Claimed OU circuit of Rosemary Ainslie

[MileHigh]

Aaron:

Yet another look at the issue of your conclusion about net negative power when the battery is powering the circuit.

In many clips in the past where you induced the spurious oscillation, you could see a sequence of spikes triggered after an edge of the 555 signal that lasted a limited amount of time then stopped, then there was a gap with no activity, and then it started up again, etc.  In other words, the oscillation was a subset of a longer more complicated waveform.

I am not sure what your base 555 frequency was set at, but I'll assume that it was somewhere around 2.4 KHz, as per the Ainsley white paper.  This corresponds to a waveform period of about 417 microseconds.  We also know that your waveform analysis was on a time slice of about 2.4 microseconds.

Since you were potentially only looking at a 2.4 microsecond slice of a waveform with a 417 microsecond period, it is possible that your measurements are invalid.  In the vast majority of the clips where you showed oscillation, the oscillation was only one component of the total waveform.

Knowing the way you think, it would be consistent for you to misinterpret your data, and erroneously apply it to the total waveform, assuming the waveform is more complex than the 2.4 microsecond slice where we see the Frankenstein Monster current.

The issue of your overall measurement techniques and the neatness of your setup is still in question.  Those issues apply to anyone trying to make presice measurements.

In trying to work with you by questioning the data and suggesting some new angles, we see your classic pigheadedness where you fight tooth and nail and aggressively resist suggestions.  I can only assume that you actively resist because you are afraid that what you will see is not what you want to see.  You measured something with the DSO, and now you are "sticking to your story" no matter what.  It is just outrageous behaviour.   There you are sulking in the corner refusing suggestions to double-ckeck your "negative power" conclusion.  It is just so ridiculous.

Let's look at the suggestion for using an ammeter.  The current waveform that we see in the 2.4 uSec time slice has a few extra ups and downs and the spike parts have quite high slew rates.  2.4 uSec translates into 417 KHz.  Therefore I will conservatively estimate that the bandwidth of the current waveform extends all the way out to 2 MHz.

When you compare analog and digital multimeters in current measurement mode, I have more faith in analog ammeters.  I am not an expert in digital or analog multimeters, but I am familiar with their limitations.

If you imagine a digital multimeter sampling it's shunt resistor waveform where the bandwidth of the signal is 2 MHz, I simply doubt that the sampling algorithm can cope with that situation.  If the display is stable and consistent perhaps that indicates successful sampling and averaging is taking place, but even there I wonder about the accuracy.

For analog ammeters, for sure you get a nice analog averaging function, but one more time, for me the bandwidth issue is a real big question mark again.  What is the -3 dB roll-off frequency?  How close is it to the roughly 2 MHz bandwidth of the current waveform?  For me these are unknowns.

Of course, I am not doing the experiments, so you may as well not listen to a thing I am saying even though I have worked in the electronics industry in one form or another for the past 25 years.  On the other hand, perhaps what I said in the two paragraphs above flew way over your head and I discussed issues that have never even entered your mind because you don't have the educational background or the real world experience to even formulate these questions in your head?  Not to mention the fact that I have thrown tons of information your way in the past two months that goes way above and beyond what a typical "enthusiast" will post.

I think that it's worth stating one more time how by now you have done perhaps upwards of a hundred setups over the past few years and what... perhaps one half of them show over unity?  Here you are playing with a resistive inductor on a bench with a battery and a MOSFET and a DSO and holy s*it, you set up some spurious oscillations and find that the battery is being recharged.  Over unity again!  Shazam! Shazam! Shazam!  Golly gee!  On the other hand, this has to be checked and double checked, because that's how science works.  My 25 years worth of experience tell me that you are dead wrong, even without doing the experiment.  How about that?

I am going to tackle the battery issue one more time.

MileHigh

[MileHigh]

Aaron:

Even with my expressed misgivings about analog and digital multimeters in current measurement mode, you should still try making those measurements.

Here is a scenario for you:  You hook up the analog ammeter in place of the main shunt resistor in series with the MOSFET and coil-resistor and set up your oscillations and to your shock you see that the battery is supplying current to the load.  Then you turn down your time base on your DSO and start looking at the full waveform and you can clearly see how when not in the oscillation part of the waveform that there are times when it is obvious that current from the battery is flowing into the circuit.  It would not surprise me if that was the case, just a guess.

