did Rosemary just now get a computer? I don't think so. There's that willful ignorance again. Has anyone else had trouble viewing my waveforms? I don't think so.

And wouldn't it be nice, if we had even a SINGLE waveform from Rosemary to compare? I especially want to see these Random Chaotic Hartley Resonant NonPeriodic Oscillations.

Or even a reference (not just "go google it", which I have done...) to a scholarly paper describing the phenomenon.

You know, what i find so ridiculous its there some people who are still so proud to defend Rosemary's theory beside the fact that NOTHING work as expected, we are not building a satellite here , its only a simple circuit with 5 parts and 1 battery if you dont use the 555 circuit. All the procedure are already there for the mesurement.

The only one who took the time to make the circuit and to use all the same test equipement as was wrote on the IET paper was TK and he is one who get all the @#$@#$ because the circuit dosent work like it should.

Someone should contact by email ABB to validate if they made some test on the Rosemary's device. The ABB name got used in her paper about a overunity device and if its not a overunity device i dont think they will tolerate that. We talk about a big compagny here, in Q1 of 2009 the net income was 652 million, if the ABB name got used falsely, they will sue her for sure, because there no compagny in the world who want to burn his name on someone false claim, and in the other way, if some test have been done and they know that the ABB name is used in her paper, maybe its the lack of electronic knowledge of Rosemary who make the replication difficult.

I still believe its a honest people but her arrogance against anything who is not inline in what she think make the process realy complicated.

Best Regards,
IceStorm
Title: Re: Claimed OU circuit of Rosemary Ainslie
Post by: TinselKoala on July 17, 2009, 03:08:19 AM
These are the things I was hoping to accomplish with the posts I asked to be forwarded to Rosemary (and nobody did).

1) I was trying to get her to review your circuits and procedures and point out anything which was not consistent with her experiments. Then these could be discussed in a rational manner.

2) I hoped she might actually share some photos, diagrams, procedures, and reports that were used to validate her experiments so these could also be discussed in a rational manner.

I think I know where all this will eventually wind up. It just seems like such a long and painful process getting there. Why can't both sides just turn all their cards face-up (most of yours already are) so they can be counted?

You are getting way too hot, TK. Chill!. Step back a bit and use that left brain of yours. Quit being so defensive and antagonistic. Same for Rosemary. This is no way to make progress.

I can relate only too well with both sides.

You are quite right, of course, as usual, 0c.
Damn right.
My heart is pounding in my ears, I am so mad. She is telling me how to use an oscilloscope!!
I want to kill something.

So I'm gong to spend the rest of my evening listening to jazz and installing ubuntu linux on an off-lease ibm t41 that I just scored for cheap. It will be my metrology server: full on LabView, or as much as it will handle, all the instrument control and analysis packages for all the DSOs, maybe even a HPIB stack for the "real" stuff.  Plus the usual spreadsheet and stats and maybe even FruityLoops. But first I'm going to take out the hard drive (WinXP) and melt it down with an oxyacetylene torch.

I may take the torch to that damn Ainslie circuit too. Then you'll see some OU.

(Speaking of audio, did you know that all those big booming car stereos are OU? Yep, they use mosfets to drive low inductance loads at 2400 Hz all day long, and the car battery never becomes discharged. Unless you hook the scope probes up wrong. No wonder they sound like the driver's head's full of gravel most of the time.)

Title: Re: Claimed OU circuit of Rosemary Ainslie
Post by: ramset on July 17, 2009, 03:09:23 AM
Icestorm I meant to call ABB last week
I will tomorrow, It doesn't cost me for the call
TK check pm
Chet
Title: Re: Claimed OU circuit of Rosemary Ainslie
Post by: IceStorm on July 17, 2009, 03:21:47 AM
Icestorm I meant to call ABB last week
I will tomorrow, It doesn't cost me for the call
TK check pm
Chet

Its excellent ramset, i dont think they will disclose anything but at least if they know that ABB name got used, that will make a little little bit more of credibility about the experiment, but in same time, that dont say if the test was good or bad.

Best Regards,
IceStorm
Title: Re: Claimed OU circuit of Rosemary Ainslie
Post by: ramset on July 17, 2009, 03:26:44 AM
Ice
I'm only calling to see if they have the info available
even to pay for a reprint of the actual test for research purposes
Chet
Title: Re: Claimed OU circuit of Rosemary Ainslie
Post by: TinselKoala on July 17, 2009, 04:11:24 AM
Well, if she can change the past, I suppose I can too.

I'd pay money to see that report from ABB. Not much, but a little.

Does it sound, from her recent posts, that she sees my random chaotic Hartley resonant aperiodic oscillations, as similar to what she remembers seeing?

Because enquiring minds really need to know what those waveforms look like.
Title: Re: Claimed OU circuit of Rosemary Ainslie
Post by: TinselKoala on July 17, 2009, 06:00:11 AM
OK, I figured that the easiest way for me, and the hardest way for all our gentle readers, is for me to just take a picture of the data sheet from my run this morning and put it up here. Then, if anybody really needs to spreadsheet and graph it, that would take a load off, thanks. But I think those with eyes to see will see whatever those eyes will see.
I'm pretty sure all the info is here; everybody (er, almost) knows what the equipment list was so I'm not going to repeat it here. Except for the thermocouple temp gauges, they are LCD modules, self contained, with a tiny K-type thermocouple on an 18 inch lead. Update 5 seconds, precision 0.1 degrees C, accuracy PDC.
Sorry about the light...er, I mean the fuzzy lowcontrast image. I don't have any image editing stuff right here right now, so TIWYG.

(er, the raw jpg is too large for the attachment. I'll upload it to the file section. If someone would enhance contrast and shrink it enough to post in-line, I would be grateful. )

http://www.overunity.com/index.php?action=downloads;sa=view;down=338
Title: Re: Claimed OU circuit of Rosemary Ainslie
Post by: ramset on July 17, 2009, 06:10:28 AM
Rosemary said
Could someone, Ramset? inform TK that I am not a high school drop out. I am very proud of my academic record. It is - however - not scientific. I have never said that I am a high school drop out. I've only acknowledged that I have no formal training in science.

I know why he says this. It's because I told gotoluc that I also left school at 16 and that I also like asking questions, or something to that effect. Gotoluc left school because he didn't like the system. I left because I was matriculated. I sat my matriculation exams when I was 15. I left school exactly one month after turning 16. I saw a coincidence. In SA there's a required minimum standard for university qualification. My matriculation pass was more than adequate. Unlike TK my name is out there and these facts can be verified.

But having said that - I see no value to any education unless, like gotoluc, it leaves one with an enquiring mind. Life would be very boring unless, like him, one confronted ones own questions.
Title: Re: Claimed OU circuit of Rosemary Ainslie
Post by: TinselKoala on July 17, 2009, 06:56:21 AM
Well, if she has indeed matriculated, and is qualified for university on that basis, I owe her an apology. What was the name of the school? I'd like to give them a call and ask about their curriculum.

In the United States, where I was educated, high-school graduates who intend to pursue scientific careers--you know, the ones where people do theories to replace quantum electrodynamics, design circuits, do experiments and write papers--they generally have had at least maths through trigonometry and precalculus...But that's here. Sorry for assuming the same standards everywhere.

Tell us, Rosemary, is the status of your matriculation the same as the status of your patent? Can you perhaps be so kind as to show us a photo?

Because we know you and I don't always agree on what things are called.

What you call a "patent" is really only an application, and what you call a scientific paper is, well, not publishable as such. And what you call ON I call OFF, and what you call ...Oh, never mind. We do not speak the same language and we never will.

You graduated high school (albeit without what I would consider a basic education.) So I apologize for implying that it was you to whom I referred as a "high school dropout."

And you really should apologize to me, for you have insulted me far more seriously. In addition, I have done, so far, thousands of dollars of work for you, for nothing. In fact, had you gone the correct route of hiring a qualified engineering firm to research and test your idea at YOUR expense like it should be done, it is very likely that I would still be testing your device--just as I am now--only then I would be getting paid royally for it.

If you really want people to replicate your work, they need to see :

1) the exact circuit diagram that was used to generate the data in your experiment, including the correct 555 timer AS ACTUALLY USED BY YOU, and they need some evidence of that. Evidence, not more words.

2) they need to see an example of these random periodic resonant oscillations that you are describing. A scope shot. I happen to know that the Fluke 199's serial interface allows the transfer of screen shots to your computer for storage, display...and printing. And I believe they had cameras back then, even in your neck of the woods. Your experiment is insufficiently documented.

3) they need to see the reports from all the labs and universities and academics and all, that you showed your device to and who, according to you, approved your work and your numbers.

Readers, ask yourselves why Rosemary is being given any credence at all?
I think it is because of the patent. We have a lot of respect for ideas that get patented, like HJ's linear SMOT that may be the basis for a permanent magnet motor. And there are many other patents that we pay attention to, because the patenting process provides at least a small degree of vetting, and for other good reasons.
I think many people are paying attention, who wouldn't otherwise, because of the patent.

But--there is no patent. This high school graduate has only filed an application.

When I first got into this I was under the impression that there was a patent. And from reading the NakedScientists thread, I can tell that other people were too. I mean, I understand there is no intent to deceive, but when someone says "I have a patent" and links to a document, calling it a "Patent", I and at least some others expect that to be true.
Title: Re: Claimed OU circuit of Rosemary Ainslie
Post by: ATT on July 17, 2009, 07:10:47 AM
(er, the raw jpg is too large for the attachment. I'll upload it to the file section. If someone would enhance contrast and shrink it enough to post in-line, I would be grateful. )
Title: Re: Claimed OU circuit of Rosemary Ainslie
Post by: TinselKoala on July 17, 2009, 08:05:39 AM
Beautiful. Thanks, ATT.

Well, that's clear enough, isn't it? Anybody with a high school education should be able to figure that out.


So that's what raw data looks like. With a little crunching. You know, it gives a lot of credence to the fact that the experiment was actually performed as described. No--wait. That's MY experiment. We haven't seen any of Ainslie's raw data yet.
Title: Re: Claimed OU circuit of Rosemary Ainslie
Post by: TinselKoala on July 17, 2009, 08:13:24 AM
OK, note some things. In the 4 percent ON duty cycle, the load did not heat as much as Ainslie's did "in a little over an hour." By a big margin.

On the other hand, with the 96 percent ON duty cycle the load heated so much I had to terminate the experiment because my draft shield was made of plastic, after about 4 minutes or so.

So it is pretty clear that so far, I have been unable to make the magic.

My load parameters in this pilot experiment are sufficiently different from Ainslie's to make it difficult to draw conclusions, other than it is not surprising that the load got hot with the long duty cycle, since it was essentially shorted across a 25 volt battery.

But why didn't it heat more with the 4 percent duty cycle? This load should have heated more than Rosemary's did, but it didn't.

So, either way, I did not see anything that I would write home about. And my batteries did not seem to recharge, although there was one reading that was higher than the previous one. Nothing to get excited about.

I haven't done the energy calculations; I prefer to let the instruments do those, there are fewer chances of error that way..at least for me.

More to follow.
Title: Re: Claimed OU circuit of Rosemary Ainslie
Post by: henieck on July 17, 2009, 12:00:38 PM
Does anyone here have the ability to pull a still off TK"S vid and highlight the meter connections in RED?
Chet

Press “pause”, then press “Print Screen” key on your keyboard (the screen shot is now in memory). Open “Paint” (or any other graphic application). Press Ctrl+V or use “paste” form the menu, then make whatever you like with this, and save it.
Title: Re: Claimed OU circuit of Rosemary Ainslie
Post by: henieck on July 17, 2009, 12:05:23 PM
TinselKoala – judging by the extension of your last posts you have really huge mental block installed. Most apparently now, not only you don’t know how to use oscilloscope the right way – but also you don’t even know how to spell “meteorologist” correctly. Besides- why would meteorologist think he is in the right position to judge the most scientifically advanced heater made of piece of wire formed into spiral and transistor? You have no idea how advanced it is, I guarantee that you haven’t even heard about zipons before – so you better don’t thing you know better. You don’t know how to think "out of the box" to see the OBVIOUS. On contrary – I had such an open mind that couldn’t take any more school knowledge at the age 16 somewhere deep in Africa. Thanks to that fact I could discovered all this. For hundreds of years, millions of others miserably failed - but finally, ten years ago I was chosen to discover how it REALLY is. Yes, I don’t have a clue about electronics but I make up for that by my very strong feeling of mission ;)

That was for your entertainment, TK. It is amazing story. Paradoxically she has thrown away one of the best member, most dedicated and qualified one of the team – but unfortunately you didn’t fit to what she was going to achieve. The obvious is already proven, we don’t wonder whether it works or not – it is obvious that it does :)
Title: Re: Claimed OU circuit of Rosemary Ainslie
Post by: BEP on July 17, 2009, 12:30:51 PM
Most apparently now, not only you don’t know how to use oscilloscope the right way – but also you don’t even know how to spell “meteorologist” correctly.

OMG!

@TK,

Hold onto your chest. This may be the big one!  It just took me a full minute to pick myself up off the floor.

BTW: Is 'PDC' a common metrological term? I hear it in my metrology lab, as well  :) (No, I'm not talking about the weather)
Title: Re: Claimed OU circuit of Rosemary Ainslie
Post by: ramset on July 17, 2009, 03:53:40 PM
TK
I think you need some time off
I am personaly getting I'LL over seeing The "Don't confuse me with the FACTS my mind is made up" attitude
Let some time pass a couple days see what energetic members do to replicate

COP 17  there should be results pretty quick for that
Make them work for it ,instead of this armchair crap thats going on over there
Take a trip somewhere breathe some fresh air think about your theory ,whatever ,Jazz it up Dude

Chet
 OR you could look at this?
http://www.overunity.com/index.php?topic=7679.msg191820#new

Make some thunder!
Title: Re: Claimed OU circuit of Rosemary Ainslie
Post by: fuzzytomcat on July 17, 2009, 08:43:30 PM
What does a person have to do to get a answer around here .... light my fir on fire and run around this room yelling and screaming like a fool ??

http://www.overunity.com/index.php?topic=7620.msg191649#msg191649

Can anyone here read ????

So Tk you have no problem mixing a "DC" ground on a United States "AC" 120 volt grounded system with a bonded neutral that is susceptible to stray voltages, frequency's and harmonics ??



In fucking credible.

Time and time again, I have said and SHOWN that my probes are positioned and GROUNDED just as she has them in the EIT paper. The Channel B probe is positioned directly across the shunt resistor just as she "suggests" above. With its ground lead, as anyone (except, apparently, Rosemary)  can see, on the battery side (neg terminal) of the shunt resistor.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=trip8gjoxMQ&feature=related

Posted JUNE 17th.

Can you see this video? What are those two black things, hooked up to either side of the shunt resistor? Gee, I wonder...

OK, I'll tell you. The one on the right is the probe, and the one on the left is the probe's ground lead alligator clip.
It is connected to the terminal where I connect the negative battery terminal and also an Earth ground ( a wire to a cold water pipe under my kitchen sink which I always use in electrostatic experiments--which, by the way, show far far more "free" energy that any mosfet circuit can.

What is the matter with the reading and viewing comprehension here? I actually thought we were all speaking English, more or less. It is clear from her comments that she has some strange ideas about oscilloscopes--like the AC versus DC coupling issue, which I was apparently unsuccessful at explaining in the new vids. She apparently thinks that "ac coupling" is for measuring AC, and DC coupling is for DC. Uh-huh...

Is it really possible for anyone to watch my oscilloscope videos, and then seriously tell me that I do not know how to use an oscilloscope? Especially someone who manifestly does not know how to use one?
I would wager that the way she would use the Fluke-O-Scope would be to hook it up and press the "auto" button, and then believe everything it tells her, as gospel. After all, it's DIGITAL. So how could it be wrong?

And I can just see her reading this and saying to herself, "What is he talking about? How else could you use a scope? What's the "AUTO" button for if not to make the operator's task easier? And my scopemeter is Calibrated!! So it cannot be wrong."

Not only is she not paying attention, she apparently is either incapable of seeing what I am showing, or she is remaining willfully ignorant. I believe it is the latter, which is also the "worser".

Will someone please inform this woman that:

1) I am attaching the probes to her circuit just as she specifies in the EIT paper; and

2) I am and have been for many years a professional metrologist (no, not meteorologist); that is, I actually get paid lots of money--much more than I truly deserve-- to do what I am doing here for nothing;

3) The FLUKE 199 is FAR from a "state of the art" oscilloscope. It's more like a child's toy compared to most of the equipment I use daily. The only reason we even keep it around the lab is because it is reasonably portable. The main reason I used it at all in the videos is to show some of its problems when viewing spiky signals. The Fluke 123 hasn't even been out of its suitcase in months, it's so "sophisticated state of the art." The LeCroy was state of the art--ten years ago. When we get its second channel DC offset issue fixed, it will be able to do all the necessary measurements of electrical parameters in the Ainslie circuit simultaneously in real time including current x voltage trace multiplication, integration of the resulting instantaneous power trace to give energy, and so forth.

4) I didn't drop out of school at age 16 and decide I could understand the world thru "patterns." I have a solid university grounding in pure and applied mathematics, physics, engineering, chemistry, and psychology. My advanced degrees are in experimental cognitive psychology, specifically in the area of mathematical formal models of human perception and cognition. I have real, actual peer-reviewd publications in major scientific journals.

Please, Rosemary, do not presume to "teach" me how to use an oscilloscope. And don't pretend to understand things you do not, especially about me.

You can impugn my personal abilities, that's fine...but you, Rosemary, have no respect for education, which in my case was the best that money can buy, and I have had some truly world-class teachers. Maybe I even was able to learn something from them--because I continued to come to class.

5) My papers went through a fine-tooth shredder before they saw publication, and my thesis defense would have probably killed a sensitive individual like yourself. You should be able, IF your ideas are correct, to defend them against attacks from the Devil himself, and do it without begging moderators to ban critics or close threads. The people who are criticising your work are doing it because that is the way science works, and that is the only way to assure that what we "know" is really the way the world is.
If there is ANY POSSIBILITY AT ALL that a claim like COP>17 with the world's most basic mosfet circuit that will work more than once, is WRONG, then we have a DUTY to find out. Because if we, as scientists, let a WRONG result like that to be published, it sets back everyone's efforts who do any work in the area. You, as the originator of the work, have an OBLIGATION yourself to seek out any possible error and correct it. That is one reason that I am so upset about your continued lack of correction or retraction of the Quantum paper, and your failure to specify EXACTLY what circuit was used to make the experiment and the data. [bold]You , Rosemary, are not cooperating. [/bold] In fact you are obfuscating efforts to reproduce your results--because nobody has seen YOUR complete circuit diagram, nobody has seen YOUR scope shots, raw data, reports from all those vetting labs, statements from your "academics", NONE OF IT has been made public, beyond your mere words.


6) The most real and accurate information about this circuit and how it behaves has come from the people you have rejected or will soon reject: TK, Henieck, Hoppy, point99, DrStiffler, and one or two others. (apologies if I left any major contributor out.)

