Claimed OU circuit of Rosemary Ainslie

[WilbyInebriated]

I was referring to your sarcastic post.  Anytime you quote someone and include "(sic)", it's pretty much a sure sign of being an ass.  Yea we get it, there is a spelling error and you're aware of it.  You're so smart to spot that!

So just saying, if you don't like what some of these validators are doing, organize your own team.  As it is now, you have zero standing to be issuing directives.

irrelevant. and again a red herring logical fallacy.

[Johan_1955]

irrelevant. and again a red herring logical fallacy.

Dito!

[jibbguy]

Hiya ION, welcome to the forum.

A likely reason for no one having reported this effect before, is that astable oscillation conditions like we see here are considered "undesirable"... And when seen in testing, are quickly tweaked or re-engineered out of the picture (...often by simply adding capacitance to the circuit). I've seen this done many times with finely-balanced differential instrumentation op-amp circuits like high-gain amps or bridge amps.. not MOSFET's specifically, but most "transistor" types will astable oscillate under the right conditions, as op-amp networks certainly do.

Apparently from what the successful Replicators have reported, to make this one work you have to get the MOSFET to "go crazy"...This is anathema to usual procedure, and is not studied in commercial electronics, because we always "knew" it was a "wrong" condition that must be prevented.

So perhaps the only real opportunities for study of this would be back in the early days of semiconductors. Even the device manufacturers would not likely spend much time examining effects that were "out of the published range / performance envelope" of their product... Why burn valuable time testing something that they would never support anyway? They are there to make money for their company, not do fanciful experiments

So in my experience, it is less surprising that it hasn't been reported before; than that the effect it brings on when applied to the proper inductor/resistor happens at all, and was finally examined and put to use... Thanks initially to Rosemary and her South Africa team

And i would like to mention, that the difficulties here in replicating these effects are not the usual disappointing "secret sauce" obscuration that we sometimes see from inventors.... They simply point out the precise requirements needed... Which is nothing unusual in analog electronics at all. So far we see several requirements apparently needed to make it work:

> The high output impedance of nearly fully-charged batteries as the source,

> The specific type of MOSFET,

> And the specific size (value) and physical shape & geometry of the inductor/resistive element.

Maybe some of these could be changed for ease of replication or measurement once a better understanding of what is really going on here comes along.. And we won't be engineering strictly empirically "in the dark" by trial and error or exact replication any more; but instead working from understanding, to expand the range of operation by exploiting the effect for practical uses.... This understanding will come directly from the knowledge gained here and at Energetics Forum so far, and in the future, by our skilled and dedicated Open Source Replicators and Researchers who are taking our genre to a new high level of professionalism and credibility... For which most of here are proud of and grateful for

[PaulLowrance]

IMO the best solid method by far is the temperature method, but I don't know why .99 has not completed this. It seems the only argument against this is the battery current probe with the two massive 10000 uF caps and the inductive battery shunt, but those are easy to fix. Use a common carbon resistor, and measure the voltage across the resistor followed by a low pass filter to measure the DC. Or you can completely do away with the battery shunt resistor & low pass filter thing with a DC amp clamp meter, which BTW will probably have less inductance than the wire that goes through the clamp. The DC amp clamp meter does not touch any part of the circuit, and is about as passive as it gets, as it merely measures the magnetic field around the wire. The only possible issue is producing enough DC current for the clamp meter to detect. You might need a sensitive clamp meter.

Paul

ps, I just figured out why all of WilbyInebriated posts say (on my computer), "You are ignoring this user. Show me the post."  I thought he'd gone coo coo, LOL

[Rosemary Ainslie]

utilitarian - there's really no need for me to answer your comments to Wilby - but I would point out that we're as delighted to read his input as we are to read Hoppy's or MileHigh's or, indeed, anyone's - provided always that it's reasonably comprehensible.  I don't think it's ever been required that a contributor is also a replicator.  And frankly, I rather depend on Wilby's perspective.  He has the rare talent of reminding us all not to take ourselves too seriously.

And Grumpy?  Not seen you around before - and may I say - you show an extraordinary economy of expression.  Certainly no-one can accuse you of wasting the occasional word.  LOL.  The same goes for Johan.  And really nice to see support on both sides of this interminable argument.

And Jibbguy - many thanks for pointing out the required parameters.  Indeed the open source community will have this experiment as a high bench mark for standards applied to researching this anomaly.  I have it on record that the only advantage to this circuit is that the results are measurable within classical parameters and that - perhaps - there's some small advantage to having this preceded by a thesis that predicted the effect?  I only propose this as this will then, hopefully, open the door to better and wider applications of this effect.  My own thinking here is that the switching cycle delineates the source of the energy as being different in the two cycles.  And there appears to be an anomalous waveform that lends support to the requirement for new thinking on the properties of current flow.   But there are effects that are not yet explicable in terms of that thesis and frankly - I'm struggling to explain this.  Also of interest, not sure if this has been widely noted - is the fact that the reduced inductance seems to enhance the effect rather than otherwise - which flies in the face of what would have been classically assumed.  In truth the adage that this 'poses more questions than answers' is painfully applicable.

But while I admit that the effect is anomalous - let's face it - it's just so, so required.  Personally I think that Fuzzy's efforts here are going to tip the smug equanimity of our mainstream scientists and I welcome that event.  I'm sure anyone who cares about the critical consequences of our pollutant demands on energy - will feel the same.  Which is the real reason that replications will be a really good thing.  But - to any replicators - please check out the parameters identified in Jibbguy's posts.  They're critical if you actually want to exploit this effect.

This thread has had a strange history.  But I agree with Hoppy.  It's gradually becoming a little more mature - if that's the right word?  LOL.  I think we're overdue for a bit of MH's irreverence.