To express a pet peeve, we have all been agonizing about the waveforms, yet with your four-channel DSO, I don't think that you have shown us the MOSFET gate signal?  How you cannot do this is beyond me.  I think that we are all operating on the assumption that the 555 output is spiking when you are in your oscillation mode, just like TK has shown us multiple times.  Such a critical piece of information, and your brain is apparently not in gear here.

Also, people have backed me up about getting rid of that ridiculous trimpot that screws up the 555 timer supply.  Do you need it for your spurious oscillations?  If yes, I suggest that you get rid of it anyways and try to induce the oscillation some other way.  The trimpot on the 555 power supply pin is pure quackery.  What say you?

MileHigh

[MileHigh]

Aaron:

Let's tackle the issue of substituting the battery with a capacitor and monitoring the voltage to see if it increases or decreases.

I noticed that you posted the good old battery pitch about the electrolyte resonating at the vacuum energy zero-point oscillation frequency, bla bla bla.  This I think comes from a old Bearden-Bedini book, perhaps from as far back as 1984.  In fact you posted the same thing about 10 days ago.  I suppose that you get some comfort in posting the "explanation" about how a battery is an "antenna" for the vaccum foam energy or whatever.

Well, Aaron, in my opinion that is a purely nonsensical explanation.  I think that Bedini and Bearden are full of crap, and they wrote this nonsense to exploit gullable people and sell books to make money.  It's the same thing like saying that a spike from an inductor is "radiant energy."  Myself and .99 and TK and Hoppy and Heinrick (sp?) have been trying to pound into your and Rosemary's heads that the spike is nothing more than the energy stored by the inductor, which came from the battery source originally, being released.  It is not "radiant energy," nor is it "time compressed potential", it is just the electrical equivalent of releasing a stretched elastic band.  I think that that has slowly started to sink in for the both of you.

Even though your "battery antenna" postulation is complete nonsense, part of a storyline to sucker money out of people, let me shock you and assume that it is true as part of the capacitor discussion.

So, with the battery in place, assume that it can gain extra energy when a current pulse goes into it a la Frankenstein Monstor current waveform.  Assuming that is true, let us now expose the tragic flaw in that argument in the case of your Ainsley setup.  Note that we know from your DSO waveforms that the battery voltage is pretty much constant, and it's the current that is spiking.

A simplified timing diagram in text:

1.  The battery outputs a current spike into the Ainsley load.
2.  The Ainsley load sends a current spike back into the battery and the battery gains extra energy.
3.  The battery outputs a current spike into the Ainsley load.
4.  The Ainsley load sends a current spike back into the battery and the battery gains extra energy.
.
.
.

Great, the battery is gaining energy because of the return current spikes.

Here is the catch:  The energy gain is INSIDE the battery ONLY, and nowhere else.  There is no mechanism to explain how extra energy was RETURNED to the battery.

Do you see this? Even if the battery is tapping into some cosmic orgasmic Orgone energy, that CANNOT provide an explanation as to how extra energy is measured going BACK into the battery FROM the Ainsley circuit.

So your battery argument DOES NOT APPLY in this case.  It is just another example of your simplistic way of thinking where you have a "grab bag" of "free energy" concepts.  When you are in a bind, you can always go into the grab bag and throw some unproven "free energy" concepts at your unsuspecting audience and hope that they stick and diffuse the situation.  I have seen several instances in threads on your web site where people are starting to express serious doubt and then you go and get your heat pump posting, your Bedini-Bearden battery posting, the "you can't connect the output to the input because it won't work" posting and thrown in a few more for good measure.  Before you know it, you have flooded the thread with your "free energy" babble and you have intimidated the participants in the thread and they start to shut up and stop expressing doubts.  You did it on your own Ainsley thread about a month ago.  I am not going to be intimidated.

The big fat capacitor test is REAL, and I would not be surprised if you have already done it.   It WILL show if your circuit is draining current or supplying current.  The quantum foam battery argument DOES NOT APPLY in this case because the the DSO allegedly shows that the "extra energy" is coming from the AINSLEY CIRCUIT and NOT FROM THE BATTERY.

So I dare you to do a clip where you show the voltage decreasing on the big fat cap, just like you probably tried yourself last night.  That will put the "negative energy" argument for the Ainsley circuit when in your particular oscillation mode to bed, and it will probably be backed up by the digital and/or analog ammeter tests.  Not to mention the fact that you could have duped yourself by only doing a measurement on a 2.4 uSec slice of a much larger periodic waveform like I stated in my earlier posting.