7) Again, your statements about what you think you see in my videos reveal that you are either not paying attention to what I am saying and writing, and/or you simply do not have the educational background to absorb and contemplate what I am showing. They are clear enough for a seven year old child to understand (my landlord's daughter gets them just fine). But since your world-view is already established, you see everything from a single perspective, behind your own blinders. That's fine for you, you are in your second Saturn, and will not change before you die. But do not go around trying to educate people who have more learning and experience than you do.
I suggest you sit down and use your computer to look at Professor Lewin's MIT lectures on YT. And also, if you can watch objectively instead of through your paranoid blinders, you should watch and read the descriptions for my YT videos. There are a lot to choose from, but you will of course be most interested in the Electric OU series, in progress.

Now, if you really want to make progress in TESTING your claims as opposed to PROVING them, you should learn to cooperate with your reviewers. Because they aren't attacking you, they are defending the delicate body of known things from being corrupted by POSSIBLY bad data and bad conclusions.

IF your data is good, nobody will be able to knock it down, so you should help them try.

IF, on the other hand, there are theoretical holes and bad procedures and misunderstandings of test equipment and improper and incomplete and contradictory documentation and calculations, then it is no wonder that you get very defensive and try to save matters by killing off the bringers of bad news.

But the bad news won't go away. It's still bad.

And that, dear one, is what is going on here.

What kind of "junk" science is this ....

Quote
It is connected to the terminal where I connect the negative battery terminal and also an Earth ground ( a wire to a cold water pipe under my kitchen sink which I always use in electrostatic experiments--which, by the way, show far far more "free" energy that any mosfet circuit can.


Nice paragraph I really like this part .......

Quote
which, by the way, show far far more "free" energy that any mosfet circuit can.

Even admitting problems with stray voltages, frequency's and harmonics ......

You may know a lot about scopes, semi conductors and electronic schematics ...... for god sake open you eyes to your testing technique and grounding reference when the circuit needs it to operate properly without ground loops and other factors you right off as "OK".

I see re-testing is in order, your facts are now skewed by your own admission, I can't believe you would try to pull a fast one on us all not disclosing your "COMPLETE" connections you made. I just hope you didn't do this on purpose ?




Title: Re: Claimed OU circuit of Rosemary Ainslie
Post by: TinselKoala on July 17, 2009, 09:18:42 PM
I didn't mention the Sola isolation transformers? OOPS, sorry.
Title: Re: Claimed OU circuit of Rosemary Ainslie
Post by: fuzzytomcat on July 17, 2009, 09:56:53 PM
I didn't mention the Sola isolation transformers? OOPS, sorry.

Thats great to isolate the 120 volt or 120/240 volt loads almost as good as a UPS, but that doen't address the issue of grounding ....... you know this or you should ......

http://www.overunity.com/index.php?topic=7620.msg191649#msg191649

Quote
As you know I'm sure, in a residential area as many as five (5) homes can be connected  to one utility transformer supplying 120/240 volt "with a common neutral" to each home and bonded to a grounding system (if there) possibly inducing unwanted results in simulations of replications and measurements of results.

Grounding connections needed in the operation of "DC" semi conductor circuits cannot share United States "AC" utility grounding systems bonded to a neutral sharing 120 volt loads, especially in a residential area. There's to much intermittent neutral line noise this is why many replications of devices invented in areas with "only" have 240 volt with "NO" 120 volt or neutral connections can use a water pipe, gas line, plate ...... that is in "earth" because there is nothing but a ground. A bonded ground wire to a neutral all connected together running around your home, the next door neighbors and everyone connected to the utility transformer where your power comes from ..... look at the wire connections on a tele-pole, three wires ...... two hot ..... one neutral (bonded to ground) .... and in your CB panel where by "code" the neutral and ground is bonded.

Title: Re: Claimed OU circuit of Rosemary Ainslie
Post by: TinselKoala on July 17, 2009, 11:03:28 PM
Thats great to isolate the 120 volt or 120/240 volt loads almost as good as a UPS, but that doen't address the issue of grounding ....... you know this or you should ......

http://www.overunity.com/index.php?topic=7620.msg191649#msg191649

Grounding connections needed in the operation of "DC" semi conductor circuits cannot share United States "AC" utility grounding systems bonded to a neutral sharing 120 volt loads, especially in a residential area. There's to much intermittent neutral line noise this is why many replications of devices invented in areas with "only" have 240 volt with "NO" 120 volt or neutral connections can use a water pipe, gas line, plate ...... that is in "earth" because there is nothing but a ground. A bonded ground wire to a neutral all connected together running around your home, the next door neighbors and everyone connected to the utility transformer where your power comes from ..... look at the wire connections on a tele-pole, three wires ...... two hot ..... one neutral (bonded to ground) .... and in your CB panel where by "code" the neutral and ground is bonded.

What is your point? How can I have ground loops if my instruments are all on line isolation transformers and I use a single point cold water pipe earth ground?
I agree that this is not the best scheme, but I am at home in my basement, ffs. If somebody wants to pay me, I will take the thing to my lab and power it up inside a complete microwave-tight Faraday room, with full isolating power supplies, laboratory reference standards, and of course a good earth ground.
But why?? To reproduce a rumor?
Forget it.

I'll tell you what, Fuzzy. You test your build the way you want to, and I'll test mine, and then we will swap builds and repeat. If you can show significant differences in measurements from what I get, I'll strip naked and paint my balls red and photograph it for you. If we get substantially the same results, you do the same.

What about it? Put your balls where your mouth is? So to speak...
Title: Re: Claimed OU circuit of Rosemary Ainslie
Post by: TinselKoala on July 17, 2009, 11:08:00 PM
I hope this thread is preserved for posterity. If I ever again need to illustrate to a crowd of freshmen some examples of logical fallacy, this is the place to come to.

Any more examples of the Straw Man argument? That last one didn't hold up very well, if you ask me.
Title: Re: Claimed OU circuit of Rosemary Ainslie
Post by: fuzzytomcat on July 17, 2009, 11:46:31 PM
What is your point?


Grounding and Grounding Loops

Quote
How can I have ground loops if my instruments are all on line isolation transformers and I use a single point cold water pipe earth ground?

Proper operation of DC semi conductors using a AC grounding system

Quote
I agree that this is not the best scheme, but I am at home in my basement, ffs. If somebody wants to pay me, I will take the thing to my lab and power it up inside a complete microwave-tight Faraday room, with full isolating power supplies, laboratory reference standards, and of course a good earth ground.

All one would have to do is pound in a ground rod connect a wire for DC replication purposes of European made devices and testing of them you could scope between the new isolated ground rod and your "sink" connection and see whats there ......

Quote
But why?? To reproduce a rumor?

what rumor ??

Quote
Forget it.

I'll tell you what, Fuzzy. You test your build the way you want to, and I'll test mine, and then we will swap builds and repeat. If you can show significant differences in measurements from what I get, I'll strip naked and paint my balls red and photograph it for you. If we get substantially the same results, you do the same.

What about it? Put your balls where your mouth is? So to speak...

How rude for for me just pointing out a error and now you have "isolation transformers" it's the first you mentioned them when I point something out in a civil manner.

Quote
If I ever again need to illustrate to a crowd of freshmen some examples of logical fallacy, this is the place to come to.

Any more examples of the Straw Man argument? That last one didn't hold up very well, if you ask me.

I have nothing more to add to this as I assume your talking about me and all I did was point out if your to be the debunker of debunkers a error .... just like you I do have skills and it's obvious that you have nothing to add but a fancy test lab thats not needed ..... just a ground rod .....

Quote
Forget it.

I have better things to do also than to be toyed with, good luck with "YOUR" thread
Title: Re: Claimed OU circuit of Rosemary Ainslie
Post by: NerzhDishual on July 17, 2009, 11:46:45 PM

Hi belligerents  ;D

My2cents.
To, perhaps(?), avoid too much discussions about measurements
of what is going on versus what is going out (NRG-Wise), I propose
the following set-up (see picture).

I have already made some colorimetric measurements with a
Peter-D.-Davey-Like device.
You can consult:
http://freenrg.info/Sonettes_Davey/calcul_sonette.htm (http://freenrg.info/Sonettes_Davey/calcul_sonette.htm)
My COP was from 0.91 to 1.10. Due to amateurish measurements,
I do not claim any OU.  :P

But, with the R. Ainslie CCT, If the COP is so huge as claimed (17) we
should be able to test it in spite of lack of bats and losses in the DC supply. 
IMHO, a COP> 3 would be conclusive. What do you think?

Very Best

PS: just in case, the attached picture is also here:
http://freenrg.info/Pic/Proposed_Set_up.jpg (http://freenrg.info/Pic/Proposed_Set_up.jpg)
 
Title: Re: Claimed OU circuit of Rosemary Ainslie
Post by: TinselKoala on July 18, 2009, 01:50:49 AM
@fuzzytom: I apologise, I really didn't mean to make you mad. I've had a relly rough day, and I am a bit snappy. Sorry, really.
I agree that you have a valid point, and I take the isolation transformers for granted, they've been in the utility closet for so long. It would indeed be interesting to see the potentials between my copper cold water pipe penetrating the cinderblock wall of by basement kitchen, and a remote copper rod pounded into the dirt.
I still don't see the relevance to this discussion, though.

Now, do you think that Rosemary is more, or less, likely than I am to suffer from the effects you mention? Maybe that ground potential difference is what caused her circuit to produce random chaotic non-periodic Hartley resonance in the first place. In which case people like me, who cannot even spell "meteorologist", are out of luck.

Oh, did you happen to calculate the resonant frequency of a circuit with minimal capacitance and an inductive load of 0.00864 milliHenries?

And can anyone give me a rational explanation as to why, if she has the circuit still, as she says, why she hasn't shown us it, or straightened out the circuitry and clocking issue, or demonstrated an example scope shot of the random aperiodic resonance?
Are there no digital cameras down under?
Title: Re: Claimed OU circuit of Rosemary Ainslie
Post by: TinselKoala on July 18, 2009, 01:52:51 AM
@Henieck: rolling laughing on the floor!
Too bad you are pre-censored, I'm sure Rosemary would let you back into her royal court if you posted that.
I drink to you, my friend.
Title: Re: Claimed OU circuit of Rosemary Ainslie
Post by: TinselKoala on July 18, 2009, 01:59:13 AM
@Nerzh: have you seen my data from the pilot experiment I ran? Now that I have settled some of the circuit issues to my satisfaction, I have gone on to heat measurements, and comparisons of transistors, recirculation diodes, loads, duty cycles, and so forth on the time vs. temperature output measurements. When I have successfully and reliably replicated her heat profile results, then it will be time for more complex calorimetry. If necessary I can arrange to put the device in the world's most accurate civilian bulk active calorimeter.
But if the circuit performs as claimed, that won't be necessary at all. You could just make coffee for seven people on one D-cell flashlight battery.

That would convince even me.
Title: Re: Claimed OU circuit of Rosemary Ainslie
Post by: TinselKoala on July 18, 2009, 03:40:20 AM
Heh, Chet, I see you are talking high voltage with MileHigh. No, actually I don't want to be floating, because I have a linoleum floor over concrete, in a basement, and if I wear insulating shoes, that puts about a half-inch of dielectric between the soles of me feet (one plate) and the concrete (the other plate) and when, for example, I inadvertently build up a charge and it discharges _there_, I tend to jump...it's very snappy. Fortunately I work with static, that is, very little actual charge is behind that voltage, so I hardly ever kill myself.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DpoTGdbcUzE
I'm holding the NE-2 with a bamboo chopstick--an excellent EHV bleeder resistor. So I do charge up. And you can see the cold water pipe ground lead plugged into the base of the little VDG.


HEEE hee I just tested the ground fault idea and you won't believe what I found.I had better upload the video quick, before the MiBs get here.
Sterling, get out the microphone, Stefan, dust off the prize money...I'm sure you will be hearing from Rosemary shortly.
Title: Re: Claimed OU circuit of Rosemary Ainslie
Post by: ramset on July 18, 2009, 03:46:09 AM
TK
I think Owlsley needs to kiwl the kitty
Chet
Title: Re: Claimed OU circuit of Rosemary Ainslie
Post by: TinselKoala on July 18, 2009, 12:23:32 PM
Well, I think several things. First, I detect a certain restrained but still evident commonality in style and substance. You might be able to put swimming goggles on a troll but it still will be the same old troll.
However, trolls occasionally do have good ideas. Who they steal them from, I'll never guess.
Thanks to fuzzytomscat, I have finally seen something interesting in this circuit. Physically interesting I mean, rather than psychologically interesting.

Well, not exactly Physical, either--that is, nothing surprising wrt to Physics. But certainly something that anyone in a 2-year electronics technician AA degree program will encounter, at some overpriced third-rate commercial college trade school with crappy workbenches and surplus gear.

But it's certainly something no rational person would try on purpose. Let the Earth and fuzzycatscat's bonded ground third wire act as the negative battery wire to your Ainslie circuit. (Why do we keep calling it that? It's a basic mosfet audio amp.)

Please: Only crazy people try this experiment (hazards to life and equipment):
Unplug the negative wire from your battery, I am saying, and let the scope's ground return lead, attached just as in the Ainslie circuit, provide the connection. Run a ground wire from the water pipe ground to the negative battery terminal. No connection to the negative input to the Ainslie circuit, except the scope probe ground. Now look at the signal, and compare with and without the Battery.
You will not see this behavior if your system is isolated, properly grounded, and connected in the proper order.

Which is why I did not see it until now, and others may also not be seeing it.

It's not OU, it's just what fuzzy says: It's power coming in from the utility wiring through the system ground.
If you were listening to this signal on audio, it would probably sound like a really loud bad buzz, and you would unplug stuff right away.



Title: Re: Claimed OU circuit of Rosemary Ainslie
Post by: Yucca on July 18, 2009, 03:42:53 PM
It's power coming in from the utility wiring through the system ground.

So a really high impedance signal source not capable of any real work?
Title: Re: Claimed OU circuit of Rosemary Ainslie
Post by: TinselKoala on July 18, 2009, 09:20:39 PM
So a really high impedance signal source not capable of any real work?

Evidently. I am taking a time vs. temp profile right now, and so far (a little over an hour) I have reached 37.1 degrees, at 22.9 ambient. 4 percent Load on, from 10 v peak FG signal; running battery starts at 25.2 volts.

Compare to the previous raw data sheet, run 1. All conditions the same except for the ground loop.
I'll be posting a pic of the data sheet when I finish.

For now, there are 2 new vids up, illustrating AC vs DC coupling, and the ground loop signal.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9mRVej2cE_A
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jZzzMVx6rPY
Title: Re: Claimed OU circuit of Rosemary Ainslie
Post by: ramset on July 18, 2009, 10:49:34 PM
TK
I've become confused
Glen said this invalidated your results and all testing was skewed
now this quote validating his statement?

 FuzzyTomCat  FuzzyTomCat is online now
Senior Member
        
Join Date: Jun 2008
Posts: 229

Ground Loops

Hi everyone,

I sure everyone has had time to digest my claims on "not" using a AC grounging system for DC circuits in the United States.

Some interesting developments and some verification of my statements have been made through testing with a oscilloscope for "ground loops" ........ Please view these new videos from TK on his findings ...... you as he was, will be surprised.

YouTube - Electric OU 10: AC coupling vs. DC coupling


YouTube - groundloop c2 (the best one)

Best Regards,
Glen
Title: Re: Claimed OU circuit of Rosemary Ainslie
Post by: TinselKoala on July 18, 2009, 11:11:48 PM
Confused in what way?

He was perfectly correct, it just did not apply to my system, since I am doing things right--that is, how I learned it in the "school of smoking oscilloscopes."

But if I do it "wrong"...then I see the phenomenon he was talking about.

If this is the route to actual OU, we're truly in trouble. But I don't think it is--I've done a heat run in this mode and there isn't any real difference at 4 percent ON with the FG. Later I'll do other comparisons, but so far, certainly not very different from the first raw data sheet, #1 run.

I'll post a photo of the data sheet from this run, and I'm at home so I can edit it down for inline posting. Stay tuned.

Oh, and for MileHigh---"PDC" in the context of measurement accuracy, is about like an "RCH" in machining...that is, "Pretty Damn Close", or a "Red C... Hair" which is even closer.

(Is it too drunk to be this early?)
Title: Re: Claimed OU circuit of Rosemary Ainslie
Post by: TinselKoala on July 18, 2009, 11:15:22 PM
Oh, and I totally agree that heat tests and so forth are just pilot baselines, until I can reproduce for sure the waveform used in the Quantum/EIT experiment. And I'm afraid only Rosemary can help us here.

Since she has said several times that she still has the circuit...well, you can do the math, even if she can't.

Take that thing out, there, girl, and show us what you've got. Make that booty shake for us, on camera--there will be a lot of people watching.
Title: Re: Claimed OU circuit of Rosemary Ainslie
Post by: ramset on July 18, 2009, 11:42:46 PM
TK
Glen said about your two vids

    " you as ""he""[TK] was, will be surprised."

He's patting himself so hard on the back, I'm getting chilly from the breeze here.

IN which part of those vids were you surprised ?
Chet
Title: Re: Claimed OU circuit of Rosemary Ainslie
Post by: TinselKoala on July 18, 2009, 11:59:55 PM
I was surprised by the fact that it was so easy to demonstrate the effect of the groundloop on the Ainslie circuit.

And I was surprised at the magnitude of the inductive spikes in that condition. I knew the noise would be there but I did not anticipate the relatively large increase in the _indicated_ current and voltage traces.

But I was not surprised that it seems to have made little difference on the temp vs time profile in a load, at least at 4 percent ON. (all I've had time for so far).

Title: Re: Claimed OU circuit of Rosemary Ainslie
Post by: TinselKoala on July 19, 2009, 12:02:53 AM
OK let's see if this works.
If anybody is really interested I can upload the full-res pic to the files section.
Title: Re: Claimed OU circuit of Rosemary Ainslie
Post by: ramset on July 19, 2009, 12:09:33 AM
SO...

I suppose Glen will retract this statement On Energetic?

I have recommended that the testing is skewed by his own admission and that should be thrown out, you cannot cross reference "AC" and "DC" grounding through ground loops with bonded neutrals connected and have semi conductors operate 100% properly.

The one made prior to TK's vids
Title: Re: Claimed OU circuit of Rosemary Ainslie
Post by: TinselKoala on July 19, 2009, 12:36:28 AM
SO...

I suppose Glen will retract this statement On Energetic?

I have recommended that the testing is skewed by his own admission and that should be thrown out, you cannot cross reference "AC" and "DC" grounding through ground loops with bonded neutrals connected and have semi conductors operate 100% properly.

The one made prior to TK's vids

I dunno.
It depends on what "skewed" means, in Rosemary-speak. If it means that the groundloop must be present, than indeed my previous results are skewed. But if it means that the circuits and instruments must be properly isolated and grounded and so forth, then it probably means that Rosemary's results are skrewed. Er, I mean skewed.

Actually I think "Glen" is trying to be helpful. And I am glad he pointed out this item.

Now, if he would only use those great critical talents and his practical electronics knowledge to assess the circuit under question, instead of mine...Oh, wait...My circuit is so far the ONLY  KNOWN  Ainslie reproduction attempt that is even close to what was described in her paper, with the ability to do comparisons and control testing...

So I suppose we have to be talking about my circuit, since there aren't any others, that I can see.
Title: Re: Claimed OU circuit of Rosemary Ainslie
Post by: ramset on July 19, 2009, 12:54:38 AM
Well...
Helpful or not he was trying to throw you, Owlsly the testing,all data Right off the bus!!

