Claimed OU circuit of Rosemary Ainslie

[Rosemary Ainslie]

Hi Poynty 

Here's the thing.  Our early test needed replication.  We've actually discussed this.  It really only needs one test that shows the same or similar results using the same or similar components on the same or similar schematic to prove the claim.  Everything that falls short of replication is just that.  A failed test. 

If you check out Fuzzy's test #5 he shows approximately 4.5 watts dissipated at the load at the cost of max 1.3 watts.  In point of fact that's an overstatement because after the first hour the results showed a zero net loss from the battery and the voltage drop was neglible enough to discount against random off load discharge.  But ideally the measurements need to be collated over a longer time span to establish the variability range in the DC average voltage across the source shunt.  There's still another month to collect more data and hopefully this number can be honed upwards - especially with the possible use of a resistor with an even wider diameter.

But note too that his test 2 and 4 did not show the advantage.  There may have been moments where a gain was evident - but the overall results were definitely not able to show any significant efficiencies.  In effect you've duplicated something like these two test and not our claimed test.  To do a full replication will also require the similar results.  Else you are simply proving that you cannot get the required harmonics and the required results with or without the use of approximate apparatus.  Had Fuzzy not managed to get this data then indeed your results would have endorsed his and possibly cast doubts on my own claim.  Why can't you see this?  Failing to produce the results only means that.  You failed.  Produce the results and it will mean you've succeeded.  The claim stands with or without your endorsement. 

However, if Fuzzy had not made all the data available for inspection - and had he not faithfully recorded everything has he has done, then the data itself may be questioned and the results still point to a fail.  Luckily for us his test data was faithfully and perfectly recorded on instruments which - as I've mentioned before - are accurate enough to render that data unquesionable.  Notwithstanding which - thanks to your own input - we now see certain parameters that need to be firmed up and honed down.  This will definitely become part of the data included in the tests still to be conducted.  And I'm enternally grateful to your input here.

Regarding a 'rating' of your tests.  Poynty.  Your testing is impeccable - your apparatus very well assembled and your division of power measurements not classical but individualistic and - in view of the complexity of the circuit - really appropriate.  Not sure that it was wise to position the load resistor so near the switching apparatus.  But I believe that was subsequently corrected.  If I had to give a mark out of 10 it would be about 15.5.  If I had to award brownie points as per MH's grading system - then I'd give you a shoe box full.   

And regarding your general professionalism, your contributions to the question from an experimental point of view and your general comportment throughout  this thread - definitely a HERO MEMBER.  Just so way up there it's ridiculous.  Personally I feel privileged to have known you.  I see you as passionately interested and I have come to entirely depend on your integrity.  That makes me just so much richer because I've also learned to see you as a friend.  On a personal level I'm sorry you desisted posting over at our energetic forum - but sense that the feeling there was not so tolerant.  And I get it that this thread is the anti - that the pro - and between both extremes sits the truth that we're still trying to unravel.

Meanwhile, regardless of the results both you and Fuzzy, and for that matter, Aaron - have been able to pinpoint the anomaly in the circuit that possibly requires more thorough academic investigation.  That's huge.  Something is going on that defeats classical prediction - in a study of the waveform alone.  I'm hoping that this will be more fully explored.  And I'm hoping to publish a paper on the forum after submission of such to the IEEE.  And that, in turn, will be preceded by further testing which we needs must leave in Fuzzy's capable hands.  Your own input on all such data would be gratefully accepted.  And if you can see yourself contributing to the questions in the paper I think we would all be honoured to include your input.

But the paper is a given, the experimental evidence is a given and the results are - at its least - anomalous.  No amount of denial from anyone will change these facts and this intention.

[Rosemary Ainslie]

Hello allcanadian. 

I have just seen your post and am blown away by the efficiency of the argument.     Thanks for the input - yet again. 

[poynt99]

"Why should grounding vs. not grounding make a difference?  How does grounding potentially influence the COP of the circuit?"
A ground is like a big capacitor plate, parasitic capacitance an electric field or surface charge will distribute over any extended surface area to lower it's potential, I could dig out my high school physics textbook if you like?. Would it matter if you ground an antenna? of course it does, you cannot apply simplistic rules that apply to 60Hz AC or DC to high frequency transients.

The grounding issue will be put to bed, one way or the other with my new setup.

I do not believe we can completely detach ourselves from ground, no matter how well we think we are isolated when working with transients of this nature.

But I am willing to capitulate and test out the theory.

There are obvious differences in the makeup of a battery and lab supply, but the real question is "does it make a difference in our results?"

We shall see.

.99

[poynt99]

Hi Poynty 

Here's the thing.  Our early test needed replication.  We've actually discussed this.  It really only needs one test that shows the same or similar results using the same or similar components on the same or similar schematic to prove the claim.  Everything that falls short of replication is just that.  A failed test. 

I'm not quite certain what the message is here, but I do believe I've done several tests using similar components and settings to the original.

If you check out Fuzzy's test #5 he shows approximately 4.5 watts dissipated at the load at the cost of max 1.3 watts.

  Where was this posted? I saw only Harvey's number crunching of the POS values at the various hours. Please indicate how those two values were arrived at. I did my own number crunching on two of the data sets here:

A confirmation of the results from Glen's test #5. I crunched only Hour 2 for the 2us and 20us runs. All powers calculated (for a complete perspective), not just POS.

2_2us_520V-02_10_11_09.xlr

POS = -3.206W
PIL = 112.3W
PIM = -116.5W
PIS = 0.95W

Final resistor temperature = 135ºF

2_20us_520V-02_10_11_09.xlr

POS = -4.046W
PIL = 100.8W
PIM = -105.7W
PIS = 0.87W

Final resistor temperature = 136ºF

Again, I ask Glen, Harvey, and Rose to explain the 100W PIL when clearly the load resistor is not dissipating this much power

.99

There is no indication of a positive value for POS, nor the values you quoted. Again, where can one find this data? If I've missed it, I would appreciate a link. I already have the table that Harvey posted, but that does not indicate these values either.

But note too that his test 2 and 4 did not show the advantage.  There may have been moments where a gain was evident - but the overall results were definitely not able to show any significant efficiencies.  In effect you've duplicated something like these two test and not our claimed test.  To do a full replication will also require the similar results.  Else you are simply proving that you cannot get the required harmonics and the required results with or without the use of approximate apparatus.  Had Fuzzy not managed to get this data then indeed your results would have endorsed his and possibly cast doubts on my own claim.  Why can't you see this?  Failing to produce the results only means that.  You failed.  Produce the results and it will mean you've succeeded.  The claim stands with or without your endorsement. 

The message I get from this, is that so far my results are a failure, useless and are meaningless. I would have to agree if the goal was to prove COP>1 and to achieve accurate measurements. However, I do believe that Fuzzy's results are as much of a failure as my own, and by that account should be equally discounted.

It should be noted however, that my measured POS values all check against one another, and that is by three methods, including the oscilloscope.

Again Rose, I am sincerely asking for your metric used for rating how good the results are in each case. How are the "gains" measured/computed?

.99

[Hoppy]

Poynt99

Can't you see that Rosemary is just playing a game with you and Fuzzy. You have already clearly shown that the circuit is under unity as was quite clear from the beginning!

Hoppy