Claimed OU circuit of Rosemary Ainslie

[TinselKoala]

Art and technology are complimentary for sure. The best art is enabled and informed by technology, and always has been, from the first Neandertal who selected a pointed stone to bore a hole in a seashell, all the way up to today's electronic musicians, and beyond. And technology is even driven by art and the demands of artisans. Design links tech with art in humanly comprehensible form.

One thing that distinguishes the Artist from the hack, is that the artist working in a technological medium, or using tech tools, generally has a fairly high degree of understanding of the medium and the tools. The art of Ansel Adams comes to mind. In the hands of a true artist the medium, however technological, becomes utterly transparent, and all that is seen is the artist's vision itself. When you look at an Adams print, you see a photograph for sure; that's one of the points of the exercise...but you see what Adams uses a photograph FOR, which is to let you see a tiny glimpse for a brief moment of what he sees.
What you don't see, unless you are specifically looking for it, is the hours of lens grinding, the mixing of chemicals, the sweat on location and in the darkroom, the hundreds of discarded plates and internegatives and prints...in short, the Mastery of the highly technological medium of photography. Ansel Adams didn't have his snapshots developed at the One-Hour Photo by someone who thought that photons are just retarded Antitruants.

But what we are dealing with in the Ainslie case is, I believe, more akin to a Cargo Cult than to art or design.

Certainly it isn't technology, it only uses the trappings of technology and science, to erect a hopeful but internally bogus structure in the hope of attracting the notice of some strange John Frum who will use their structure to save the world.

And there is no sense of mastery of tools or media, just cobbled together bits of technological flotsam that sort of look like technology but don't do much more than dissipate energy.

Yes, I think the Cargo Cult metaphor is very apt, now that I consider it.
Like a landing strip in the sand of a distant island's beach, the Ainslie circuit looks real from the air, and some people from the island will swear that you can land there, and that fuel is available, and so forth...then when you do land you find out that the control tower is a thatched hut on bamboo stilts, the "radio" woman has coconut shells for headphones, the "fuel" is buckets of salt water, and by the time you get back to the aircraft someone's stolen the tires and the radios and you're stuck, on an island, with a bunch of people who believe in zipons and antitruants, and they are looking hungry, and some of them are building a fire and dragging over a big pot...

[TinselKoala]

I see from dipping into the last two pages of the energetic comedy thread that Harvey is getting involved.

@Harvey: I encourage your efforts, because I believe you know how to use an oscilloscope, and when you build the circuit for yourself (let me know if you really can't find a mosfet, bearing in mind that it will be international shipping if I send you a couple) when you build it, I say, you will be able to see for yourself that Aaron continues to spread disinformation because of his lack of understanding of what his scope is showing. His most recent scope shots are more of the same non-oscillation garbage that he has been showing all along. But you do not have to take my word for it. You know how to use a scope--and it's your time to waste, so go for it. But when you are done, I will refer you back to this thread and the other one.

Do you see that people over there are posting results that I have reported nearly two months ago, and are acting surprised about them?

Now, I see that there is still some discussion about the 555. The very easiest way to "correct" the situation, if you really need to, is to install a NPN transistor like a 2n2222 on the output as an inverter. One transistor, two resistors, and you are done. The output flips exactly with  very very little distortion. I believe .99 or one of the other experienced builders suggested this early on, and I installed it long ago on my hardwired timer board.

Does it make a difference, being able to use the 555 circuit at 3.5 percent ON, finally, instead of the other circuit Aaron came up with, or the other ERRONEOUS circuit in the picture I posted above, from Peter L. that also makes incorrect claims? Or instead of a FG or pulse generator?

Not really too much, but some.

I have tested now 1) the F34 FG; 2) the original 555 circuit; 3) Aaron's first toy circuit; 4) the Aaron-Peter joke in the picture above; 5) yet another 555 timer circuit; 6) the DataPulse DP-101 5ns risetime pulse generator; and 7) the original 555 with the transistor inverter.

There are detectable differences; as anyone with REAL ELECTRONICS KNOWLEDGE could predict, the faster cleaner drive pulses produce the best effects: Less heat in the mosfet and more in the load, and higher voltage spikes, and if desired longer ringdowns. Which means that the DP-101 works the best, with the f-34 next best, and the 555 variants just not so good, because of their slow rise times and lack of stability.

I also see that .99 has simulated the reflected power, and is able to show higher reflection efficiencies than I was able to get with the LeCroy demo,where I estimated 1 to 10 percent reflection back to the battery. I'd call that a good result, considering the experimental difficulties in making the realworld measurement with real components.

It's really "too bad" that all that reflected power comes from the battery in the first place.


(Oh, and Aaron: on your calculation of the inductance for the Ainslie resistor: You don't need to assume thick wire at all (the thick wire will screw up the resistance anyway, and the wire turns can be spaced, after all) The wire on resistors like that can be ribbon or flat wire, and in fact flat ribbon is often used when it is desired to limit self-inductance. Do you understand now why your statement that your Ohmite resistor's inductance is too LOW, was so ridiculous in light of Rosemary's original claim?)