Yes Glen made a very useful observation for members to understand, it just had NOTHING to do with YOU and how you do things[the right way]

Chet
Waiting on data
PS
personally I think he Hates Owlsley [just like Wilby]
Title: Re: Claimed OU circuit of Rosemary Ainslie
Post by: TinselKoala on July 19, 2009, 02:51:51 AM
Oh, and I totally agree that heat tests and so forth are just pilot baselines, until I can reproduce for sure the waveform used in the Quantum/EIT experiment. And I'm afraid only Rosemary can help us here.

Since she has said several times that she still has the circuit...well, you can do the math, even if she can't.

Take that thing out, there, girl, and show us what you've got. Make that booty shake for us, on camera--there will be a lot of people watching.

How many times now have we, or somebody, asked to see a scope shot from her circuit?

And next: as jibbguy pointed out, and as I also pointed out here and in the video ("hope I don't kill myself here", "school of smoking oscilloscopes" etc. ) fooling around like I did in EOU#11 is dangerous to life and equipment. Do a quick check with a DMM before you go risking your life or your equipment by trying what I showed.

I won't be doing this test on the Fluke-O-Scope because it is borrowed and I don't want to take the chance of smoking it. And the LeCroy, fergeddabout it.
To address jibbguy's speculation, the Fluke's power comes either from its internal battery or from its wall-wart isolated DC power supply/charger. So it probably would be a safe test for the Fluke, and if it were mine I'd do it in a heartbeat. But it would be just my luck, a car would hit the pole outside just as I hook it up...

Of course in the video shown, the FG and the analog scopes are providing the ground link, through the bonded line ground, back to the negative battery pole. THAT IS THE POINT of the video.

And as far as connecting the probes goes, I am connecting them as Ainslie showed in her paper, remember...not necessarily where or how I would have connected them.

The issue of isolation and groundloops does not appear to have been addressed in the EIT.pdf paper.
Title: Re: Claimed OU circuit of Rosemary Ainslie
Post by: ramset on July 19, 2009, 03:05:39 AM
Post from Jolt

@witsend Well, anyhow, you came in with the Timer and the Mosfet.
Its only just such a mess to read there through, and i dont, when its not really needed.
Its clear for me, that -some Peoples- never do mistakes and are never wrong.
Therefor i am glad to be just here.

Btw, with the Timer, lol. What is clear now ?
I state to have ~ 10-50% Switch Time at the Mosfet with this Circuit.
Means, this Time is the Mosfet ON and do lead through S and D.
For the low Cycle it works.
When the Frequency is to high, i can lower it with the Pot at the Gate.

If its not clear, then i do make a new Thread.
Still got a new Shot, where you see the Spike equals the ON Time, not the lower Line, what is the Offtime.
Maybe my Scope shows it different then others, or, for the use of the Mosfet it is actually only different explained, what do match better.
Anyhow, i got something like this in Mind.

Otherwise, the Timercircuit is usable.
---------------------------------------------------------------------
This is just to show where the other replicator is.
 
Not the guy who's doing his damnedest to copywright some PATH TO
 MONEY[peace love light and show me the money][An FE entrepreneur,WTF is that? a paradox, an oxymoron ]

Chet
Title: Re: Claimed OU circuit of Rosemary Ainslie
Post by: fuzzytomcat on July 19, 2009, 03:49:02 AM
TK, I would assume by this statement from Rosemary Ainslie it would make me believe that any ground or grounded connection used possibly was a "Earth" ground similar to whats in the UK, Europe, Australia, Asia and Africa on all their 240 volt circuits.

http://www.energeticforum.com/61046-post801.html

Quote:

Regarding the need for grounding, and at the risk of prolonging an argument regarding this - I have to see clear evidence of the earth attached to the neck of the probe attached to the meter and across the shunt. This is sadly lacking. And from memory - that waveform looks like a single probe connection. I'm sending the link to experts at Fluke for final comment. I need to put this 'evidence' to bed. We also never saw full benefit of the scope functions. But certainly early suggestions of the Hartley effect.



Title: Re: Claimed OU circuit of Rosemary Ainslie
Post by: ramset on July 19, 2009, 04:18:37 AM
Tk
The cat is suspect[posts things to fit its agenda ,saving face]
Owlsley is the Urim and Thummin of F E [no BS just the facts]

Chet
Title: Re: Claimed OU circuit of Rosemary Ainslie
Post by: TinselKoala on July 19, 2009, 05:20:52 AM
TK, I would assume by this statement from Rosemary Ainslie it would make me believe that any ground or grounded connection used possibly was a "Earth" ground similar to whats in the UK, Europe, Australia, Asia and Africa on all their 240 volt circuits.

http://www.energeticforum.com/61046-post801.html

Quote:

Regarding the need for grounding, and at the risk of prolonging an argument regarding this - I have to see clear evidence of the earth attached to the neck of the probe attached to the meter and across the shunt. This is sadly lacking. And from memory - that waveform looks like a single probe connection. I'm sending the link to experts at Fluke for final comment. I need to put this 'evidence' to bed. We also never saw full benefit of the scope functions. But certainly early suggestions of the Hartley effect.

Well, she isn't very observant, I guess. I showed a closeup of where the "B" probe connects: sense lead to the circuit side of the shunt, the "neck" of the probe, i.e. signal ground of scope, to the battery side of the shunt, which is connected to the negative pole of the battery, which, in the GL video, is connected to the EARTH by hooking to that copper cold water pipe that penetrates my basement wall. Sure, that pipe is probably also connected to the bonded line ground. So what? If it wasn't, the circuit wouldn't work at all, probably.  As I show in the video, it matters not whether I connect it or not, EXCEPT when the neg batt is disconnected and the scopes are not isolated. The Ainslie circuit isn't a one-wire circuit, after all. (I think that's why they call it a groundLOOP.)
The Fluke, as you might be able to tell from the above photos, does not even HAVE a third prong and its ps is isolated. Doubly so, usually.

Note carefully the description of "ground" or "zero volt reference" on the EIT paper's diagram and in the text. One might assume from the diagram that the "FG" and the circuit are tied to one zero volt reference, and the oscilloscope is tied to another, or the same one at a different point...and where's the "neck of the probe" attached? It isn't shown in the diagram...
I mean I know where it's supposed to go, but what assurance, from this diagram, do we have that her system was properly connected, :earthed: and isolated?

(Also, as an aside, note that she says the "Load resistor was wound to deliberately yield (sic) a high level of inductance." 8.6 microHenries!!!  Wow. The 6 inch leads of my inductance meter, all by themselves, have about 2 microHenries.)

And I will point out again that with the Fluke I was illustrating deliberate False Triggering. And she is calling that the "hint of the Hartley effect."

What is this all about anyway? Is there something wrong with any of my measurements? I have shown that there is only a miniscule effect of the ground/bonded/waterpipe, whatever, when the circuit is properly energized.

And isn't anyone going to comment on the large power injection from the FG (likewise the 555 when it is used)?
Remember, my circuit is wired exactly like the Quantum diagram AND the EIT.pdf paper--I can switch between the two on the fly (diode in or out; 555 inverted cycle or truly known FG cycle).

Title: Re: Claimed OU circuit of Rosemary Ainslie
Post by: TinselKoala on July 19, 2009, 05:41:22 AM
Tk
The cat is suspect[posts things to fit its agenda ,saving face]
Owlsley is the Urim and Thummin of F E [no BS just the facts]

Chet

Yep, and like another of its ilk, tomscat is stuck on a single point that does not even really apply. But I am sure that we will be hearing about it again and again, until some other little nit sticks up and needs picking.

Chet, since Rosemary has now said several times that she still has the circuit, I think it is time for her to show it in operation. So far, you realise, we have less real stuff from her than from anybody, except that one poster that said he has something, wouldn't say what, and generated 11 pages of comments on that before he disappeared -- you remember?

Well, we only have a little more than that to go on from Rosemary. Just words and a couple of papers, not even a patent.

We need more. Other wise we are in danger of having MY results be the only real data set out there on this topic.

And we wouldn't want that, would we.
Title: Re: Claimed OU circuit of Rosemary Ainslie
Post by: HeairBear on July 19, 2009, 07:21:40 AM
Congratulations TK! Sometimes being "too" right can be wrong, eh?
Title: Re: Claimed OU circuit of Rosemary Ainslie
Post by: TinselKoala on July 19, 2009, 08:07:21 AM
Congratulations TK! Sometimes being "too" right can be wrong, eh?

Well. I'll agree there, but again, what does that have to do with the present case?

I'm still not sure Ainslie's oscillations were the groundloop or the false triggering or something else. Without seeing a scope trace, or her seeing one of mine, and her saying :that's it!:  we are just guessing. Educated guessing, but still.

I mean, aperiodic resonance, come on. What's that?

So I made yet another video showing how to do a systematic search for resonance using the Interstate F34 Sweep Function generator.
It's uploading now.

But before that one finishes, here are a couple of others. First, a supplement: the Ainslie Free Energy Audio Amplifier. Then, more on Flukoscopy and LoundGroops. Er, groundloops.

Am i asleep enough to fall drunk yet?

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=x0ovUxSwn1g
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JU1YGaEBKwM
Title: Re: Claimed OU circuit of Rosemary Ainslie
Post by: S.Roksund on July 19, 2009, 12:02:22 PM
Hello all,

Again, this has nothing to do with this thread - but since Groundloop and I has left
information of my circuit here, I will comment on my promises to post the schematic
and news in Overunity.com.

I have done preliminary testing with two batteries according to Groundloop's suggestion,
and found that I have no overunity. My own measurements showing overunity was false
since I do not have suitable measurement-instruments. It was also my intention to get
other qualified opinions that made me post here initially.

However, my circuit is near 100% and will suit my own application in other ways for the
commercial product that I am working on. Also my circuit is operating in a similar way as
Gotoluc's - in the thread "Re: Effects of Recirculating BEMF to Coil".

My work is continuing, and I will have private contact with Groundloop after his vacation.
I have other ideas on how to get OU. When I am ready to reveal some news I will make
a new thread in the forum.

This is all for now.

Have a nice summer!

Best regards S.Roksund
Title: Re: Claimed OU circuit of Rosemary Ainslie
Post by: TinselKoala on July 19, 2009, 02:57:12 PM
Thanks, S.Roksund, for your candor. I know your are disappointed but I hope you have better luck in the next project.

However, I think it would be helpful to others, if you could share with us some details of your experience. If it's not too much to ask, could you please describe (in general terms, or in detail) a few things? I think it would be good to know the general idea of the circuit;  how you were first led to believe it might be OU; the kinds of tests you did that were mistaken; and how you finally determined the actual performance.
We need more stories of this kind, so that others may learn from our mistakes.
Electrical measurements can be particularly tricky and any help would be appreciated, I'm sure.
Thanks, and keep trying!
--TK
Title: Re: Claimed OU circuit of Rosemary Ainslie
Post by: TinselKoala on July 19, 2009, 03:12:51 PM
Well, AT LAST!

Another consummate scientist, Joit, has made and posted a video showing scope traces from an Ainslie circuit build.

No--wait--what's that huge toroidal transformer doing there? And isn't this the same Joit that actually built the 555, showed a screenshot of its trace, and _still_ got the duty cycle issue wrong...?

Something tells me he's not too sure about how to use that fancy digital oscilloscope. I sure am not able to get much information from what he's showing here. Of course, I have no idea what the message is--but Rosemary seems to like his video more than she likes any of mine.

I'm jealous...what's Joit got that I haven't?

That really should be telling you something, I think. What, I'm not sure.

http://www.energetictube.com/play/Energy__Unsorted/Torroid%20Coil%20pulsed%2012V%20DC
Title: Re: Claimed OU circuit of Rosemary Ainslie
Post by: jibbguy on July 19, 2009, 03:19:28 PM
TK i do not understand how you can appear to agree with me about the Fluke 199's input circuit then go on about the possible "ground loop"... Because the Fluke acts as a fully Differential / Isolated device, it is then a moot point and THERE WAS NO GROUND LOOP POSSIBLE when using it (*unless the ground was coming through the signal generator instead).

Also, for the same reason, the reading directly across the resistive element would not show the 25V DC batt voltage riding on it and would only show the voltage dropped across the element.  These things you supposed in your last 2 videos can happen only when the scope has a "SINGLE ENDED TO GROUND" input circuit. The Fluke does not; because it has no resistive connection to "wall-power" AC Ground; it can be considered "Differential / Isolated"

Thanks for showing the Fluke's wall wart PS as it answers that Q, and you are correct that the missing third prong in the wall plug matters in this case. The wall wart very likely acts like a isolation transformer then, de-coupling the little PS/charger from Earth Ground even when in "charge / AC power mode" (...as it certainly is while in "battery powered mode"). 

BTW: Many peeps try to "cheat" with their "Single-Ended" scopes by cutting-off the third prong of the power plug, to "float" the chassis... This is DANGEROUS, because if your home wall power socket was wired backwards (and this happens all the time), you will get a serious shock if you touch the scope's chassis or anything metal attached to it.

Now it is also within the realm of possibility that a "ground loop" situation could occur through the Wavetek with your setup... Which also has a "Single-Ended to Ground" output. And i believe that the "Signal Low" of the SG's output could tie everything to "Earth", and there be no outward signs seen (but such a situation could also suppress transient spikes). The only way to know for sure is the measure with a DMM between the "Battery Low" and the wall-power Earth ground, with and without the wavetek or any other bench equipment at all hooked up. 

Again, for those who didn't read the other forum explanation, as this a VERY IMPORTANT POINT: The reason "Single Ended To Ground" (the input circuit most "CRT" scopes without batteries use) is serious a problem for reading off-ground circuits is this: There is only RESISTANCE between the Signal Low of the scope channel, and the power supply Ground of the scope (which is also closely tied to Chassis/ Earth Ground through the third prong of the plug)... IT IS NOT "ISOLATED". So if you try to put the ground lead of the probe on a point that is NOT at ground potential, it will try to MAKE it ground potential, lol... Sometimes with disastrous consequences. Also, a voltage will be seen across this internal resistance of the scope's input circuit, and if current flows there, you will likely smoke the instrument. If in question, use a DMM to measure between wall-power Earth ground and the point in the circuit you wish to put the Signal Low of the scope probe on FIRST. Most of the scopes i repaired over the years were damaged from making this mistake (putting the ground lead of the scope probe at a point with off-Ground voltage potential)... And most of the Data Acquisition systems i have seen that were damaged beyond repair happened the same way as well.

Waveteks (sig gen's), bench meters of all types, Calibrated DC Power Supplies, and nearly all wall-powered Data Acquisition devices and bench equipment are "Single Ended to Ground". Hand-held DMM's are not, and are truly Isolated, because they are BATTERY POWERED and have no connection with the wall power Earth ground. It is possible to buy truly Isolated bench-type scopes but they are much more expensive... That is why these batt powered scopemeters are worth the money if you want to read Differentially / Off Ground voltages (such as across coils, which are nearly always "floating").

Another alternative solution is to buy external Signal Conditioners ("amplifiers"), with Isolation, as a "front end"... And then run the output to the scope or data acquisition sys.
Title: Re: Claimed OU circuit of Rosemary Ainslie
Post by: xenomorphlabs on July 19, 2009, 05:06:04 PM
If resolved before in this thread, apologies and disregard this post.
From TK´s videos i extracted the info that Ainslie´s 555 circuit can´t produce correct duty cycles.
The reason for that might be a little deviation from the recommendations of 555 circuit modification to achieve low duty cycles. I might be wrong though, need to simulate it in spice to be sure.
There is only  one bypass diode in there and in her diagram´s she displays 2 in opposite directions.
Low 555 duty cycles are explained here: http://www.edn.com/article/CA238425.html

Never did it before like that, but with only one diode i can go pretty low on the 555 duty cycles.
Title: Re: Claimed OU circuit of Rosemary Ainslie
Post by: ramset on July 19, 2009, 05:53:04 PM
XLabs
Rosemary excepts NO sim programs [not designed for OU]
And she only accepts actual builds [except for TK's]
But so far TK is the only builder of RA circuit
Took T K  1/2 hour 4-5 weeks ago to assemble and test /video the circuit

??

Chet
PS they threw him out [no posting read only]
Title: Re: Claimed OU circuit of Rosemary Ainslie
Post by: hartiberlin on July 19, 2009, 06:18:54 PM
Hi Tinsel,
great work with the recent ground loop
oscillation finding in the Rosmary circuit...



Many thanks and please try to see, if you
can extract some additional power
via the ground loop oscillation condition.
Do you get the scope to sync to it ?
You did not show this in your one video...
Many thanks and keep up the great work.

Maybe you stumbled on the Kapanadze effect ?
Please try to explore this in detail.

Sorry, have not followed much your other last
video for the Rosmary tests, but just watched only
the last 5 ones...

Also what I don´t understand, why you don´t increase the frequency in
your videos, so you hit the resonance frequency of your
damped oscillation and then the oscillation will get all in
all much bigger ?
Then you can use an Avramenko plug to extract
power via displacement current without Lentz law
or try to use a RF transformer in an LC circuit to
have a light bulb load on the secondary with the right
impedance matches and on resonance frequency...

P.S. Good explanations with the
scope settings in your videos !

Regards, Stefan.
Title: Re: Claimed OU circuit of Rosemary Ainslie
Post by: xenomorphlabs on July 19, 2009, 06:50:44 PM
XLabs
Rosemary excepts NO sim programs [not designed for OU]
And she only accepts actual builds [except for TK's]
But so far TK is the only builder of RA circuit
Took T K  1/2 hour 4-5 weeks ago to assemble and test /video the circuit

??

Chet


Hmm, it was not meant for her to "accept" or anything, i am just realizing that some of the 555 problems TK had might be due to that 2nd diode and i felt like bringing that up in the context of this thread. Maybe some 555 ace can verify that or consider it insignificant for the operation of the 555, that i don´t know.

Quote
PS they threw him out [no posting read only]

They (?) threw whom out? You mean TK from Ainsie`s forum ?!?


Title: Re: Claimed OU circuit of Rosemary Ainslie
Post by: hartiberlin on July 19, 2009, 07:05:05 PM


http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=x0ovUxSwn1g


Good work Tinsel.

Just make the short pulse drive frequency as high
as the damped oscillation fequency.
Then you will get resonance and it will
be a contineous sine wave output without the damping..
Title: Re: Claimed OU circuit of Rosemary Ainslie
Post by: ramset on July 19, 2009, 07:22:30 PM
Xlabs
quote

They (?) threw whom out? You mean TK from Ainsie`s forum ?!?


Yes ,the only replicator [to date]
 been at least 5 weeks since his replication
maybe 3 wk's since the boot

Chet
PS
He has not stopped his work on the circuit
Title: Re: Claimed OU circuit of Rosemary Ainslie
Post by: hartiberlin on July 19, 2009, 07:24:12 PM
Please Tinsel,
really try to trigger on the A-channel,
to see, how the hum really looks in the video:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jZzzMVx6rPY


Many thanks in advance...
Title: Re: Claimed OU circuit of Rosemary Ainslie
Post by: TinselKoala on July 19, 2009, 08:06:52 PM
@Stefan:
 Thanks for taking a look. The inductive ringdown appears to be in the 150-200 mHz range and my FG only goes to 2 MHz...I know that if I drive the circuit at that frequency the sine oscillations will be continuous as you say.
 However, Rosemary constantly refers to 2.4 kHz as a "High" frequency and most of her reported work is with even lower freqs than that. My purpose here is and has always been to reproduce, or replicate if you like, the claims for the original COP>17 circuit, found in the Quantum article and the EIT.pdf file (in two different versions for the same experimental runs.)

