Claimed OU circuit of Rosemary Ainslie

[allcanadian]

@powercat

I believe the work I have seen so far on testing this circuit has been thorough and professional,anyway we are all entitled to our opinions

I would agree, there are thorough and professional people here and while some may seem a little stuffy at times, not unlike myself, I think their heart is in the right place. One issue however is that we can only be thorough in the context of what we know, for example why would you look for something you are oblivious to? Why would you attempt to measure something you do not believe exists? A person can be a professional of the highest calibre and be knowledgeable but if they do not have an open mind or lack creativity they will always be limited to what they have read or been taught. I believe that is why many of the greatest minds in history were the first ones to admit they do not know everything, yet I have read statements in this thread in which people proclaim this is a waste of time, that there is nothing here without justification. I just find that a little odd, I believe we can never stop learning and we can never know enough and irregardless of a persons background or training all of us have the ability to do great things if we are determined.
Regards
AC

[MileHigh]

Well, we seem to be in moderately high drama mode over the past 24 hours or so.

Key facts that stand out for me include the fact that .99 has measured the power consumption at 2 watts with his big capacitor + power supply shunt resistor setup and thermally profiled the power through the load resistor at 1.5 watts.  There is some balking at the big cap + shunt resistor setup because it doesn't fit in with the desired outcome.  The measurements are real and not a surprise at all.  The "free energy" spin doctors in all shapes and sizes are charging their flywheels for the big spin-off.

My speculations about the delayed pulse and the selective measurement techniques are on the mark and were endorsed by .99 and Hoppy.  The comments seem to have incited some panic in the ranks.  The whole point is to look for convergence in the data - make intelligent measurements with the DSO and see if they fall in line with .99's analog and thermal measurements.  You could even set up a thermal profile for the MOSFET and check for convergence between the DSO-derived MOSFET dissipation and the thermally derived MOSFET dissipation.  The assumption is that this will all converge.

Rosemary you think that you have a good thing to cling onto, the fact that I want to chop up the data intelligently seems blasphemous.  This is me making use of my applied knowledge, and it does make perfect sense.  If you measure the reactive energy to charge the inductor, and then measure the same reactive energy in the spike, and then measure the same reactive energy as it gets dissipated resistively, that's cheating - and the thermal data will bear that out.

The bottom line is that the ship is sinking, and every new round of data gathering punches another hole in the hull.  Nobody has shown anything remotely looking like COP > 1 or COP > 17.  Anybody that thinks they have usually ends up making a big mistake or they barely know what they are doing.  That's part of the fun actually, watching the daily drama unfold.  The comments from the "pro free energy" onlookers are truly laughable sometimes.

Some people are even going back to the "battery" argument - which is a joke because the claim says that the thermal output is greater than the electrical input.  The discussion about "magic spikes going into the battery" is not even on the table.  Nor are battery draw-down tests on the table.  The reference is the Ainsley paper, there is no hiding under the battery umbrella here.

For .99:  Why not just take two shunt resistors and cut one lead very short on each one and then solder the short leads together such that the two inductances cancel themselves out?  Also, you mentioned that your bench supply is isolated, so you could move one scope probe around on the circuit and make a series of differential measurements, couldn't you?  It's not ideal but should work, no?  I am really not sure but could you make a "poor man's" differential probe setup by using a small high-frequency 1:1 isolation transformer?  I don't know what a "current probe" precisely is but the shunt resistor seems to be doing the job.  I am also not sure if the shunt resistor's inductance is significant relative to the wires in the rest of the circuit.  The bottom line is that I acknowledge that you are the resident expert on test and measurement issues.

Going back to your rebut of my selective data analysis because Rosemary and Co. would shriek, you were right.  I believe that this would converge on the solution, but there is one thing bugging me.  How can the power output from the source be wrong?  It doesn't seem to make sense, you have to assume that he return energy spike is much smaller in energy content as compared to the "output spike" and I can't figure out why this measurement is nutsoid.  I suggest that you try a simple setup - voltage measurement across battery posts and shunt resistor soldered to negative terminal.  Whoops!  I mean power supply!

Rosemary, please stop calling me a troll.

I may comment more later but too tired to now.

MileHigh

[Rosemary Ainslie]

MileHigh.

I started answering your post in one way.  Have deleted it and am now trying another.

Your earlier post - copied over to EF.COM was insightful and challenging.  I had rather come to expect an ongoing high standard.  I really am not clinging to anything.  The term implies a tenuous grasp.  My grasp here is firm - strengthened by the experimental evidence available.  That the measurements need to be tested and firmed up - is not at question.  I trust you realise that there's a 2 week delay in the transfer of another DSO?  We're all waiting.

Regarding the measurement of the spike as proof of a gain - again you've missed the mark.  We effectively have done what you advised.  We ignore the measured wattage over the load resistor except as it relates to thermal measurements.  There's no cheating here MH.  And if you see the ship sinking - then you need to adjust your sights.  Not sure who's going back to the battery argument - except that it would be a preferred corollary to measured data.

I will indeed stop calling you a troll if you would also stop referring to us as 'free energy spin doctors' and all suchlike, and if you could return to the creative analysis that was evident in your post copied over to ef.com.  My difficulty with you is that you vacillate between extremes - and I'm never sure what to expect.  Some suggestions are gold.  Others are not.

Rosemary

[poynt99]

MH,

Thanks for your comments. Always appreciated.

I don't think there is a way to cancel the inductance in the shunt resistor, and indeed I did measure 1uH in mine, as I mentioned. In SPICE it has a real marked effect on the shunt wave form. It's important imo, to obtain a shunt resistor that is guaranteed to have 0.1uH or less. They do exist, and I am in the process of getting some. The wire inductance has mostly been eliminated with a large capacitor directly across the load and shunt. The remaining parasitics from the wiring to the load resistor can be "eliminated" by including its inductance and resistance as part of the load resistor itself, and the probes placed accordingly. The resistor is to be measured from end to end, wiring included, and considered to be "the component" as a whole.

Current probes are non-intrusive (for the most part) devices (Hall effect and inductive combos) used for sensing the mag field near the wire. Read up on them if you're curious. They are quite expensive.

.99

[Rosemary Ainslie]

Hmmmm is this the beginning off the end of this thread
we have seen it all before, when extensive testing by reputable and experienced members
shows poor efficiency of a device, the thread will slowly fade away.

unless the testing gives a positive new direction

cat

Hi Cat.  I am sure that if, indeed, test results show that there is nothing of interest here, then the thread will die.  But that would also need actual test replication.  What we're getting is test approximation with the added creative inclusions of apparatus to obviate effects.  This is then followed by a telltale round of mutual congratulation.  I am learning to depend on Poynt's objectivity here albeit that I do not buy into his current or intended schematics. 

But if this thread were to die - then I'd like to put this comment on record.  I was not around for the Mylow case.  I heard a lot about it.  But apart from that I wonder if any claim has ever had such an orchestrated attack as has this.  The thread topic here has an unprecedented opposition with little or any support anywhere from its contributors.  That, in a curious way, shows the urgency required to deny the claims.  If I did not know better I would have assumed that Poynt has his own unification thesis - judging from his commitment to disprove.  It seems to be almost - if not absolutely - a required condition.  Which begs many questions.   Are we competing here Poynty?