[TinselKoala]

I don't know if Rosemary knows at all what she wants and who she wants in "control". Her and Aaron seem to be at odds half the time. She wants me to remain in the EF thread, while Aaron is just waiting for me to slip one more time so he can boot me too. What I don't understand is why he doesn't just do it? 

{snip}

.99

You've become the "token skeptic"-- you know, the "house" skeptic as opposed to the "yard" or "field" skeptic, who might perform a valuable function but who would never be allowed into the mansion. The "house" skeptic is clean and relatively polite, whereas the "field" skeptic is likely to track mud onto the expensive fake Persian carpet. And use the begonia as a spittoon.
Righteous mud, but still mud. Righteous spit, but still...

There's another category, the "kitchen" skeptic, who is allowed to eat the scraps from the main table and chat with the cooks, but is free to come and go as he pleases, usually as a merchant or tradesman, keeping his own counsel...I think Harvey might be in this category.

[TinselKoala]

And if you're finding your pickings lean - then it's probably because you're not opening your eyes to what's actually on offer. For that you need the liberal use of your Fluke 123 and all its functions. How about it TK? Just one video and exclusively with probes across the shunt - at the 3% you now claim you can get.

Still having trouble getting your story straight, I see. YOU first mentioned using a Fluke 123 on the Naked Scientists forum, and had to be reminded that the Quantum article and the EIT paper said it was a Fluke 199. No matter, I have BOTH at hand. When you decide which one you used, let us know.

My videos showing the artifacts that Aaron mistakes for "resonance" and "oscillation" were done with the Fluke 199, but I can get out the 123 if you really need me to.

And I am using the monitoring points THAT YOU SPECIFY EXACTLY in your Quantum paper and your EIT article. I have checked several times. So for you to now move the goalposts and criticise me for using the "wrong" points is, shall we say, somewhat disingenuous.

Since, after all, I ALWAYS do show a trace taken directly across the shunt. Monitoring point "B", remember? Like in your papers, remember? Like in ALL my videos ... remember? Like in the recent one where I show Aaron's Moire artifact on the Fluke 199 monitoring directly across the shunt, and also in the LeCroy video where I show the overall energy flow, and where you first added "integration" to your vocabulary...remember? Each and every one, I show a scope trace taken directly across the shunt.

No, let's be clear: To imply in any way that I have not shown a scope trace from the shunt is another one of your damn lies and distortions.

And I have always been able to produce any duty cycle I needed. Remember? It is YOUR circuit published under YOUR name SEVEN years ago that is WRONG and is unable to produce what the publications claim.

I have an adjustable function generator AND a fast rise-time pulser, and I know how to use them. And I understand 555 circuits pretty well too, since I have been designing and using them for many more years than I care to recall.
There are no shadowy "claims" in my work, Rosemary, only solid repeatable data, and I include sufficient detail in my reports for anyone who cares to, to repeat the results for themselves. And, lo and behold, all who have, have confirmed my results.

Where is the confirmation of your results?

[MileHigh]

Well Rosmary's prose has lost almost all of its feminine charm, nary a "giggles" in sight, and it's sometimes downright nasty.

This reminds me of the movie "2010" where the Cold War flares up again and the American and Russian space crews retreat to their respective space ships.  We are communicating back and forth with two tin cans and a length of waxy string.

There will be no Black Monolith to save the day unfortunately.  Inductors are not "magic", they don't get extra energy from the vacuum or from zippons, its all a fantasy.

Special note to Aaron:  Bedini motors are not COP >1 devices.  You have simply been deluding yourself all these years because you cannot understand.  What's your plan for the DSO measurements and please explain why "resonance" in the circuit will make it "work better", still waiting for you to answer that.

The funny thing is with human nature being what it is we are at the point were Aaron with flat-out refuse to tell us how he is going to use the DSO.  He is probably afraid to post it because he fears that his mistakes will be pointed out yet again, or "he will be attacked" depending on your point of view.

The real biggie about Aaron is the fact that he makes aggressive sales pitches to advance his agenda and the believers are afraid to ask him to back up his statements.  Of course everybody would like to know why the "resonance" will make the circuit "work better."  The truth is that Aaron has no explanation whatsoever for why this allegedly would be the case.  Therefore he will refuse to answer the question right to the bitter end.  Nor has he demonstrated any "resonance" at all, his "resonance" demos have been inconclusive.  Singapore on Acid man, take a hit and speculate about inductors in yellow and green, towering over your head.  Just watch out for that big wind-up ass whacker if you get out of line.  <insert a smiley-face emoticon expressing pain here >

We can always try reverse psychology since we are getting nowhere:  Hey Aaron baby!  We are not interested in knowing your test plan when you get the DSO, who friggin' cares!!!

MileHigh