So I am using her exact diagram, the exact component values (with variations for comparisons) and the exact electrical parameters including voltages, battery capacities, frequency and duty cycle as stated in her papers.

I am not interested here in exploring an entire problem space. Just the Ainslie circuit and claims. So far I have found many discrepancies.

The calculated resonance of a 0.00864 milliHenry load with minimal capacitance in its circuit, is, as you can appreciate, very high, and realistically to operate at that frequency and expect to get good measurements, one would have to be much neater and more shielded than any of us could hope to attain at home.

@jibbguy:
You are right of course, and if you look back at my vids and comments you will see that I have and do warn against the same things--perhaps in a bit more casual manner than you do ("I hope I don't kill myself, only crazy people try this, school of smoking oscilloscopes," etc.)
In my basement lab, and also where I work, if I still have a job that is, I have available line isolation transformers of the SOLA kind, that I can use if I need to isolate any of the equipment from the mains, including the mains ground or earth. The Fluke is of course always isolated by its power supply.

But the issue, I would have thought, is rather moot. Since, as shown, the FG and scopes are not isolated in these recent vids, even the isolated FLUKE will show the groundloop signal change when the Ainslie battery negative is disconnected from the circuit but the battery negative is earthed. If the other instruments were isolated, would the Fluke still show the GL? No, because then the circuit would have NO path to the negative of the battery and the circuit would not run at all.

Now, we are unable to determine the state of grounding, isolation, and proper order of connection of the circuit in Ainlsie's reports. There simply isn't enough information in the reports, and I trust "Ainslie said" even less than I trust "Steorn said."

So I recommend that further criticisms and questions about instrument hookups, possible groundloops, and the precautions taken to prevent them be directed to Ainslie. Because there is much less information about these issues concerning HER work than there is about mine, and this information may be critical to replicating her results.

As I thought I was illustrating in the recent videos.

@XLabs: There is no doubt that "A" 555 timer can be made to produce the short or long dutycycles, whatever.
The issue is that the EXACT circuit with the component values shown by Ainslie in the Quantum paper, and cleaned up by Groundloop in the diagram you posted, that circuit does not make the short duty cycles claimed, and in the Ainslie circuit will turn the transistor ON for 80-99 precent of the time and CANNOT be adjusted, with the components specified, to make short 0-20 percent ON duty cycles.
You will see what I mean if you just use the circuit Ainslie specified in the article, rather than designing a correct timer.

I went on and on about this because, as you can see for yourself if the posts haven't been removed, the folks over there would simply not believe that I was right for many days, until the reports of other builders started coming in....and now, the Ainslie 555 circuit error is being "swept under the rug", even though it isn't being CORRECTED in the publications...because some astute observers are finally getting the message that Ainslie's manual energy balance calculations depend on the Correct Duty Cycle going into the calculations...and the 555 timer error most likely means that when Ainslie thought she has 3.7 percent ON she actually had more like 96.3 percent ON...which point is also supported by her confusion, and that of others like Joit and Aaron, about the relationship between the gate signal and mosfet state, that caused me to make the increasingly simpler and simpler videos showing that relationship...

There are so many holes in the Ainslie story that I am genuinely appalled at the credence she is being given. At this point it is very nearly a "MyLOW" situation, if mylow had only showed you words and nothing else.
And the critics are criticising me, when it's clear that people like Joit and Ainslie herself need far more instruction in scope use and measurement
than I do.

Yes, this is the issue that got me kicked off that forum, but that suits me fine. Fascistic monarchies are not to my liking, especially if they are also "spiritually" oriented. The reek of hypocrisy always makes me seek cleaner air.

"Love and Light"...
--TK
Title: Re: Claimed OU circuit of Rosemary Ainslie
Post by: TinselKoala on July 19, 2009, 08:19:26 PM
Please Tinsel,
really try to trigger on the A-channel,
to see, how the hum really looks in the video:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jZzzMVx6rPY


Many thanks in advance...

Hi Stefan
The Philips scope has a "line" triggering function, so that the line signal, whatever it is, becomes the scope trigger and signals at the line frequency can be separated from the other signals. Since the Ainslie oscillations are at 2.4 kHz about, and the line is at 60 Hz, there is no way to display both features simultaneously. As illustrated I cannot get the scope to trigger on the Ainslie "CH A" signal reliably when the GL is there--hence the appearance of "Aperiodic oscillations".... If I trigger on the mains, and use a timebase that is slow enough to show the 60 Hz amplitudes, then the 2.4 kHz becomes the "noise" and the trace still looks like garbage.
However, I will try to resolve the GL signal for you. It will be later tonight before I have a chance to try again.
Strangely, it is much different by night than by day. There may be some heavy electrical stuff on the line during daylight hours. Remember, Canada is a developed nation, but the veneer of development is very thin in spots. I don't trust the mains for reliability or signal purity, that's for sure.
Title: Re: Claimed OU circuit of Rosemary Ainslie
Post by: hartiberlin on July 19, 2009, 08:35:30 PM
Hi TK,
yes, after seeing all your trials and experiments with all
your scope setups, etc..I believe, that Ainslie
has made some errors in her measurements or her
components might have already been damaged or
she had a amateur-radio neighbour broadcasting into her
circuit or some other weird things...
Or she has a much lower ringdown frequency in the Khz range
and she just excited it with the same frequency, so she had
stable oscillations..

Anyway, just better quit the Ainslie circuit and try to see, if you
can get some energy output from this groundloop setup and
better try the Kapanadze circuit to resonante on this groundloop
oscillation via some LC tank circuits and a transformer.
Title: Re: Claimed OU circuit of Rosemary Ainslie
Post by: TinselKoala on July 19, 2009, 09:42:52 PM
Thanks, Stefan, I'll take a look, it's not something I am familiar with.

I see that MileHigh is making a lot of sense, but there's a minor issue or two that I would like to comment on. But I have to do it here.
First, I think the very best evidence that HV (relatively) spikes are making it back to the battery is this: Cheapo DMMs used to monitor battery voltage at the battery (WITHOUT filter caps!! None are shown in the Ainslie circuit!!) anyway, the Cheap DMMs will almost always flip out and show random fluctuations, caused by this HF component coming in from the circuit. You can see this in some of my vids; it was especially severe during the recent experimental run--you can see that I could not even record some readings--and you can even see it clearly with the HUGE inductive load that Joit is using. I love it when my detractors prove my points!
I can see it clearly on the analog scopes, and yes indeed MileHigh is right about the leads picking up signals like that...but the DMM is more remote and is picking up the spikes through its direct connection to the battery.
But MileHigh is also right that the energy in these spikes is miniscule and, even over the long periods we are discussing, cannot sum to anything like a significant charge return to the battery. What it CAN do is make what they call over there a "Fluffy Charge" (i love that term) whereby the battery's indicated no-load voltage is anomalously high wrt its actual energy content. Any charge scheme that spike-pulses a battery of certain chemistries will cause this effect. It's fooled a whole lot of folks, even ones with college educations. And it's still doing so.
So I believe the spikes to the battery are real, as .99 says and as Rosemary says. I also believe that they are not capable of significantly recharging the battery, as MileHigh says. So yes, Rosemary, they can both be right.

And to address the "techie" points that MH brings up: You bet these are important. Especially for those who are breadboarding. A close inspection of the pics of my build though will show that I have followed the good practices that MH recommends. For example, there are decoupling caps in the right places, the timer is hardwired on pad-per-hole phenolic board, the FG input is BNC, copper buswire is used for the basic connections; the 555 output to the Ainslie portion goes in by a 2" length of tiny coax, all points are soldered, even the crimpon connections to the header socket wires; I use a 200K linear pot in place of the 100 ohm attenuator in the gate drive line (This pot, btw, has a bad spot caused by an overload while testing a Darlington transistor in the circuit; you can see the noise from this rough spot in several of the vids).
I even put, with appropriate decoupling caps, a 78L12 regulator on the 555 board, since I sometimes power it with a higher-voltage wall-wart (not used in any of these tests!!).

On all tests I show, the 555 timer is always powered by its own separate 12-volt sealed lead-acid battery of 2A-h capacity. Which of course by necessity shares a common negative with the rest of the system.
Title: Re: Claimed OU circuit of Rosemary Ainslie
Post by: ramset on July 19, 2009, 10:49:50 PM
 MileHigh  said

Ramset: Yes I think that the concerned scientist's points are all valid and he indicates that he is taking care of the circuit issues related to analog setups and propagating square wave signals properly. You can imagine a scenario where someone has a 555 timer on a small breadboard a few feet away from the MOSFET setup and they are interconnected with a long separate light-gage wires for signal and ground. They might not be aware that there is a "whol' lotta' shakin' an' bouncin' goin' on" in the signal levels between the 555 setup and the MOSFET setup which would wreak havoc with the results.

Anyway, hopefully somebody will crunch some watts!

To be serious: IMHO, if there are results that indicate extra energy, the circuit would then have to be picked apart some more by the first reporter with a scope and such. In parallel with that you would need at least three other replicators that then verify the results. Everybody's results would have to be shared with everything reasonably documentated as far as procedures and measurements go. Everybody should be able to generate an Excel spreadsheet or other document for others to review. In my case, I simply suggested a test procedure that if properly documented should stand up reasonably well unless I made an oversight or mistake somewhere.

A biggie documentation issue for example that I did not touch on is the error tolerance in every one of the measurement steps made. As you process the data the error tolerances typically add up, so +/-1% becomes +/-2% and so on. That means if you measure 1% excess energy and your error tolerance is +/-2% then you've proved nothing.

Now we can't forget that the paper states a COP of 17. For every watt of electrical power you put in you get 17 watts of heat power out. If the results are indeed this good, then the data should leap off of the page. Keep in mind the recent Gotoluc experiments with the dim bulb and the bright bulb or the cool resistor and the hot resistor. I believe that in all of those experiments the input power from the battery was not measured. Therfore the relevant data for drawing conclusions from wasn't even there in the first place. If you document and measure correctly you should be fine.
Title: Re: Claimed OU circuit of Rosemary Ainslie
Post by: ramset on July 19, 2009, 11:06:34 PM
Aaron said
fluffy charge
Quote:
Originally Posted by RAMSET View Post
But MileHigh is also right that the energy in these spikes is miniscule and, even over the long periods we are discussing, cannot sum to anything like a significant charge return to the battery. What it CAN do is make what they call over there a "Fluffy Charge" (i love that term) .................

I also believe that they are not capable of significantly recharging the battery, as MileHigh says.
@Aaron says
Not sure why this disinformation keeps popping up.

I'm the one that started the term "fluffy charge" or "fluffy voltage" over 5 years ago to explain that with some radiant spike charging, the voltage is "fluffy" (mostly a light static charge) that gets popped (usually) as soon as applying a load to it (if it is a straight inductive load).

About 6 years ago, I was using my Bedini circuits to charge caps. Microwave caps for example with super low capacitance. 2uf or less. The cap was connected to a separate battery with an SCR in the circuit. Neon bulb triggered at 90v and dumped the cap. THOSE spikes from that circuit gave my battery a "fluffy charge" where the voltage went up then was unable to power a load. The load I was trying to power from it was a strong inductive load so no wonder. If there is a resistive load, you will see power from it. In a mixed component like an inductive resistor, that "fluffy voltage" will see resistance and you'll have some real watts.

So, it CAN and DOES supply measurable power in real wattage over time. And, NOT all charging with spikes is fluffy. Look at the Bedini chargers, that is far from fluffy. Of course that is with a real coil. With the inductive resistor, it is simply scaled down and proportionately, the spikes are just as good.

You say: "cannot sum to anything like a significant charge return to the battery" but that is your opinion not based on fact or experimental evidence and if you insist it is, then that is only based on your experiments that have not been able to produce results that Rosemary, myself and others have achieved.

The term SIGNIFICANT is 100% subjective to what you believe to be significant but overlooks the fact that ANY volume of potential can do work and if it supplies 1 single nano joule of work, then that is ABOVE what the math says. Take those spikes and charge a cap, you will see that REAL work can be had from it.

I've already done the test and the spikes from the resistor can charge a cap quite nicely and even a second battery. I have the recovery diode and it charged the FRONT battery (2 X 12v 7ah bank) to as high as 24.65 when the resting voltage was 24.45 before the test. 24.65 is above the resting voltage before the test was started and over 12 hours later, the circuit is STILL running from the "fluffy voltage". Every bit of wattage I'm getting through the circuit until it gets back down to resting voltage is ALL above and beyond (totally free) what you claim I can get.
Title: Re: Claimed OU circuit of Rosemary Ainslie
Post by: ramset on July 19, 2009, 11:24:37 PM
 MileHigh  said

Aaron: Even if you can do something with the feeble return spikes, you can't forget the banking analogy. So what if the bank gives you a check for $10 every year for being a good customer if your banking costs for your enterprise are $15,000 per year.

For the fluffy voltages for whatever projects are going on, I can suggest that everyone use measurements of a battery's output impedance as a second way of describing the condition of their batteries before and after charging, running load tests, etc. All that everyone needs to do is standardize on a few key values of 10-watt resistor to use as the output impedance testing resistors. You could determine and agree on the right resistors to use for various standard battery sizes and types. Then everybody could exchange data about the voltages, fluffyness, and output impedance measurements and be on the same playing field. The higher the output impedance, the fluffier the battery, so why not measure it? All that you have to do is connect the resistor across the battery, measure the voltage drop, do some basic calculations, and you have your data. Who knows, perhaps there is already a Java applet online somewhere or somebody could create it.
Title: Rosemary Ainslie heater replication
Post by: qiman on July 20, 2009, 12:26:32 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.
Title: Re: Claimed OU circuit of Rosemary Ainslie
Post by: ramset on July 20, 2009, 12:53:33 AM
 Allcanadian  said about Aarons replication circuit and vid
@Aaron
Thank you for finally showing the self-oscillation that Rosemary stated was required. I was starting to wonder if all the so-called experts here and were ever going to figure it out. It should have been obvious from the start that there was no way in hell the 555 timer could hit the true resonance of such a small inductance in the inductor/resistor, not in a million years. It also should have been just as obvious that the 555 timer rise/fall times are way to slow to produce efficient conversion, they must be at the minimum rise/fall duration of the mosfet, the circuit disrupter. Excellent video
Regards
AC
Title: Re: Claimed OU circuit of Rosemary Ainslie
Post by: ramset on July 20, 2009, 01:31:55 AM
 MileHigh  responce to vid and AC comment
Aaron and Allcanadian: I am looking at Aaron's clip right now and it is a pretty good first go at it. I may comment more later but permit me to raise a red flag about a pressing hot issue in this clip:

> Thank you for finally showing the self-oscillation that Rosemary stated was required. I was starting to wonder if all the so-called experts here and were ever going to figure it out.

Here is a clear example where you are misunderstanding the information the scope is giving you. In the clip, the "self-oscillation" is simply the scope loosing it's triggering for a fraction of a second and you are seeing the waveform being displayed free-running with no trigger. How can you make this mistake, it should have been the first thing that entered both of your minds when you saw this!

TK also made the same mistake in one of his clips. The triggering was on the rising-edge ringing in one of his setups. Very occasionally the scope was triggering on the lower-amplitude falling-edge ringing. Once in a while a falling-edge spike was caught by the trigger circuit. This created a composite display that flashed back and forth between the two waveform snapshots and he speculated that it was the random oscillation effect.

> It should have been obvious from the start that there was no way in hell the 555 timer could hit the true resonance of such a small inductance in the inductor/resistor

A stand-alone inductor has no innate resonant frequency associated with it unless you are referring to stray capacitance in the coil and immediate surroundings forming an LC resonater. Also, you must keep in mind that this is a pulse circuit, and by definition, there is no resonance associated with the normal operation of this circuit. All the ringing that you see are standard problems that you see in just about any circuit. The ringing effects are somewhat exaggerated by the fact that you are breadboarding it.

MileHigh
Title: Re: Claimed OU circuit of Rosemary Ainslie
Post by: ramset on July 20, 2009, 01:43:51 AM
AARON TO MH
Your red flag is misleading and is not a red flag.

If it is a problem with the scope, there would be no difference in the operation of the circuit. When it goes into the oscillation as shown on the scope, you blatantly ignore the fact that the battery voltage rises at that point.

Again, the self-oscillation shown on the scope is CORROBORATES with measurable changes in the circuit so any claims of scope goofiness is misinformation.

If the issue is with the scope, none of that should happen.

Please don't mislead people with false analysis. No amount of technical jargon about scope function changes the FACT that at those points - 100% of the time the scope shows the oscillation, the batter voltage climbs meaning the effect is there and it is NOT a problem with the scope.

The change in battery draw during the oscillation is not a small difference relative to what is being drawn, it can be 16 times different. One test showed 500mv over the shunt and instantly during self oscillation as shown by the scope, it dropped to as low as 30mv.

Aaron
p.s.
p.s. The draw from the battery with the scope DETACHED is the same as the reduced draw when the scope shows the self-oscillation. So the scope isn't even in the picture.

I can watch the draw and know if I am in self oscillation or not WITHOUT THE SCOPE DETACHED.

I can watch the draw and when not in oscillation, I can hook up the scope and see that it corroborates with the draw showing the non oscillation.

I can then watch the draw and when it is obviously in self-oscillation, I can hook up the scope and guess what, it corroborates and shows me the self oscillation.

The scope issue brought up is bogus and not based on any facts whatsoever.

I've never seen so many people scared of the truth in all my life.

Please no more pen jockey ideas or technical explanations as they have no basis in reality. Do the experiments and post them, otherwise, keep your uninformed distracting opinions to yourselves.

This thread is for duplication of the circuit and constructive talk of the results even by people not duplicating. I don't mind "skepticism" but outright misinformation will not be tolerated so please give it up.
Title: Re: Claimed OU circuit of Rosemary Ainslie
Post by: ramset on July 20, 2009, 02:06:55 AM
 MileHigh 
Aaron: A few more comments about your clip:

The shut resistor is comparable to the resistance of the coil-resistor. I know that this is your fist shot at it so it is understandable. However, it limits the current through the circuit and affects the overall operation. The baddie here is that it is pushing the source pin voltage of the MOSFET way up above ground as the current starts to flow, which will make the "on" signal from the 555 start to drop relative to the MOSFET gate input.

The first thing that is noteworthy is that there are two separate time constants associated with the rising waveform across the coil-resistor when the MOSFET switches on. It may be related to the shunt resistor being too large, I don't know. The big point is that it is not supposed to be there, the circuit clearly shows that. You should try to find out why it is there and explain it.

You are not telling your audience where the scope ground and signal leads are connected also, and that could be relevant. If the scope ground lead is "far away" from the coil-resistor other potentials in the interconnect wires may be affecting the waveform. Ideally you would put the scope probe directly across the big coil-resistor.

