An unhindered detailed analysis and exposé of the Ainslie circuit and the associated claims.

Coming Soon!

Hey Poynt!

Thank you on behalf of everyone for creating this thread.

That link looks like a fun read, thanks Grumpy!

It will be interesting to see the final Ainsley paper and analyze it.  Perhaps even reverse-engineer it.  lol

Even right now there is some low-hanging fruit, but what the hey...

It's gonna be a really big sheww, a really big sheww.

Announcer:  And now, ladies and gentlemen... Regular watchers would know know the Fettucini Brothers, we are pleased to say we have had them on five times before, and each time they bring us new thrills and excitement.  <APPLAUSE>

Announcer:  So.... For our first act of the evening, all the way from Pastabasta New Jersey, we bring you... THE FETTUCINI BROTHERS!!!!  <**APPLAUSE**>

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KtsxyxEd85U

Announcer:  And now.... for our second act this evening....  We are pleased to bring up on this stage a fine young gentlemen and his lovely assistant.  We are looking into the future with this act... Imagine life in the 1980s....  And it's something for our wonderful scientists to ponder and for our regular audience members to marvel at....

Announcer:  Please give a big big hand to Marvyn Roy... "Mr. Electric" himself!!!  <APPLAUSE>

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kjv-QlWwV9Y

Hi Poynt,

To get serious, I read Grumpy's link and it was a good read and I learned a few things.  They mention using a light bulb and its perceived brightness as a way of comparing power levels.  It is worth adding that a lot of people work with LEDs, and LEDs are not the same as a burning light bulb filament.  Human visual perception comes into play with LEDs and perhaps also for very tiny light bulb filaments.  LEDs can switch on and off much more quickly than a light bulb filament.   An LED that flashes briefly and brightly above the human "flicker" threshold frequency can appear to be brighter than a LED that is dissipating pure DC power.

Most eight-segment LED numeric displays are actually scanned so they briefly flash at about 60 Hertz.   This is done to save power while having the same apparent brightness.

On the "fun" side if you were a little proto-nerd like me, starting as a child you were using your eyes as a built-in scope.  You took a calculator with a red LED display into the darkness and then looked at the display as you swept your eyes from right to left at a constant speed.  By doing that you create a "scope trace" across your retina and can easily see that the calculator display is flashing.

MileHigh

A little something Grumpy passed along...

http://www.lhup.edu/~dsimanek/museum/test-pm.htm

General interest pertaining to many different areas of FE research, including the Ainslie device.

In particular from the above article, this sums things up quite succinctly:

Quote

The clear implication is that perpetual motion promoters simply don't know how to do energy, power, and efficiency measurements properly (or don't want to).

.99

I would agree that a lot of people in the FE community don't do proper measurements, but there are people in the "free energy" community that know how to take proper measurements who are claiming > COP 1.

For example the companies that are working on cold fusion. Also I'm working with scientists on highly shielded diodes & piezos that are producing DC power. A EE, by  profession, is working on the piezo research where he purchased a piezo, shielded it, and saw the the piezo produce DC power. I have placed a piezo element (Radio shack part # 273-073) inside a thick Hammond Al diecast chassis that was covered in a 2 ft diameter layer of thermal insulation that produced DC current for over a month. It was still producing DC current, but I had to stop the experiment to do other experiments.

Paul

Paul,

There are some folks out there that do have a handle on performing power measurements, but the vast majority do not, particularly on these forums.

I thought the measurements on the Ainslie circuit would be relatively straight forward, but I was wrong. I did the testing myself, and I not only have a pretty solid background in electronics, but also with test equipment. Now, I've never claimed to be an expert, but I do have the background and I do try to apply myself, which is what I have done over the years and in particular most recently with the Ainslie circuit and its measurements. I still have plenty to learn myself, and learning I am.

I've gained a lot of knowledge and experience most recently while working on and researching these type of difficult measurements, where not only high frequencies and transients are involved, but the need to measure both current and voltage accurately is required. To the unaware, a few inches of wire is just that, but in reality things are quite different. Probe positioning is everything. Grounding, a nuisance that must be strictly dealt with, etc. It is all indeed a real challenge, but not an insurmountable one.

Single-ended probes may be usable in testing this apparatus, but only if testing is "built-in" or "designed-in" from the very start of the project. Clearly this was not done on Fuzzy's setup, and was only partially implemented in my own, but not to a sufficient level. Accurate measurements are paramount, and as such, the DUT should be designed around this requirement. This is not a trivial endeavor as some have assumed, and continue to do so.

The clear solution is to build up the DUT with testing clearly in mind and use the appropriate probe types. And that is part of what this thread is all about.

.99

I'm not discounting the calorimetry method at all for these measurements, however it would be rather difficult to obtain one for the power being supplied to the circuit by the source.

The only method available to obtain a POS (power output from supply) measurement, is through the use of either a shunt resistor (filtered or unfiltered) or a current probe, and the source voltage (filtered or unfiltered).

This is the crux of the argument regarding the AT's results. Their POS measurements/calculations are not based on good data. Proof of the Ainslie claim only requires the POS and PIL (power into load resistor) measurements. The PIL measurement was obtained using a DC control test and came to about 4.5W. That leaves the POS measurement, and thus far the AT has not produced an accurate one.

The means to do so is not only well within reach, but has been repeatedly spelled out for them. Their refusal to utilize the suggested methods to obtain the accurate measurements required, is a sure path to not only rejection of their paper (if they in fact do submit one) but perhaps even public ridicule after the fact.

It's unfortunate that stubbornness, pride and delusion reign over common sense in this case. Since the AT refuses to listen to anyone that questions their path, perhaps the true wake-up call will only come when the "no thanks" response to their paper fully sinks in.

.99

Hi 0c.

Thanks for that link. I read that before and was going to post a link as well, but thought those that want to know, will do so.

.99