If you can put this one to bed, then I assume that everybody will be begging you to actually do a real test of the Ainsley circuit to confirm or deny the claims made in her white paper.  COP 17, remember?

The person that is probably the most affected by this situation is Rosemary.  She is probably begging and screaming inside and is totally desperate and totally stressed out hoping and praying that you will make a serious attempt to confirm or deny her COP 17 claim as laid out in her white paper.  She is watching you fritter away the time with the DSO helplessly, afraid to say anything.  The only thing that she can do is be a good citizen of Eastasia.

Please do the capacitor tests and the ammeter tests to refute your assumption of negative power and move on before the clock runs out on the Tektronix DSO.

MileHigh

[Hoppy]

MH:

All Aaron has to do is look at the polarity sign of his DVM when connected on a suitable range across the shunt resistor. If the battery is charging, then it will be obvious! However, do not expect him to report his result because this will prove conclusively that all his Ainslie variant circuits are not overunity. I am currently running his very latest Ainslie variant circuit and read a +58mV drop across the shunt resistor, measured with my Fluke 75 on its 300mV range, indicating that there is a net draw from the battery.

Hoppy

[MileHigh]

Hot off the presses from the other tab on your browser, a FuzzyTomCat data dump of the "Ainslie-Murakami Negative Dominant Waveform Generator" Replication build:

1] Time (24 hour)
2] DC Battery Voltage
3] Ambient Temperature Degrees F
4] 555 Timer Temperature Degrees F
5] Mosfet Temperature Degrees F
6] 10 Ohm Resister Temperature F
7] 555 Potentiometer Temperature F


[ 1 ] | [ 2 ] | [ 3 ] | [ 4 ] | [ 5 ] | [ 6 ] | [ 7 ]

22:40 | 12.52 | 78.3 | 77.8 | 76.8 | 76.4 | 79.1
22:50 | 12.52 | 78.6 | 78.3 | 77.2 | 76.3 | 79.4
23:00 | 12.52 | 78.1 | 78.3 | 76.8 | 76.4 | 79.9
23:10 | 12.52 | 78.3 | 78.3 | 76.9 | 78.4 | 79.8
23:20 | 12.51 | 78.1 | 78.3 | 77.6 | 76.6 | 80.4
23:30 | 12.51 | 78.8 | 78.6 | 77.8 | 77.3 | 80.4
23:40 | 12.51 | 79.0 | 79.1 | 78.3 | 78.3 | 81.3
23:50 | 12.51 | 79.4 | 79.4 | 78.8 | 78.3 | 82.2
24:00 | 12.51 | 79.8 | 79.9 | 79.1 | 78.6 | 82.3
00:10 | 12.51 | 80.1 | 80.3 | 79.7 | 79.7 | 83.1
00:20 | 12.51 | 80.3 | 80.4 | 79.8 | 79.4 | 83.3
00:30 | 12.51 | 81.3 | 80.5 | 80.1 | 79.8 | 83.5
00:40 | 12.51 | 81.5 | 80.8 | 80.1 | 80.1 | 83.8
00:50 | 12.51 | 81.7 | 81.5 | 80.5 | 80.1 | 83.6
01:00 | 12.51 | 81.5 | 81.1 | 80.1 | 80.3 | 83.4
01:10 | 12.51 | 81.5 | 81.3 | 80.3 | 80.4 | 84.2
01:20 | 12.51 | 81.3 | 81.3 | 80.6 | 80.6 | 83.6
01:30 | 12.51 | 81.5 | 81.4 | 80.7 | 80.4 | 84.3
01:40 | 12.50 | 81.7 | 81.3 | 80.6 | 80.4 | 84.2

Followup astute comments from Rosemary herself:

Hi Fuzzy. Seems like you got the same 'cooling effect' that Aaron saw - except over the pot which was also Aaron's result. But you've got a more general cooling as I think Aaron got heat on his switches. EDIT And an evident net loss to the battery? Is this consistent with the voltage you measured across the load?

May I say that this has got to be the tidiest set of results I've seen yet on the forum. Many, many thanks for this and for doing the test. Hopefully Harvey will add his comments here.

I tried and I tried and I just couldn't see a "cooling effect" on column 7, the 555 potentiometer temperature. 

I took a hit of acid and _then_ I saw the "cooling effect" on the pot when I was peaking.   

I came back down and then I concluded that the expenditure of battery power over time was warming things up.  <two smiley faces clicking beer mugs together>

EightMilesHigh