Note that the reverse-voltage coming out of the coil-inductor after the MOSFET switches off is about -0.6 volts, just like I stated it would be. You can clearly see this in all of the scope shots. This is a very very important fact that should not be overlooked. When the coil discharges it generats a potential directly related to the effective resistance across the coil. In this case, the diode clamps the output voltage from the coil-resistor inductive discharge to -0.6 volts.

Yes, there is a pretty big looking negative spike at the very beginning of the coil-resistor discharge cycle (the instant the MOSFET switches off). HOWEVER, I already indicated that a lot of this could be associated with the breadboarding. As the circuit builds get better and better with every new iteration you can expact that spike to decrease in energy and amplitude. If you got this build down to a refined printed circuit board layout with eveything done just right, there is a decent chance that that first big spike would be become a tiny tiny whisp, barely noticable in a scope shot.

Since you are not scoping the current across the shunt resistor in your first go at it, at this point in time we don't know if there is any current flow associated with that first big negative spike. In a way, the point is moot anyways, because any curent flow from that spike would not be in the right direction to charge the source battery.

It's hard to tell in the clip, but if you see distinctive ringing associated wth any of the spikes, then they are not necessarily ringing spikes directly from the coil. The interconnect wires themselves can ring because of a whole mess of stuff about impedance mismatching between the source, the impedance of the transmission line associated with the wires themselves, and the load. It all comes into play when you are dealing with square-like waves. If you could match all of the impedances in the "wire transmisson line system" then at least all of the ringing associated with the wires themselves would go away.

Aaron, thanks, a very good first clip overall. We got to see some guts at work!

Also many thanks to TK, who has been working on this project and has done a multitude of clips filled with relevant information.

MileHigh
Title: Re: Claimed OU circuit of Rosemary Ainslie
Post by: TinselKoala on July 20, 2009, 05:18:07 AM
@MikeHigh: You said, in reference to Aaron's vid:
Quote
"Here is a clear example where you are misunderstanding the information the scope is giving you. In the clip, the "self-oscillation" is simply the scope loosing it's triggering for a fraction of a second and you are seeing the waveform being displayed free-running with no trigger. How can you make this mistake, it should have been the first thing that entered both of your minds when you saw this!

TK also made the same mistake in one of his clips. The triggering was on the rising-edge ringing in one of his setups. Very occasionally the scope was triggering on the lower-amplitude falling-edge ringing. Once in a while a falling-edge spike was caught by the trigger circuit. This created a composite display that flashed back and forth between the two waveform snapshots and he speculated that it was the random oscillation effect."

Don't tell me you too have missed the entire point of my triggering videos!!

It has been my contention FROM THE BEGINNING that false triggering was what was being described by the Ainslie camp as "random resonance, aperiodic oscillations, Hartley self-oscillation" or whatever. Look back and you will see that this is true, and this is what I have been trying to show the whole time. Ainslie has even said that one of my FALSE TRIGGERING illustrations has gotten me "almost there" to win the OU Prize.

When I say in the video "that looks like ..random aperiodic hartley blueberry cake with creamcheese" my voice, to me, sounds dripping with sarcasm.

I guess my sarcasm and irony is just too subtle for some folks. Aperiodic random resonance? Give me a flimping break.


Title: Re: Claimed OU circuit of Rosemary Ainslie
Post by: TinselKoala on July 20, 2009, 05:25:08 AM
I will say this one time. Most of us already know it. Some of "us" should really meditate on it.

You Cannot make reliable measurements on a spiky circuit like this with cheap handheld DMMs. Not the kind that need to be made, that is.

A reliable power meter that will indicate accurately on this kind of circuit costs many thousands of dollars. But it is worth it, and if anybody really wants to know what's going on in Rosemary's circuit, just rent one of these for a week and hook it up. Of course, someone will have to tell you what her circuit is, first...since nobody really seems to know.

http://www.clarke-hess.com/2335.htm
Title: Re: Claimed OU circuit of Rosemary Ainslie
Post by: TinselKoala on July 20, 2009, 05:31:36 AM
Quote
I've never seen so many people scared of the truth in all my life.

Please no more pen jockey ideas or technical explanations as they have no basis in reality. Do the experiments and post them, otherwise, keep your uninformed distracting opinions to yourselves.

This thread is for duplication of the circuit and constructive talk of the results even by people not duplicating. I don't mind "skepticism" but outright misinformation will not be tolerated so please give it up.

Amazing. Isn't it? The hypocrisy astounds me. How can a single brain hold such contradictory statements in such close proximity without burning out? I suppose the insulation must be very very strong.
Title: Re: Claimed OU circuit of Rosemary Ainslie
Post by: TinselKoala on July 20, 2009, 06:39:44 AM
I'm posting these comments on Aaron's video. How long will they last? I am asking legitimate questions.
Quote
Nice load resistor. What's its inductance? I estimate it at between 150 and 200 microHenrys. In other words, roughly twenty times the value of Ainslie's 8.64 microHenrys. So your "replication" fails right there.

Or is that figure in Ainslie's paper a misprint, like the circuit diagram, too?

Just asking. After all, we wouldn't want any misinformation posted, now, would we?
and
Quote
Is that 555 timer constructed according to the Quantum article diagram? If not, why not? That article still has not been corrected by Ainslie so we must assume that it was the one she used, until she tells us exactly otherwise. After all, she still has the circuit in her possession.

and

Quote
3:10
talk real fast, say "right" and think we'll miss it? No, not right. Some is being stored in the inductor's mag field, and after the fet turns off and the field is collapsing by bouncing back and forth between the inductances and capacitances in the circuit, that's when this stored energy is dissipated. See the ringdown on the end of your spikes? That's this stored energy sloshing back and forth. See it exponentially decreasing? That's because it is being dissipated as heat.

And I will try to post This old vid of mine as a "reply"
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5tW2g4KinuA
Title: Re: Claimed OU circuit of Rosemary Ainslie
Post by: TinselKoala on July 20, 2009, 07:02:00 AM
Well, that's ten minutes of my life I'll never get back.

Nice views of the tabletop and under the workbench, btw.

I'm flabbergasted. They were perfectly right to ban me. There is no way I can possibly communicate with someone who will not even read the manual for their oscilloscope.

Self-oscillation? You mean uncontrolled feedback due to poor construction (screwing the mosfet to the workbench!! ROTMFFLMAO I have Never seen that one before); and the fact that you cannot resolve it on your scope tells me that you cannot use an oscilloscope properly. When you figure out how to set your scope's trigger correctly, you will be able to resolve that signal, because while it might be self-oscillation, it certainly is also regular, not a-periodic or random.

Ahh, a blast from the past:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vxabhjHoV50
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BwbdvDms0Bk
Title: Re: Claimed OU circuit of Rosemary Ainslie
Post by: TinselKoala on July 20, 2009, 07:36:25 AM
I wonder what the COP is of this device.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OxEpSX2Hd54

Or this one.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ir9RIsXzmzY
Title: Re: Claimed OU circuit of Rosemary Ainslie
Post by: TinselKoala on July 20, 2009, 08:12:59 AM
Aaron says:
Quote
TK has been defended as an apparent expert with credentials and I think he bragged about published papers, etc... but couldn't even intentionally get the mosfet into self oscillation but I could. Therefore, the argument is null and void. The argument of credentials stands or it doesn't and is not subject to "conditions."

And I say: See the led glowing a bit, even when the "switch" is open??? What is the matter with your eyeballs?
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rSFS99SaZTA


Title: Re: Claimed OU circuit of Rosemary Ainslie
Post by: ramset on July 20, 2009, 03:56:45 PM
just left this post

 A scientist searching for OU [rare as hens teath]
MIB ? bad oil guy?

Can't use equipment?[every day of his life]

wonder what the COP is of this device.

YouTube - Dirod 1

Or this one.

YouTube - Bonetti Machine clip #3
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
Aaron is on the right page" heat some water" If your COP is that high

then your BTU will be obvious

You go Aaron make it so boil some water make steam Forget all these tests
HOT WATER HEAT is what where after COP 17 and higher

Chet
PS you don't need a lab for that
Title: Re: Claimed OU circuit of Rosemary Ainslie
Post by: TinselKoala on July 20, 2009, 04:07:58 PM
Heh. Thanks for posting that, Chet. I was just reminiscing...
But they might like the Resonance Effects for Everyone vids better, since they are so impressed by charging a cap thru a diode, and might like to see what a real resonance from a mosfet driving an inductive ringing system is like.

And every time I look over there I am more amazed. Joit has finally admitted that even his 555 circuit can't make short duty cycles. Now if we can just get people to follow that thought all the way through her energy balance calcs...

And in practically the same sentence where she gripes about me calling her a mendacious prevaricator, she proceeds to post yet another canard saying that neither I nor anybody else has done power measurements...I beg your pardon, Rosemary, but that's a lie too. Or, rather, another statement of your willful ignorance.

Quote
Have you ever looked through the OU.Com thread on this? It beggars belief. Malice hardly describes it. And the amount of money that is spent on displaying tests and parading brand new state of the art equipment that is never effectively used.
Money? When a COP>17 claim is being made? What is money when the world is at stake?
Brand new state of the art equipment? Where?
Never effectively used? You mean MISUSED like Aaron and Joit's scope work? I laugh in your face, liar.

Quote

 Weeks go by without a single test result - just promises of this. Yet we are constantly advised that the claim is wrong. Has it ever occurred to anyone that - to this day - no single power measurement has been made on the circuitry?
More lies. I have been reporting test results for a month or more, sometimes several a day. And I have made MANY measurements, published my raw data and ALL test parameters including scope shots and photos of the apparatus and videos of it being operated and tested. And I have even made so far 3 full experimental runs comparing heat profiles.
Quote
No test has been run to duration of a battery capacity.
And no test has been run under water. There is no need. The heat results are far more more conclusive.
Quote
Brand new state of the art equipment is constantly on display but never are its full functions referenced. Small irrelevant points become critical evidence of a lack of proof and are championed with an unabashed repetitiveness that is boringly persistent but brutally destructive. But no actual proof is offered.
There's that brand new state of the art equipment again. You must be talking about someone else, because all my stuff is obsolete junk. But it still works fine, and more importantly, I know how to use it.
And the significance of the points I keep stressing is fatal to your claims. If you used the wrong duty cycle, as it is increasingly obvious that you did, your energy calculations are wrong wrong wrong.

Where's the circuit, Rosemary? It's been over a month now. You have shown us NOTHING except words. And many of those words are, well, as I have shown, untrue.

And everything that I have said about the circuit and its performance and testing is TRUE and VISIBLE and REPEATABLE by anyone who can read a circuit diagram and an oscilloscope manual.
But who is repeating ANY of the Ainslie effects, and how?
Just Aaron, by screwing a mosfet to his workbench and violating every rule of good circuit construction to make a feedback circuit. But even he can''t get much heating at short duty cycles.



http://www.energeticforum.com/renewable-energy/4314-cop-17-heater-rosemary-ainslie-32.html#post61506
Title: Re: Claimed OU circuit of Rosemary Ainslie
Post by: jibbguy on July 20, 2009, 04:13:17 PM
What Aaron is seeing there in his vid is not "false triggering" / being "off trigger"... Or anything to do with a friggin' scope trigger! 

I'm not sure why this particular avenue of denial seen here infuriates me so much (we should all be used to it by now), but it does. I will try to be "civil" nonetheless (lol but it's difficult).

When a scope drifts off-trigger but the waveform's Frequency doesn't change, the signal representation ROLLS across the screen. With the scope's time base set the same as before; the waveform will still be visible and mainly recognizable, just looking like an old TV with "Horizontal Hold" problems.

The "Triggering" circuitry by itself CANNOT CHANGE THE SCOPE'S TIME BASE SETTING!! ... Thus, when previously set to see 2 or 3 cycles spaced across the screen, you can't suddenly get it to display 400 cycles squeezed together (showing the unmistakable "all white" solid envelope that denotes a way-too-slow time base setting)... By simply screwing around with the Trigger Level. You good folks out there try it yourselves and see what i mean. It will take a significant change in the signal's actual Frequency for this to be seen.

Frankly, i am finding it hard to believe that these peeps claiming the contrary don't know this. On one hand they are accusing Aaron of making a very "noob" mistake, yet we find it is THEY who are claiming an utterly NOOB and COMPLETELY MISTAKEN point in denial... Which is certainly doing their credibility no favors. And so they deserve to be lambasted for it (as turnabout is fair play), and perhaps their actual motives here QUESTIONED.... They certainly are not acting here as those who are seeking Truth, by putting forth weak justifications for previously stated strong opinions.

Aaron is also getting a small increase at the batt charge voltage on the DMM at the exact same time as the oscillation effect is seen on the scope... Verses when the scope is showing the "normal" waveform. Explain that one by "poor scope triggering".

And for the benefit of the folks out there who will now be SUCCESSFULLY building this circuit, and who also happen to have a storage scope (or a PC-based one that can "freeze" the screen): This talk about triggering is a total distraction, and give it no heed: Just take a "snap shot" (screen "sample and hold") of the signal.... Whatever is shown on the screen is the actual and accurate representation of the signal at that particular moment, and all this B-S about "scope triggering" be damned.  And please, if possible, post the "screenies" of that much higher F oscillation waveform for us all to look at, as it is of interest to many of us ;)

So Aaron has gotten his MOSFET to go into astable oscillation (...just as Rosemary said it would). Congrats to him, and may many more folks out there now follow his fine example!!
Title: Re: Claimed OU circuit of Rosemary Ainslie
Post by: ramset on July 20, 2009, 04:26:31 PM
left at EF

 A scientist[FE scientist] works the resonance
Groundloop gutoluc and An FE scientist

YouTube - resonance effects for everyone
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5tW2g4KinuA

And from another scientist[TRON]

tank circuit video: resonance and harmonics
a great video on resonance and oscilloscope signals in a tank circuit
Make: Online : Short Circuit #2: Frequency multiplication with tank circuits

http://blog.makezine.com/archive/2009/04/short_circuit_2_frequency_multiplic.html?CMP=OTC-0D6B48984890
Title: Re: Claimed OU circuit of Rosemary Ainslie
Post by: TinselKoala on July 20, 2009, 04:36:26 PM
What Aaron is seeing there in his vid is not "false triggering" / being "off trigger"... Or anything to do with a friggin' scope trigger! 

I'm not sure why this particular avenue of denial seen here infuriates me so much (we should all be used to it by now), but it does. I will try to be "civil" nonetheless (lol but it's difficult).

When a scope drifts off-trigger but the waveform's Frequency doesn't change, the signal representation ROLLS across the screen. With the scope's time base set the same as before; the waveform will still be visible and mainly recognizable, just looking like an old TV with "Horizontal Hold" problems.

The "Triggering" circuitry by itself CANNOT CHANGE THE SCOPE'S TIME BASE SETTING!! ... Thus, when previously set to see 2 or 3 cycles spaced across the screen, you can't suddenly get it to display 400 cycles squeezed together (showing the unmistakable "all white" solid envelope that denotes a way-too-slow time base setting)... By simply screwing around with the Trigger Level. You good folks out there try it yourselves and see what i mean. It will take a significant change in the signal's actual Frequency for this to be seen.

Frankly, i am finding it hard to believe that these peeps claiming the contrary don't know this. On one hand they are accusing Aaron of making a very "noob" mistake, yet we find it is THEY who are claiming an utterly NOOB and COMPLETELY MISTAKEN point in denial... Which is certainly doing their credibility no favors. And so they deserve to be lambasted for it (as turnabout is fair play), and perhaps their actual motives here QUESTIONED.... They certainly are not acting here as those who are seeking Truth, by putting forth weak justifications for previously stated strong opinions.

Aaron is also getting a small increase at the batt charge voltage on the DMM at the exact same time as the oscillation effect is seen on the scope... Verses when the scope is showing the "normal" waveform. Explain that one by "poor scope triggering".

And for the benefit of the folks out there who will now be SUCCESSFULLY building this circuit, and who also happen to have a storage scope (or a PC-based one that can "freeze" the screen): This talk about triggering is a total distraction, and give it no heed: Just take a "snap shot" (screen "sample and hold") of the signal.... Whatever is shown on the screen is the actual and accurate representation of the signal at that particular moment, and all this B-S about "scope triggering" be damned.  And please, if possible, post the "screenies" of that much higher F oscillation waveform for us all to look at, as it is of interest to many of us ;)

So Aaron has gotten his MOSFET to go into astable oscillation (...just as Rosemary said it would). Congrats to him, and may many more folks out there now follow his fine example!!

It was MileHigh who first said that Aaron's scope shot might be false triggering, and then later he saw the rest of the vid and agrees that Aaron's circuit is feeding back and oscillating, and so do I. There is some false triggering, but definitely his circuit is blasting away. And it is also true that I have not been able so readily to make my circuit do that.
It is also true that adjusting the scope's trigger and timebase would have allowed the feedback oscillation to be resolved into a regular periodic waveform...but that would have been anti-OU, so we won't see that being shown.
It is also clear that Aaron's "success" is a result of poor construction practices.
And it is very very clear that his resistor isn't heating much at short duty cycles.
And it's very difficult to say what the duty cycle is during the feedback--because if the signal were only resolved properly, it will no longer be seen to be a pulse, but rather a more sinusoidal wave, and it would sound like a very loud screech.
Is it surprising that the mosfet passes more power when screeching than it does at a short duty cycle?
Not to me.
And if you really trust that DMM to read correctly under the conditions in Aaron's vid, you must be on someone else's payroll...because even the MiBs are not that naiive.
Title: Re: Claimed OU circuit of Rosemary Ainslie
Post by: ramset on July 20, 2009, 04:49:32 PM
TK
perhaps a few moments here

http://www.overunity.com/index.php?topic=7679.510

The spot Stephan was talking about [coils and Don Smith easy stuff]

Perhaps a brief interlude [from church]
Chet
And your take on this

tank circuit video: resonance and harmonics
a great video on resonance and oscilloscope signals in a tank circuit
Make: Online : Short Circuit #2: Frequency multiplication with tank circuits

http://blog.makezine.com/archive/2009/04/short_circuit_2_frequency_multiplic.html?CMP=OTC-0D6B48984890
it has girls in it
Title: Re: Claimed OU circuit of Rosemary Ainslie
Post by: TinselKoala on July 20, 2009, 05:51:39 PM
I need to go to church, myself. I'll take a look later on. Thanks for the heads up.
I see that you are beginning to fall from grace--better watch out, the Free Speech Police might be sending you a warning soon...


Title: Re: Claimed OU circuit of Rosemary Ainslie
Post by: ramset on July 20, 2009, 06:02:28 PM
Free speech police
Yah mean the Church of peace love  light and show me the PATH to money Freedom of speech police??

Nahh

Chet
Title: Re: Claimed OU circuit of Rosemary Ainslie
Post by: jibbguy on July 20, 2009, 06:40:01 PM
I don't believe in going around quoting, i personally think it's kinda lame for the most part in these cases. But peeps saw above that you accused Aaron of not being able to read a scope: They can come to their own conclusions what you meant there.

I gotta say, once the one bogus explanation is exploded, moving on to the next one like nothing happened will garner diminishing returns (just as it was 3 days ago with the last red herring, the "ground loop" stuff based on "Single Ended to Ground" input circuit oddities which were totally MOOT in this case; nearly as much as the "triggering" claims).
 
Although now i think we have gone through all possible obfuscations regarding the instrumentation (although i could be wrong about that, hehehe ;) ).

I guess it's your bad luck you ran across someone who knows WTF they are talking about when it comes to test & measurement instrumentation. Those 18 years in the field, traveling all over the world to over 24 countries, visiting over 450 mostly high-profile Customers on-site (such as every NASA center, Edwards AFB, Fort Meade, several nuc power plants and plenty of coal-fired ones, a dozen other important military bases, N.I.H. in Bethesda, hundreds of major hospitals including Johns Hopkins and Mayo Clinic, and virtually every major University in the U.S. doing medical research and many doing physical science research as well)... Wasn't totally wasted time after all. That resume is not to brag: Just to show that if you make a claim about instrumentation, you had better have your ducks in a row next time... I used to feed my family on what i know about it. 

Sure the DMM is not accurate in reading transients it only proves SOMETHING OF INTEREST HAPPENED (...which i will remind peeps, was in denial for weeks in the above thread).

And i will say again (as i did several pages ago), the only accurate way of amplitude measurement in these cases is to capture them on a digital storage scope or data acquisition system with a proper high sample rate, and let either the on-board calc functions or PC-based analysis software do the averaging... These are pretty much infallible (i've done months of Beta Testing on these in the past and i know for fact they can be relied upon... They ARE the industry standard and multi-million dollar corporate decisions, or important medical Studies, are based on their results every day).

I would personally very much like to see us all move in this direction (digital storage and PC analysis): It will gain us credibility and professionalism that will utterly shut up critics, and allow our positive results to make it into the mainstream much faster. Of course the problem there is "cost"... They ain't cheap (even to rent). And the faster the max per-channel Sample Rate, the more expensive the devices get. You can get a "Dataq" 4 channel DAQ system, with analysis software thrown in for free, for about $300.. But what use is "280 samples per second" here?? NONE at all of course (well except for reading "Temp" which can be very slow). The per-channel Sample Rate should be at least 10 times the fastest F you want to record, for real accuracy. That would mean that we need to capture this with AT LEAST "2.4 Megasamples / sec" sample rate PER CHANNEL. 

As for Aaron's vid, he showed what he set out to do. And at the time, it was enough to totally refute the claims of "no oscillation"... Which are now sunk. 

If he couldn't get it to trigger at the higher time bases, it is because it is "astable" and not "STABLE", get it? It must be a REPEATABLE cycle at a measurable repeatable period for the scope's triggering circuit to work properly.

That is why a storage scope, PC-based scope, or PC-based Data Acquisition system with "sample & hold" (such as the Fluke 199) WILL show that signal in all it's glory via a "snap shot".  And that is important, as it really does need to be captured, measured, and analyzed... And of course it would be even better if an "FFT" could be done on it in PC-based analysis software so we could see the most common beat freq's verses amplitude (which could ultimately give us some important clues to making it more reproducible, and useful). THAT'S how it would be done in the "real world".   

But i believe that will come too eventually as the good folks out there reproduce this effect (...since they won't be listening to all the nay-saying anymore) ;)
Title: Ainslie OU Measurements?
Post by: 0c on July 20, 2009, 08:39:48 PM
I'm going to try one more time in this thread to see if I can make a difference. I'm not on either side, but I have a vested interest in freeing up one of the participants so he can focus on something else. If there is good response to this post, then maybe I'll try and move on to the next object of contention.

This is a 2-part question and there are potentially as many answers as there are builders. If there are a lot of proposals, we should attempt to reduce the list to a small number of accepable solutions that can best suit the diverse capabilities and resources of the experimentors involved.

1) What is the best means of measuring the total input and output energy to determine the ratio between them?

2) Will you provide a detailed step-by step test procedure document which also includes a list of all required equipment and materials required to complete the test, and sources for any equipment or materials most hobbiests are not likely to have in their garage?


Those of you having accounts on EnergeticForum, please ask them to participate in this exercise. Hopefully we can come to some sort of consensus on this part at least.
Title: Re: Claimed OU circuit of Rosemary Ainslie
Post by: ramset on July 20, 2009, 08:59:22 PM
OC
you selfish Bastid !![only kidding I've been trying to do the same]
Freeing up TK !!

This needs closier
These guys should  MAKE SOME HEAT already!!
COP up the Kazzooo enough back slapping
Where not talking COP .oooooooo1


   COP 17    +1700% and rising   lotsa f**kin power  BURNS the fingers stuff
not 2 degrees over ambient [my farts are OU then]

Aaron boil water, count the time, no voodoo just BTU 1700% SMOKINNNN..

6 weeks 2 degrees
1700%???

No criticism just facts if Rosemaries circuit has legs let that dog run[circuit]
define the"" effect""and make it grow!!
Thats the reason TK is here
a published paper that claimed COP 17

So far 2 dgrees above ambient [ something stapled to Aarons desk?? not Rosemary's}

DEFINE THE EFFECT, PRODUCE THE EFFECT!!ENHANCE THE EFFECT!!

BOIL some water  1700 % you better have a fire extinguisher

Chet


Title: Re: Claimed OU circuit of Rosemary Ainslie
Post by: TinselKoala on July 20, 2009, 08:59:24 PM
I don't believe in going around quoting, i personally think it's kinda lame for the most part in these cases. But peeps saw above that you accused Aaron of not being able to read a scope: They can come to their own conclusions what you meant there.

I gotta say, once the one bogus explanation is exploded, moving on to the next one like nothing happened will garner diminishing returns (just as it was 3 days ago with the last red herring, the "ground loop" stuff based on "Single Ended to Ground" input circuit oddities which were totally MOOT in this case; nearly as much as the "triggering" claims).
 
Although now i think we have gone through all possible obfuscations regarding the instrumentation (although i could be wrong about that, hehehe ;) ).

I guess it's your bad luck you ran across someone who knows WTF they are talking about when it comes to test & measurement instrumentation. Those 18 years in the field, traveling all over the world to over 24 countries, visiting over 450 mostly high-profile Customers on-site (such as every NASA center, Edwards AFB, Fort Meade, several nuc power plants and plenty of coal-fired ones, a dozen other important military bases, N.I.H. in Bethesda, hundreds of major hospitals including Johns Hopkins and Mayo Clinic, and virtually every major University in the U.S. doing medical research and many doing physical science research as well)... Wasn't totally wasted time after all. That resume is not to brag: Just to show that if you make a claim about instrumentation, you had better have your ducks in a row next time... I used to feed my family on what i know about it. 

Sure the DMM is not accurate in reading transients it only proves SOMETHING OF INTEREST HAPPENED (...which i will remind peeps, was in denial for weeks in the above thread).

And i will say again (as i did several pages ago), the only accurate way of amplitude measurement in these cases is to capture them on a digital storage scope or data acquisition system with a proper high sample rate, and let either the on-board calc functions or PC-based analysis software do the averaging... These are pretty much infallible (i've done months of Beta Testing on these in the past and i know for fact they can be relied upon... They ARE the industry standard and multi-million dollar corporate decisions, or important medical Studies, are based on their results every day).

I would personally very much like to see us all move in this direction (digital storage and PC analysis): It will gain us credibility and professionalism that will utterly shut up critics, and allow our positive results to make it into the mainstream much faster. Of course the problem there is "cost"... They ain't cheap (even to rent). And the faster the max per-channel Sample Rate, the more expensive the devices get. You can get a "Dataq" 4 channel DAQ system, with analysis software thrown in for free, for about $300.. But what use is "280 samples per second" here?? NONE at all of course (well except for reading "Temp" which can be very slow). The per-channel Sample Rate should be at least 10 times the fastest F you want to record, for real accuracy. That would mean that we need to capture this with AT LEAST "2.4 Megasamples / sec" sample rate PER CHANNEL. 

As for Aaron's vid, he showed what he set out to do. And at the time, it was enough to totally refute the claims of "no oscillation"... Which are now sunk. 

If he couldn't get it to trigger at the higher time bases, it is because it is "astable" and not "STABLE", get it? It must be a REPEATABLE cycle at a measurable repeatable period for the scope's triggering circuit to work properly.

That is why a storage scope, PC-based scope, or PC-based Data Acquisition system with "sample & hold" (such as the Fluke 199) WILL show that signal in all it's glory via a "snap shot".  And that is important, as it really does need to be captured, measured, and analyzed... And of course it would be even better if an "FFT" could be done on it in PC-based analysis software so we could see the most common beat freq's verses amplitude (which could ultimately give us some important clues to making it more reproducible, and useful). THAT'S how it would be done in the "real world".   

But i believe that will come too eventually as the good folks out there reproduce this effect (...since they won't be listening to all the nay-saying anymore) ;)

Jib, your remarks are better addressed to Rosemary than to me. In the VERY FIRST videos in the series, I demonstrated the DMM crazy effect and pointed it out as evidence that spikes were making it back to the battery. And I have shown cap charging thru a diode many times before with inductors pulsed by mosfets.
So you once again are burning a straw man.

The purpose of my investigation has been to check the specific claims of a specific circuit. Aaron's circuit is NOT the circuit I am examining; it is NOT the circuit used in the Ainslie papers, and it oscillates the way it does because of poor construction, and you know that perfectly well. Nobody who has built the ACTUAL circuit using proper construction has seen that oscillation--or at least has not reported it.

The Fluke 199 cannot do on-board integration.
The Fluke 199 cannot resolve very short or very long duty cycles.

The LeCroy that I have sitting here, can, however. Is the 9370M an acceptable instrument, Jib? I know it's old, and only has 1 GHz bandwidth with a sample rate of 500Ms/sec...oh, well, it's the best I can do, right off the shelf.
And as soon as I am able to reproduce AINSLIE's oscillatons, not Aaron's, you can bet your bippy that I will be analyzing them.

Ainslie has yet to provide any real information regarding the oscillations in HER circuit, which Aaron's is not.

There are several ways to test properly this circuit, 0c. Unfortunately,  all these ways are rejected by Rosemary. Only ways that show the circuit to be OU will be allowed.

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

Earthtech International has one of these and I'm sure that I could arrange for them to test Rosemary's actual circuit, if I asked them nicely. I would even go so far as to pay for the test myself--with Rosemary's actual COP>17 circuit, of course.

And if we only had Rosemary's actual circuit to test.

Perhaps Jibbguy will tell us why the Clarke-Hess won't work, after he's read up on the instrument.


Title: Re: Claimed OU circuit of Rosemary Ainslie
Post by: TinselKoala on July 20, 2009, 09:02:38 PM
Oh, and #2: For the folks that do not have access to the Clarke-Hess (like me right now) should read and use MileHigh's test protocol that he outlined on energetic forum.

But first, of course, you need to know just what circuit to use. Rosemary's (Which one)? Aaron's? Joit's? 

If you've got anything over unity, that test method will show it easily. And if you have COP>17...well, then, I suppose I'll be buying the beer _and_ the pizza.
Title: Re: Claimed OU circuit of Rosemary Ainslie
Post by: ramset on July 20, 2009, 09:28:24 PM
TK
A request from the Boss

Ramset - I wonder if I could impose on you to desist from giving us links to TK's videos until he is in a position of show us the actual wattage measurements using the instruments to hand.

All videos - to date - have been somewhat misleading and utterly confusing.

Thank you
Rosemary
Title: Re: Claimed OU circuit of Rosemary Ainslie
Post by: TinselKoala on July 20, 2009, 09:48:28 PM
TK
A request from the Boss

Ramset - I wonder if I could impose on you to desist from giving us links to TK's videos until he is in a position of show us the actual wattage measurements using the instruments to hand.

All videos - to date - have been somewhat misleading and utterly confusing.

Thank you
Rosemary

Heh. I saw that.

In other words:

Please don't distract me with facts. My mind is made up, and besides, I can't understand them anyway.

Misleading?
How about the Quantum paper's circuit diagram? How about the patent, which isn't a patent at all? How about the duty cycle, which is now utterly confirmed to be wrong? How about the waveform descriptions...verbal, with no scope shots? How about the Labs and Academics--who we only know about second-and third-hand. Where are these reports? Why can't we see them?

TK misleading?

Sorry, wrong again. The misleading information is coming from Rosemary.

Everything I post is understandable, verifiable, repeatable, and documented.
Title: Re: Ainslie OU Measurements?
Post by: 0c 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.
Title: Re: Claimed OU circuit of Rosemary Ainslie
Post by: ramset 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.
Title: Re: Claimed OU circuit of Rosemary Ainslie
Post by: jibbguy 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 ;) 
Title: Re: Ainslie OU Measurements?
Post by: TinselKoala 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.
Title: Re: Claimed OU circuit of Rosemary Ainslie
Post by: ramset 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
Title: Re: Claimed OU circuit of Rosemary Ainslie
Post by: TinselKoala 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
Title: Re: Claimed OU circuit of Rosemary Ainslie
Post by: ramset 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
Title: Re: Claimed OU circuit of Rosemary Ainslie
Post by: TinselKoala 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.)
Title: Re: Rosemary Ainslie heater replication
Post by: poynt99 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
Title: Re: Claimed OU circuit of Rosemary Ainslie
Post by: ramset 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
Title: Re: Claimed OU circuit of Rosemary Ainslie
Post by: ramset 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
Title: Re: Claimed OU circuit of Rosemary Ainslie
Post by: jibbguy 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 ;)
Title: Re: Claimed OU circuit of Rosemary Ainslie
Post by: ramset 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.
__________________
Title: Re: Claimed OU circuit of Rosemary Ainslie
Post by: TinselKoala 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
Title: Re: Claimed OU circuit of Rosemary Ainslie
Post by: ramset on July 21, 2009, 03:53:11 AM
delete
Title: Re: Claimed OU circuit of Rosemary Ainslie
Post by: TinselKoala on July 21, 2009, 04:21:04 AM
Sigh. OK.
I have made Yet Another Video, showing that jibbguy's conjecture about the triggering was not quite right. I have made bands that look like Aaron's using Aaron's circuit, using the Tek scope in an "unusual" mode, very likely how Aaron was using his.
The reason Jibbguy may not have seen this in his long years of experience is because, well, he might be sane, and no sane person would use a scope this way.
(EDIT: I'm having some trouble with this vid. Might not get it tonight. Sorry.)
Title: Re: Claimed OU circuit of Rosemary Ainslie
Post by: TinselKoala on July 21, 2009, 04:41:26 AM
Quote
"Aaron - just for the record. My neighbour is now also blind to OU.COM. Guess that's the last hope for the immediate future.
Puts paid to any accidental disconection. And TK is apparently on record as requiring this. Can I ask that someone on that forum look into it? TK has gone on record as preferring the disconnect. I'd be very grateful."

Another lie from Rosemary. I have never "gone on record preferring the disconnect." Several people who are contrary to her opinions have been banned from even reading "her" forum thread, though, for simply speaking the truth.

I want to make something perfectly clear: I do not moderate this thread, nor would I if I could. I have nothing to do with the running of this forum. Stefan has threatened to ban me several times over other matters--matters in which time has proven me to have been right all along. That is neither here nor there.

I have nothing whatsoever to do with Rosemary's access, or lack of it, to this forum.

Rosemary's last few posts are also rife with misrepresentations and distortions, and even more lies.

One should never delegate understanding, Rosemary. You have let others "understand" things that you yourself do not--like my position, who my "controllers" are, and so forth. You are making terrible mistakes, and your ego just won't let you see it.

If you want to read here, you will see lots of things like this:

The most telling of all is that it has been nearly six weeks now, with people all over the world building variations of your little mosfet amplifier, and nobody has shown excess heat AT ALL, much less 17 times. And get off the battery charge claim--your paper and article are talking about excess heat energy. The battery recharge is a separate claim.

Where is the excess heat?

It is not showing up.

And where is your circuit? It's not showing up.
And where is...all the other supporting stuff that we expect from ANY claimant...except for some reason, you--the endorsements, the reports from the labs...not showing up.
The corrected circuit diagram. Not showing up.
The scope shots from your circuit, that you still have in your possession. Not showing up.

Let's review: What have we seen from Rosemary? A patent application, a Quantum magazine article, a "EIT.pdf" paper, published nowhere. And a lot of words, insults, and disrespect.

What else? Nothing. Not even a photograph, a scope shot, a page of raw data, an eyewitness...NOTHING.

And many of the claims in the two papers have been shown to be wrong. Duty cycle, 555 timer, diode vs. no diode, heat vs. battery recharging, heat output at 3.7 percent ON, random aperiodic resonant oscillations with a period of 3.7 percent, the energy balance calculations...every claim of hers that has actually been examined is WRONG.

But she will squeal and cry and make up things without proof to try to discredit those who have actually worked hard to see what's going on. It makes me very angry, and her last series of posts underscores the whole affair. We are dealing with a paranoid, extremely manipulative personality, and I'm not just talking about me.






Title: Re: Claimed OU circuit of Rosemary Ainslie
Post by: TinselKoala on July 21, 2009, 05:12:30 AM
The Clarke Hess is a "fancy ammeter."
That is the kind of willful ignorance that really makes me angry.

Calorimeter testing of a Clarke-Hess power meter:
http://www.earthtech.org/experiments/sono/chtest3.html (a model 2330)

From the Clarke-Hess 2335 brochure:
Quote
TRUE RMS/REALLY BROADBAND
The Model 2335 Sampling Watt Meter is a precision, high accuracy, auto-ranging  instrument which simultaneously measures and displays true rms Voltage, true rms Current and true mean Power over a frequency range from dc to more than 1MHz. Full scale Current and Voltage inputs are typically measured within ±0.1% of the reading in amplitude to at least 500kHz. The corresponding Power is typically measured to within ±0.1% of the input Volt-Amperes to 250kHz and to within ±0.2% of the input Volt-Amperes to 500kHz for loads having any Power Factor.

LOW POWER FACTOR ACCURACY.
Five digits or resolution combined with excellent phase matching between the current and voltage channels make the Model 2335 watt meter an exceptionally good instrument for making low power factor measurements up to 1MHz.  This makes the instrument ideal for high frequency core loss measurements which are inherently low power factor.

MULTI-FUNCTION
In addition to the rms Voltage, rms Current, and mean square Power the Model 2335 watt meter also  measures simultaneously the peak Voltage, the peak Current and the Frequency and calculates the Volt-Ampere product, the Power Factor and the Harmonics of the current and the voltage. These functions may be displayed or may be read over the IEEE-488.2 or RS-232 interfaces.

UNPARALLELED HIGH FREQUENCY ACCURACY
The Model 2335 watt meter allows broadband and high accuracy measurements of both sinusoidal and highly distorted wave shapes. The Current, Voltage, Power, and Power Factor accuracies to 1MHz of the Model 2335 watt meter far exceed any other sampling Watt Meter, or for that matter, with respect to Current or Voltage, almost all conventional multimeters.

Full scale Power ranges exist for loads with impedances from (0.6V/1.5A) = 0.4W to (600V/1.5mA) = 400kW.

WIDE MEASUREMENT RANGE
The Model 2335 watt meter has full scale Power ranges from 1.0000mWatt to 10000Watts. With external shunts or current to voltage transducers the upper range may be extended by a factor of ten or one hundred. Full scale Voltage from 2.000V to 2000V (usable to 1000V) and full scale Current ranges from 5.000mA to 5.000A (all rms values) cover a wide range of load impedances. Full scale Current and Voltage inputs may have crest factors up to three while smaller inputs may have even higher crest factors. Sinusoidal inputs with rms values of twice the nominal Full Scale value may be measured with no loss in accuracy.

POSSIBLE MEASUREMENT USES
Measurement of Ultrasonic Equipment of all types and power levels, Finished Transformers, Transformer Core Material, Switching Power Supplies, Fluorescent Lamp Ballasts of all types, Mercury Arc Lamp Circuits, Sodium Lamp Ballasts, Speed Controlled Motors of all types, Efficiency of any device with an electrical input and an electrical output, SCR Controlled Devices of all types, High Frequency and/or Distorted Currents from any source, Voltage Response of any device from DC to 1MHz, and the Characteristics of Electric Automobile Drives.

EASY TO CALIBRATE AND MAINTAIN
The Model 2335 watt meter is an all solid state instrument with optically isolated input channels.   DC coupling in both channels allows calibration and/or verification with high accuracy dc sources. Internal software calibration routines allow most recalibrations to be accomplished without opening the instrument and without screwdriver adjustments.

UNIQUE SAMPLING APPROACH / ISOLATED INPUTS
The Voltage and Current inputs of the Model 2335 watt meter are simultaneously sampled (with 16 bit resolution), converted to digital form, and transmitted via optical links to the main chassis. This allows both the Current and Voltage inputs to be completely isolated from each other and from the main chassis. The asynchronous sampling frequency is controlled by the system microprocessor in such a fashion that neither it nor any of its harmonics can come close to the measured input frequency or any of its harmonics. This precaution prevents "beats" with their accompanying jitter in the displayed values.

REMOTE  CONTROL
The Model 2335 watt meter is equipped with an IEEE-488.2 interface and an RS-232 interface which both incorporate all of the IEEE-488.2 Common Commands and Queries. Any function that can be entered via the front panel can be controlled via either interface. In addition, any or all of the functions which can be displayed, can be queried and sent simultaneously to the Controller over the either interface. The status (e.g. Current range, Voltage range, etc) of the instrument may also be queried and sent over either interface..

The bus address for the IEEE-488 interface is set from the front panel and is displayed both at turn-on and when the Local key is depressed. A Remote lamp indicates that the Model 2335 watt meter has been placed in its Remote state by the IEEE-488 Controller.
Title: Re: Claimed OU circuit of Rosemary Ainslie
Post by: ramset on July 21, 2009, 05:28:42 AM
All canadian
@Ramset
Quote:
Aaron 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.)

Aaron, Steve ,All, please comment
Thanks for the link to TK's video, I always get a real kick out of them,LOL. Fortunately I do not use the triggered sweep function on my scope and I perform secondary measurements with a good quality frequency meter used to calibrate ham radio equipment. So you and others may want to rethink this "false trigger" theory and consider other options as to why you cannot produce the secondary oscillations.
Regards
AC
Title: Re: Claimed OU circuit of Rosemary Ainslie
Post by: TinselKoala on July 21, 2009, 05:45:59 AM
Well, I have considered one other alternative. The 555 timer that Aaron is using might be making the oscillations, rather than the mosfet. I will have to make one like his, or he will have to make one like Rosemary's (which mine is from--the Quantum paper, remember?)
I have tried the entire range of my FG and can't make the circuits, Ainslie's or Aaron's,  do anything but lose trigger. And ditto with my 555 timer at its freq range.
I've seen 555s do this kind of thing many times, especially if they are a bit flakey. There can be wide variations between individual 555 chips. They get hot, they respond to spikes...I don't see any decoupling caps...

Can a FG be used to make the circuit behave that way, if it's not a trigger issue? Anyone?

That old Interstate (not wavetek!) that I use does not have the most square pulses in the world, but it usually is better than a 555 at a given freq.
Title: Re: Claimed OU circuit of Rosemary Ainslie
Post by: 0c on July 21, 2009, 06:39:34 AM
Looks like Rosemary thinks I'm in charge or something.  ;D

Too bad nobody else does.  :'(
Title: Re: Claimed OU circuit of Rosemary Ainslie
Post by: BEP on July 21, 2009, 06:54:44 AM
I don't know if this is the case with Aaron's circuit but...

As most already know: With the wrong 555 circuit design or a fault in the circuit, like a bad connection or faulty part, if the pulse width is less than the 555 and circuit can handle the 555 will throw out a garbage signal that is about as 'aperiodic' as can be. Think 'noise'. Try getting a scope to sync to that  ;)

Yes, the FET will happily go right along with the noise and amplify it too.

Quote
Can a FG be used to make the circuit behave that way, if it's not a trigger issue? Anyone?

Not an FG that is in good working condition.

Any chance the circuit is being driven into an avalanche condition? An FG will not cause this but can be the trigger to start such a problem in a bad circuit.

http://www.mourick.com/parasitic_oscillations.html#IMPATT-Schwingungen

I don't see the above linked info being related to this simple circuit - but who knows?

Edit>

Sorry 0C er - a - I mean 'BOSS'. I should have asked you before posting  ::)
Title: Re: Claimed OU circuit of Rosemary Ainslie
Post by: TinselKoala on July 21, 2009, 02:34:06 PM
0c, you da Boss, I guess.

BEP, that was an interesting article, and interestingly enough it addresses a different problem we have had with an IGBT project that is on the shelf.

I am fully prepared to believe that it is the 555 that is making the chaos in Aaron's vid. I definitely had to misuse my scopes to make the lost triggers that I showed. I still believe that Aaron is losing trigger, but OK, at least I now see a Mechanism for the oscillations observed...which are clearly not Parasitic oscillations as strictly defined.
Since the Duty-Cycle fiasco is still not settled (Rosemary being the only one who can really settle it, by showing her circuit) I have been using the FG exclusively for testing--that, or my hardwired version of Rosemary's circuit with shielded output lead, decouplers and 78L12 regulator. I have always tried to Avoid Oscillations in timer circuits so I just do those things automatically.

But now I see that I will have to reproduce yet another bit of bad circuitry to get the 555 to misbehave.

Because that's another conflict:

Rosemary has been saying that the duty cycle issue is irrelevant so FGs can be used to clock the circuit. But nobody (except Aaron who is using a very different 555 circuit) has seen the oscillations precisely like his--no matter what they do to the mosfet.

So, yes, at this point I am testing the hypothesis that the oscillations are NOT coming from the mosfet but rather from the improperly designed and operated 555 timer portion of the circuit. That will be much easier for both the simulators like .99 to emulate, as well as the hardware folks like me.

And, IF TRUE, it would be another example of poor work on the part of the original "investigators" who did not do a proper error analysis of their results.
And IF TRUE, the fact that it has taken six weeks to get to this point is because of the non-cooperation and active obfuscation of Rosemary and her crewe.
Title: Re: Claimed OU circuit of Rosemary Ainslie
Post by: TinselKoala on July 21, 2009, 03:02:17 PM
doublepost sorry
Title: Re: Claimed OU circuit of Rosemary Ainslie
Post by: TinselKoala on July 21, 2009, 03:33:49 PM
I see that AAron Love and Light is Yelling at me for using an "inductive" resistor as a shunt. It's a valid concern; that was the first one that came to hand.

But don't you think I'll try the same thing with a different resistor, as soon as I dig one up?

Isn't there a much "bigger" inductive problem with his choice of that Ohmite resistor as his load? Like 20 times bigger? Is Aaron going to do something about that?

So, the Circuit can be driven into wild oscillations, not by effects of the Mosfet but rather by the breadboarded 555. That, I have no problem with at all, and will be trying it myself later today.

I have always said that until I can reproduce the Ainslie waveform--and I have been working FROM ONLY VERBAL DESCRIPTIONS SO FAR--that heat measurements and so forth were moot.

Even so I have made a bunch of heat measurements using the FG at known NON-WILD oscillation duty cycles, and these will be a fine baseline, as they show no excess heat.

OK, now we FINALLY may be making some progress, no thanks to the obfuscators and confirmers, but rather by exploring a problem space and eliminating explanations that don't wash.

And never fear, Rosemary, once I am ready to show something on the Fluke-O-Scope, using all its fancy toy   bells and whistles, you will be among the many eventually to know about it, if you can ever figure out how to use your internet connection.

And then I'll show the same thing on a Real DSO, with features.

Oh, and about the Clarke Hess power meter: It was tested CALORIMETRICALLY with a complex signal electroMECHANICALLY heating water--an ultrasonic transducer, a very non-linear driver. The electrical power in (as measured by the Clarke Hess) agreed with the CALORIMETRICALLY measured heat output from the system.

Sorry to shout...but this method looks at input power to the D.U.T. on the Carke Hess, which is clean DC  and surely measureable by most any means, and the TOTAL HEAT OUTPUT of whatever is in the calorimeter.
Let that sink in for a while.

The accuracy of the meter used in this manner is TOTALLY INDEPENDENT of the d.u.t.'s output waveform. The test report from ETI can be considered a laboratory calibration of the instrument against a known NIST-traceable standard, and you can see from the ETI data that the instrument did quite well. Certainly well enough to use on a preliminary vetting of the device that will save the world from the Tyranny of Oil.

And why one would trust the general purpose microprocessor in a desktop computer, over the processor in the top-line product of a company that is an industry leader in power measurement...well, I guess there are Windows users, and there are other people, in the world.
Me, I trust the Clarke-Hess far more than some cobbled-together system of mismatched parts communicating over USB 2.0 with a MicroShaft OS in the way messing with timing and stuff.
Or even a professionally designed but still modular bunch of HPIB data bus hogs that take up a whole room and uses more power than...well, than your overunity DUT puts out, that's for sure. But if necessary I can put together such a roomful. And I can arrange for calorimetry if necessary. COP>17, remember? Your broom closet will be a good enough calorimeter for that.
Title: Re: Claimed OU circuit of Rosemary Ainslie
Post by: poynt99 on July 21, 2009, 03:49:16 PM
By request, from MileHigh over at EF:

Quote
I will offer some more details for a suggested measurement system.

The shunt resistor should be moved to the battery postive terminal, that way you can record the voltage drop across the shunt and derive your source voltage and current with a single recording channel. The recording channel could come from a digital storage scope that can export it's data to a PC or a PC-based oscilloscope. It would preferably be 10-bit or higher resolution and have a sampling rate high enough to get you enough sample points per cycle (500 or more?). It may be necessary to tweak the value of the shunt resistor to provide a sufficient voltage range to match the A/D conversion range of the recording device. The A/D recording device should be checked against your most accurate digital multimeter at the low shunt voltages to see if they are in accord and if not derive any required offset and gain values to compensate for any sampling inaccuracies. These compensation calculations can be done during the Excel preprocessing. It goes without saying that the actual value of the shunt resistor must be measured as accurately as possible.

All of the recorded data could be imported into Excel. A good person with Excel could massage it and turn it into voltage and current plots over time, compute the average power over one cycle, etc.

On the thermal side, you first have to turn the resistor-coil and the diode into a single thermal entity. All that you have to do is affix the diode up against the body of the resistor-coil and embed the diode in thermal paste. This assembly should be suspended in air by the two wires connected to the rest of the circuit. With about three inches of bare wire on each side of the resistor-coil-diode assembly, and by having it suspended about five or more inches above the desktop, and by ensuring that the air circulation during various tests remains the same, you can create a controlled, repeatable thermal environment for making tempreature readings. This setup only conducts heat to the outside world by air convection and radiation, and not through physical contact with other surfaces, which is what you want. Depending on the size of the resistor, this setup will probably reach 99% of the way to thremal equilibrium within 10 or 15 minutes. Let's just assume it is ten minutes for purposes of this discussion. If you are going to use a non-contact LASER/infrared temperature measuring device, it must be mounted on a tripod and always point at the same place. With a thremocouple, this is not an issue.

Suppose that the resistor-coil will only dissipate a maximum of two watts. That can be sliced into 20 parts, and you can run a thermal profile for every 0.1 watt incrememt in power dissipated in the suspended resistor-coil-diode thermal assembly. So you set up your variable DC power supply to put exactly 0.1 watts of power through the thermal assembly, wait ten minutes until the temperature has stabilized, and record the final temperature, then do it for 0.2 watts, wait, 0.3 watts, wait, etc. After about three hours you will have enough data points to plot a delta-temperature (y-axis) vs. power (x-axis) thermal profile curve in Excel. i.e.; a delta-temperature vs. wattage graph. Of course you should try to keep a fixed ambient temperature in the room for these tests.

Finally, you run the actual setup with the 3% duty cycle waveform, wait 10-15 minutes, and record the final temperature and record your shunt resistor waveforms. Then export the waveforms into the Excel spreadsheet that has been setup to do all of the number crunching mentioned above, and calculate the average electrical power consumed by the setup over one cycle. Then take your temperature reading and compare it to your delta-temperature vs. wattage graph and get the thermal power dissipated during the actual operation of the circuit.

Compare the electrical power with the thermal power and the answer will finally be found.

I just outlined what I think is a reasonably accurate approach for determinining if the circuit does what it claims to do or not. If somebody has any other suggestions for doing this I am sure that we would all be interested in hearing them. And of course the real question is the issue of whether somebody who believes in this circuit is actually going to do it and make the measurements and crunch the data.
Title: Re: Claimed OU circuit of Rosemary Ainslie
Post by: TinselKoala on July 21, 2009, 03:57:03 PM
Re the Ground Loop issue:
The GL was brought up first, not by me, but by someone else who, I thought, was suggesting it as a possible source of error in my measurements; I showed in various ways that it was not, and in the process showed that an improperly grounded and energized system could show GL effects that would skew results; and we now see that the GL explanation FOR AINSLIE's RESULTS is unlikely to be correct.

But we would not have KNOWN this without exploring the issue and testing hypotheses (and indeed we still do not know it, strictly speaking).

So for jibb to dismiss that work as being a time-waster or irrelevant is kind of disingenuous. But I understand that all bits and pieces of my work are being gone over with that nitcomb...even though someone else has the nits.
Title: Re: Claimed OU circuit of Rosemary Ainslie
Post by: TinselKoala on July 21, 2009, 04:02:45 PM
Thanks .99. for posting that from MileHigh. That's the protocol I referred to in a few earlier posts for 0c.
There are lots of ways to do it but I see nothing wrong with MH's protocol. First, though, one must know the circuit and the waveform parameters to test. Apples and oranges, remember?


EDIT: And, of course, if you want to see some real data generated by actually running a protocol essentially the same as above, look back a few pages and you will find my pictures of the raw data sheets, containing ALL the necessary information to see for oneself that I, at least, saw no excess heat from my Ainslie replication so far. But we all know my mosfet wasn't oscillating--and I pointed out at the time that it makes my results usable only as baselines.
That pesky load...chosen for its inductance of 8.64 microHenries. How was that measured, I wonder? The leads alone of my cheapo (not really!!) inductance meter read about 2 microhenries just by themselves.

A CALCULATION based on the quoted physical dimensions in the Ainslie article, though, comes very close.
What is the story here? Was the inductance of the Ainslie load measured or calculated?

See, these are very real questions and they have not been realistically answered.

EDIT: one of my raw data sheets is here, the other in the file section for download. Crunch away!
http://www.overunity.com/index.php?topic=7620.msg192047#msg192047
Title: Re: Claimed OU circuit of Rosemary Ainslie
Post by: TinselKoala on July 21, 2009, 04:47:31 PM
I should point out that DrStiffler has, on the energeticforum, shared details of his calorimetric load, which is, I believe, the closest LOAD to Ainslie's load parameters that is being used, and his temperature measurements are, I believe, precise and reliable. He has not reported any recent results that I can find, though.

In any case, Rosemary's allegations that heat measurements are not being done, are clearly in error.
Title: Re: Claimed OU circuit of Rosemary Ainslie
Post by: jibbguy on July 21, 2009, 05:29:01 PM
Lol you don't like being thrown on the "Defensive", i don't blame you, no one does

Well except maybe my ex-wife whom i suspect enjoyed controversy and argument for its own sake ;)

This 555 timer being the issue is another example of what i was saying about throwing up anything to see what sticks. Maybe you are so emerged in this that you don't realize it.

I must have changed maybe 200 555's in my solder-soldiering days: Ive never seen one go into oscillation.

(but they are weak as hell and sometimes they would die if you look at them crossly)

I think the probably reason for this is the associated control R's and C's which won't let them.

Now regarding the Clarke-Hess... Having actually written the drivel that goes on instrument Data Sheets and Brochures before, i am rarely impressed and have learned to read between the lines. And it is a Power Meter, what even else it is marketed as.... No Project Engineer in their right mind would use this specifically for transient capture and troubleshooting... And that is the real-world Application that most fits what we are trying to do here imo. They now use fast sample-rate Data Acquisition (which are the modern equivalent and direct replacement for oscillographic chart recorders), or Digital Storage Oscilloscopes. The DAS systems are prefered because they can be set up with Capture Triggers (including "Pre-Trigger" to look at events leading up to the Trigger), for untended operation to "catch" transient spikes... Which if happening in very high-current devices like cascaded relays or giant SCR's, can cause huge havoc to other electronics in the area (lol, these spikes that can knock out a computer half a KM away on a factory floor.. The PC's being on a SEPARATE AND TOTALLY CLEAN GROUND, are what convinced me that Free Energy is REAL in the first place.. They are actually "Longitudinal" waves imo, like what Tesla experienced, and they happen every day in heavy industry ;) Anyway, this is a major application for data acquisition in the real world, and peeps have spent many years working on it.  BTW: This kind of "triggering" has nothing to do with scope triggers; it is a means of starting to store sample data via a certain event (since no one wants to store more of these samples than they need to). 
 
I am sure it is an excellent power meter, but my main complaint about using it is this: We cannot see the actual signal through it. And the actual signal in this case, will hold much more interest than just the RMS reading. Because we could possibly overlay that to a second simultaneous-stored channel and do timing comparisons or power multiplications, or we can analyze it any number of fun ways such as Integration or FFT. In a non-storing power meter.. It's just gone forever. 

As for the issue of a crummy home PC's processor, and crappy USB connections, whatever... Used to analyze sample data:

WHAT REALLY MATTERS in a Data Acquisition System (or DSO that sends sample data to a PC which is essentially the same thing); is the signal capturing "train": 

1) The "Front End"; be it a separate Signal Conditioner / Amplifier that pre-conditions the signal, or just the input circuit of the device itself. Percent accuracy, full scale voltages allowed, if it can read "off-ground" safely or not, etc.

2) The Digital Resolution of the "A to D"  ("12 bit" is common now and is fine for most applications, "8 bit" is a waste of time and "10 bit" will do for most stuff). Why "8 bit" suxx, is because that means there are only 256 "steps" in the "x - axis" Full Scale;  and this can look rather "stair steppy" and fine accuracy suffers. If you are reading  "5V full scale", divide that by 256 = "19.5 mV" of resolution. Boo. Divide that by "12 bit" / 4096 bits = "1.2 mV" of res... Cool!

3) The User-set Sample Rate, which is crucial for insuring no important data is lost through Digital Signal Aliasing (sampling too slow). Usually as rule of thumb, you want 10 samples per the fastest waveform you want to capture in order to get good y-axis resolution. Now with repetitive sine waves, you can get by with as few as 4 samples per cycle and the scope will try to "fill in the blanks", but the problems with this should be apparent when doing Transient work.

4) As is true with any instrumentation, the actual analog Frequency Response of that "Front End" and thus the entire system is of course of key importance. It won't help much to sample at "20 MHz" if the F Response of your amplifier is "100kHz".

Once the Samples are captured; they could be sent to either the latest gen Cray Supercomputer, or a POS 5-year old laptop with dead streaks in the screen that smells like old cigar smoke and chair farts... And my point is, this data can be sent ANYWHERE IN THE WORLD for analysis, and that's why i think it's ideal for Open Source (ideal except for the price of this stuff lol).

So i was glad to hear that you can procure the use of a DSO, because this can cut through a lot of crap, and i really do think it or something that captures samples will be required in the end to either PROVE, or DISPROVE to everyone's satisfaction (well let's not get carried away lol... THAT will never happen! But you guys know what i mean).
Title: Re: Claimed OU circuit of Rosemary Ainslie
Post by: Yucca on July 21, 2009, 08:47:00 PM
It´s all too funny. Rosemary is always contradicting herself like this lol:

Quote
With the utmost respect to TK I am not inclined to trust his impartiality

How can a flim flam carpetbagger such as rosemary attract such ardent followers? They´re just setting themselves up for a fall? Is it because she applied for a patent? Woopity f*kn doo! so anyone can spend a small amount of money for a patent app and then thy´re the messiah! She´s not the messia, she´s just a very naughty girl!

Plus aaron clearly does not respect equipment or measurement, his scope was on the floor and I don´t know if anyone else noticed but his scopes trace rotation was not even straight. I couldn´t sleep if my scope was on the floor, let alone if the trace rotation wasn´t spot on!

Also the load being inductive has storage capability (as TK already said wayback, aaron removed the ytube comment) but aaron seems to think that every joule that goes into that load will be dissipated and he thinks any kickback is free energy.... jeez as you said TK, for chrisakes don´t try and explain power factor to them.
Title: Re: Claimed OU circuit of Rosemary Ainslie
Post by: jibbguy on July 21, 2009, 10:02:29 PM
Lol i've seen $100,000 instruments propped up on a dirty concrete floor in front of a power cabinet. In the real world they are just tools to do your job, not something to revere like a jade idol.

Power Factor in a pulse DC circuit? Regarding spikes charging a battery and generating heat in a resistor? Interesting. Would like to see how that matters a tinker's damn.

If this circuit efficiently heats up the resistive element as reported, i don't think anyone will give a hoot if some here disapprove of the "improper" use of inductive spikes ;)

General interest in this circuit is growing, along with replication attempts... Despite the ad hominem nonsense and irrational, premature negativity we have so often seen here in this thread. 
Title: Re: Claimed OU circuit of Rosemary Ainslie
Post by: Asymatrix on July 21, 2009, 10:40:19 PM
Lol i've seen $100,000 instruments propped up on a dirty concrete floor in front of a power cabinet. In the real world they are just tools to do your job, not something to revere like a jade idol.

Power Factor in a pulse DC circuit? Regarding spikes charging a battery and generating heat in a resistor? Interesting. Would like to see how that matters a tinker's damn.

If this circuit efficiently heats up the resistive element as reported, i don't think anyone will give a hoot if some here disapprove of the "improper" use of inductive spikes ;)

General interest in this circuit is growing, along with replication attempts... Despite the ad hominem nonsense and irrational, premature negativity we have so often seen here in this thread.

Seems like the only interest being generated is why anyone still thinks this circuit produces OU. Rosemary can't even pull it out of the closet to test it, or even show it, in spite of the fact that there is more discussion about it now than there has ever been. And she obviously did not use the ultra expensive digital sampling equipment you mentioned when originally testing, so that point is moot.
Title: Re: Claimed OU circuit of Rosemary Ainslie
Post by: Yucca on July 21, 2009, 11:03:23 PM
Lol i've seen $100,000 instruments propped up on a dirty concrete floor in front of a power cabinet. In the real world they are just tools to do your job, not something to revere like a jade idol.

I have worked as an embedded software engineer in the "real world" for over 10 years, I have seen quite a few dropkicks who do not appreciate equipment, but then I have seen many more engineers who realise that equipment is as important as ones eyes and as such they keep it accurate and usually on a bench. Of course in field situations sometimes you have to put a scope on asphalt, grass or dirt. It´s just quite telling about a persons priorities with regard to measurement when in a domestic situation the scope is on the floor, no ad hominen intended, it´s just something I wouldn´t do, I´m sorry if I upset you with my metrological fascism. Love and light :D

Power Factor in a pulse DC circuit? Regarding spikes charging a battery and generating heat in a resistor? Interesting. Would like to see how that matters a tinker's damn.

Rosemarie always talks of aperiodic hartley oscillation, any oscillatory component will have power factor in it.

A pulsed load that has an inductive element will interacts with the capacitance inside of itself and the rest of the circuit, this results in oscillation (termed ringdown), unless of course you´ve got your magic hartley oscillation which might be far more magnificent and then you can ignore the ringdown and just concentrate on that primarily.

Every oscillation, in case your not aware, has to be analysed taking PF into account, best way would be a really low ohm purelely resistive element in series with the load, observing across the load and the R using a scope. But don´t worry, simply calorimetry will expose any OU characteristics using nice and simple methods, so no need to worry over such matters to prove Rosemaries concept should it be valid. Of course deep digging engineers would cover PF ground just to get a better undertstanding of any anomoly should it arise.

If this circuit efficiently heats up the resistive element as reported, i don't think anyone will give a hoot if some here disapprove of the "improper" use of inductive spikes ;)

"If" being a very axiomatic point.

General interest in this circuit is growing, along with replication attempts... Despite the ad hominem nonsense and irrational, premature negativity we have so often seen here in this thread.

Yes, it´s all good carry on.

I have nothing against drilling deep into the analysis of pulsed DC systems, and I´m not saying there may not be some magical stuff to see when you do drill deep, but it irks me when people talk beyond the data and prop up a folly they have gathered around for god knows what reason.

One thing I will say is this, I consider myself a fairly impartial observer and have read every post in this thread as well as energetic forum thread. It is absurdly clear to me where any ad hom started. It seems that any question that threatens the "status quo" is met with an overly defensive response, one has to wonder why?

Also If I ever thought TK to be in gross error I would not hesitate to voice my opinion and if I was (through logical discourse i.e. debate) correct then I´m certain TK would not hesitate to acknowledge his error without too much drama, as would I, that´s one thing about being an engineer; leave your ego at the door and only "worship" real data.

Follow the one thing we might all share in common, the truth discovered by real observation, or follow whatever else you wan´t, I´m not to bothered either way.
Title: Re: Claimed OU circuit of Rosemary Ainslie
Post by: ramset on July 21, 2009, 11:47:44 PM
WELL ...
I am sure proud of you guys ,and I know not one of the posters here
is insincere in their quest
BUT    6 weeks 35,000 views[both forums] on a circuit that has not been posted

The Boss would have our ass in a sling !!
TK
I wouldn't want to have to hand your bill to the Boss Geeeesh

I'm sure glad O C is only a paper boss [although he does sound pissed]

It continues......
Title: Re: Claimed OU circuit of Rosemary Ainslie
Post by: Yucca on July 21, 2009, 11:49:40 PM
It continues......

Lol chet, so it does  :D
Title: Re: Claimed OU circuit of Rosemary Ainslie
Post by: Cap-Z-ro on July 22, 2009, 12:18:46 AM

" when people talk beyond the data and prop up a folly they have gathered around for god knows what reason"


There seems to be a lot of that going on lately...I see a lot of that occurring when important truths are revealed.

Regards...

Title: Re: Claimed OU circuit of Rosemary Ainslie
Post by: Yucca on July 22, 2009, 12:56:01 AM
" when people talk beyond the data and prop up a folly they have gathered around for god knows what reason"


There seems to be a lot of that going on lately...I see a lot of that occurring when important truths are revealed.

Regards...

I can see why you say that Cap-Z-ro, your posts often touch on objective observation of political goings on and they are often met with kneejerk responses by some trying to uphold their fragile card house worldview, the blueprint for which being mainstream media, or more correctly; propoganda. You try and have logical discourse and it is met with exaggerated defense mechanisms.

I would like to take this opportunity to say most all of your observations hold water in my opinion. Though I stopped being outwardly political many moons ago, I still know and embrace ojectivity and introspection despite any ego reducing effects it may bring.

I just got tired of talking to a wall with regard to political matters in the public domain, I admire your vigour that you soldier on (as I do TK in the matter of this thread).

Having said that, to those nearest and dearest to me I am still politically passionate and thank god my nearest and dearest still listen to logic, lest my world would shrink.

Best regards back at you.
Title: Re: Claimed OU circuit of Rosemary Ainslie
Post by: Asymatrix on July 22, 2009, 01:16:01 AM
" when people talk beyond the data and prop up a folly they have gathered around for god knows what reason"


There seems to be a lot of that going on lately...I see a lot of that occurring when important truths are revealed.

Regards...

Amazing how a physical birth certificate is not proof of citizenship to certain 'truthtellers'....

Never assume a conspiracy theory is true by virtue of being an alternate view.
Title: Re: Claimed OU circuit of Rosemary Ainslie
Post by: Cap-Z-ro on July 22, 2009, 01:23:06 AM

Oh my my ??
Title: Re: Claimed OU circuit of Rosemary Ainslie
Post by: Yucca on July 22, 2009, 01:32:13 AM
Oh my my ??

LOL capz, see what I mean, brick walls my friend, brick walls! (all in all they´re just an...other brick in the wall!)

Pray asymatrix provide a reference to this full birth certificare, in fact don´t bother because I couldn´t care less, never voted in my life. Politics... no just BollockTicks lol! I will do as I please like the birds in the trees, I can only recommend that you do the same.
Title: Re: Claimed OU circuit of Rosemary Ainslie
Post by: Cap-Z-ro on July 22, 2009, 01:53:16 AM

Thanks for your supportive words yucca.

It helps stoke my passion for truth and enlightenment...and my small efforts to expose and thwart those who try to impede and suppress those ideals.

By simply following the path to truth it naturally becomes very easy to discard all previous theories of belief when the truth dictates otherwise.

Something that comes out in your postings also.

Your assessment of the discourse involving TK confirms to me that my sense was right...as too much of the technical jargon was beyond me due to my lack of knowledge of the instrumentation.

To be honest, my 'troll radar' went off early on in this thread...it was clear that TK was not being engaged directly in a forthright manner.

I just hope the energy sappers don't wear down his resolve, as he is a key member in this movement we are all a part of.

Regards...

Title: Re: Claimed OU circuit of Rosemary Ainslie
Post by: Yucca on July 22, 2009, 02:01:06 AM
Thanks for your supportive words yucca.

It helps stoke my passion for truth and enlightenment...and my small efforts to expose and thwart those who try to impede and suppress those ideals.

By simply following the path to truth it naturally becomes very easy to discard all previous theories of belief when the truth dictates otherwise.

Something that comes out in your postings also.

Your assessment of the discourse involving TK confirms to me that my sense was right...as too much of the technical jargon was beyond me due to my lack of knowledge of the instrumentation.

To be honest, my 'troll radar' went off early on in this thread...it was clear that TK was not being engaged directly in a forthright manner.

I just hope the energy sappers don't wear down his resolve, as he is a key member in this movement we are all a part of.

Regards...

You know as well as I do... nobody can suppress your ideals but yourself. Your intuitive radar senses were quite spot on with regard to this debacle. As you say TK has not received logical discourse on the points he has raised. Seems to me that self acclaimed "prize fighters" are stepping into the fray but they seem to lack muscle or skills poor things  ::)!
Title: Re: Claimed OU circuit of Rosemary Ainslie
Post by: ramset on July 22, 2009, 02:21:34 AM
Aaron said
 self oscillation
Quote:
Originally Posted by RAMSET View Post
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.
Ramset,

Is TK willing to show what his shunt shows during the "false triggering" or not?

TK is claiming in the "false triggering" mode that the mosfet can't turn on completely because it is being turned off too fast.

What kind of analysis is this?

If what TK says is true, then the mosfet can't conduct. If the mosfet can't conduct, then no current can leave the battery. If no current leaves the battery, there can be no waveform on the shunt.

Ramset, I think this needs to be posted at ou.com on the thread to
debunk the disinformation. Ramset, why not post the below picture into
the heater thread at ou?

Please ask him to do the same test.

NOTE PICTURE WON"T POST GO TO ENERGETIC

For everyone else, this should give you confidence that when the noise is
on the scope, the battery is delivering exactly what it is predicted to do.
It is delivering high frequency pulses.
__________________
With Gratitude, Aaron
Title: Re: Claimed OU circuit of Rosemary Ainslie
Post by: Cap-Z-ro on July 22, 2009, 02:24:17 AM

"nobody can suppress your ideals but yourself "

Ha, oddly enough my life is a testament to that.


I'm not so sure that TK wasn't dealing with a male moniker over there.

Among a group of males only a "female" could get by that long without showing something...after all, look how quickly they went at mylow.

Unless something concrete shows up this thread it just another road apple along the path to over unity.

Maybe that mean ol' Stefan will let her/him post over here.

I believe she/he may be only person banned from an internet site before posting a word.

Or could it be that the elusive circuit happened to be in the 'on' mode at the very moment she/he registered, and caused a malfunction at the junction ?

Regards...

Title: Re: Claimed OU circuit of Rosemary Ainslie
Post by: Yucca on July 22, 2009, 02:50:51 AM
"nobody can suppress your ideals but yourself "

Ha, oddly enough my life is a testament to that.


I'm not so sure that TK wasn't dealing with a male moniker over there.

Among a group of males only a "female" could get by that long without showing something...after all, look how quickly they went at mylow.

Unless something concrete shows up this thread it just another road apple along the path to over unity.

Maybe that mean ol' Stefan will let her/him post over here.

I believe she/he may be only person banned from an internet site before posting a word.

Or could it be that the elusive circuit happened to be in the 'on' mode at the very moment she/he registered, and caused a malfunction at the junction ?

Regards...

You're probably right, it all seems quite Freudian. She seems to offer a bossom that some find irresistable. Of course I could be wrong here lol. :D Anyways, it's all harmless fun at the end of the day. Rock on capz!
Title: Re: Claimed OU circuit of Rosemary Ainslie
Post by: Asymatrix on July 22, 2009, 03:52:33 AM
LOL capz, see what I mean, brick walls my friend, brick walls! (all in all they´re just an...other brick in the wall!)

Pray asymatrix provide a reference to this full birth certificare, in fact don´t bother because I couldn´t care less, never voted in my life. Politics... no just BollockTicks lol! I will do as I please like the birds in the trees, I can only recommend that you do the same.

I did. Obama provided the birth certificate, it was examined, protographed, the documents office was contacted, and it's legit. Factcheck.org is a neutral agency. The alarmist posts 'ol Cap seems fond of creating should not be taken as gospel simply because he thinks they should be.
Title: Re: Claimed OU circuit of Rosemary Ainslie
Post by: TinselKoala on July 22, 2009, 06:51:41 AM
@jibbguy: 555 expert, eh? OK, take a look at Aaron's "diagram"--the picture of his circuit with labels at the front of his video. Do you see the 555 timer? Do you see that it is being powered with a 9 volt battery?
Do you see the series resistor in the positive battery lead?

Do you see the value of that resistor? I make it 2.1 or 2.7 kiloOhms.

And that , my dear friends, is the cause of the 555 timer and mosfet oscillations. The 555 is not getting enough voltage to make a nice pulse.
With that resistor out, the circuit is wellbehaved. I even literally set the breadboard ON FIRE with mosfet heat--and the mosfet still works fine.
With that resistor in, I can even get the Philips to lose trigger, and yes, there are some pretty weird waveforms there.

SO that is my tentative explanation for the Aaron oscillations--they are not mosfet-produced in the way that was suggested. They are made by that 555 circuit as it is starved for voltage.

Aaron can test this easily simply by removing that silly resistor and comparing the 555's signal at pin 3 before and after.


Now, for the bad news: I picked up a real score today. I got a DataPulse 101 pulse generator!! And it works!! 5 nanosecond rise time at 10 volts into 50 ohms. And it can make pulses in the tiny fractions of one percent duty cycles. And--when the mosfet sees a truly fine truly short pulse, a very interesting thing happens.

Of course, as I shorten the pulse, the ON part of the trace gets shorter and shorter but the inductive ring stays constant--it comes after the mosfet is off, so isn't affected by the length of the on time. But--when the pulse is so short that the mosfet turn on, the input current goes way down...but the inductive spike still is there. It looks like I can make the pulse so short that the input current almost totally goes away...but the inductive spike on the output is STILL THERE in all its glory.

Let this sink in, I'll try to put up a video but I'm pretty tired, might have to wait till tomorrow.

But a fast risetime short pulse is really interesting. This pulse generator makes the Interstate's pulses look really bad in comparison. And the performance (by traditional standards) of the circuit is better too.
Title: Re: Claimed OU circuit of Rosemary Ainslie
Post by: poynt99 on July 22, 2009, 07:06:55 AM
TK,

It's coupling from your new pulser through the G-D capacitance.

Take the MOSFET right out of there and put a 470p cap in series with the pulser to the coil. I'll bet you'll see the same thing.

.99
Title: Re: Claimed OU circuit of Rosemary Ainslie
Post by: TinselKoala on July 22, 2009, 07:31:24 AM
TK,

It's coupling from your new pulser through the G-D capacitance.

Take the MOSFET right out of there and put a 470p cap in series with the pulser to the coil. I'll bet you'll see the same thing.

.99

I'm sure you're right. It looks pretty dramatic, though, to sweep the pulse width and see the input current trace just sort of dry up and fade away, but that ring is still there on the load, just like the smile of a Cheshire cat.
I'll make a little vid, toss it in the ring, and I'm sure it will start another whole revolution in the FE community: TK proves free energy but is too stupid to see it.
I don't have any numbers yet, except that I'm staying at 2.4 kHz just to KISS.
Except for Aaron's little toy, that one is all over the place.

One thing more: I made a better load, using an ots inductor of 12 microH, with a series anti-sense extra winding of 10 turns of resistance wire. So it's a ferrite core, 9 ohms, something in the low tens of microH, and it fits in a test tube, and can handle 50 watts without smoking, and I put the 1n4007 right between its legs.
So the whole thing is in the test tube cushioned and "sealed" by loose cotton wadding.
But a preliminary run shows that it will heat at 3 or 4 percent duty cycle, and it approaches the equilibrium temps cited by Rosemary.
Right now I am doing a control, a DC heat profile at 500 milliamps, 4 volts...or two watts average power input to load, similar to "eyeballed" average input to Ainslie circuit when running.
Title: Re: Claimed OU circuit of Rosemary Ainslie
Post by: fuzzytomcat on July 22, 2009, 07:55:38 AM
@ TK

Hey, I really like all your videos on the "Ground Loop" issue there very informative and should be easy for anyone to follow on what I'm sure you agree the issue of "grounding" is very important. I would say that the only thing that could have been nice is a close still photo up of the scope shot so everyone could easily seen the difference between each subject (loop, frequency, noise or dirt) but good stuff.

I'm attaching the PDF that was forwarded earlier to members such as yourself for your review on "Stray Voltages" in best and worse case, I call it the "cow" document published in 1986. The information is prepared as an activity of the North Dakota Power Use Council, an organization of the Rural Electric Coop