Claimed OU circuit of Rosemary Ainslie

[WilbyInebriated]

skcusitrah, ken, vortex, milehigh, poynty... not a one of you self proclaimed 'experts' is going to step up and help guruji with his question?

imagine that...


funny that milehigh and poynty still troll this thread... must be slow over at yOUR, or maybe they are looking for new topics and/or acolytes? who knows, maybe they just miss us?

[Vortex1]

Hi Guruji

Hi guys today I tried this circuit but no heat came.

When you say "no heat came" do you mean

1)"no excess heat over expected heat"

or

2) "absolutely no temperature rise above ambient"

from your resistor.

If the first then you have some proof the "Ainslie" circuit may be "ordinary" and does not meet advertised claims.

You also may not be supplying the "chaotic oscillation" supposedly required.

If the second, then I suspect you have an error in your wiring. You should be getting some heat in the resistor based on the duty cycle of the FET and the voltage level. You can calculate this based on your 18 volt supply.

As for the 0.25 ohm shunt, it is for measurement purposes of instantaneous loop current and supposedly not required.

There is more but lets see what you say about this first.

Regards...V

[jibbguy]

Regarding the above ideas, as "baselines" to show "conventional" non- Ainslie Effect figures they could be useful.

But i never understood why you guys always want Fuzzy to do stuff that ruins the efficiency and kills the effect that is required for it to work in the first place

No one has yet reported the effect to WORK without the battery, it appears so far, to be a required ingredient. This is not so "outrageous"; if you consider that the re-charging from the pulses appears to be a significant part of the total energy efficiency (probably the higher output impedance of a batt as well). Hell, it may prove in the future that there IS a way around it, but at present it appears there is not.

> What happens when you pump pulses back into the "minus" plug of a REGULATED calibrated DC supply?... Does the total current usage of the supply go down (as, for instance measured by a watt meter inline with the power cord), by the same amount as the pulses would provide with a batt?

> And even if it would (which i seriously doubt), can those pulses exist the same and at the same amplitude in the first place when the much lower output impedance Calibrated Supply is used instead of a battery? Would not the impedance of the circuit change dramatically, not allowing the effect to be seen (remember this takes careful tuning of pots to get it into the desired condition, it is what we used to call "balanced on the head of a pin".. something i've seen old cascaded instrumentation op amp circuits be many times in the past in conventional commercial electronics).

> What would be the effect of the "Single Ended to Ground" grounding scheme of the supply on the circuit (...they are not "Input to Output Isolated", at least not the ones i have seen)? Could this Ground, going eventually to Earth through the internal power supply components of the unit "ruin" the effect completely? I've seen this affect circuits more times than i can remember, unless the rest of the circuit is then taken to ground as well...And again, when "balanced on the head of a pin" such effects have greater possible importance. 

This is not the first device to show a similar effect with lead-acid batteries; and no one ever complains that "cars" are pretty much useless without a battery, and that they are not "single ended to ground" and should require a wall plug to operate


So in review,

Issue One: The battery is "needed" , at least as far as we know so far, to absorb the pulses as "charge".

Issue Two: The pulses and effect need a very specific impedance and fine tuning to exist at all.

Issue Three: Grounding this circuit through a supply could "kill" the effect altogether.

I would agree that it would be nice and very useful for verifying through a separate means of simple current calcs if the effect COULD work the same with a power supply as the Source (or a bank of capacitors too). But when it cannot, should we just walk away from it and refuse to study it then, because some folks "don't like batteries"?

That is not logical thinking. We understand the problems with battery charge calcs, Fuzzy certainly does.

But we do not have the luxury of "choosing" how it works.

So perhaps the suggestions, which are welcome when they are positively offered in the interest of seeing this studied in the best possible method, should be on measuring "battery charge" or "expended heat energy" the most effective ways using the restrictions present.

[guruji]

Hi Guruji

When you say "no heat came" do you mean

1)"no excess heat over expected heat"

or

2) "absolutely no temperature rise above ambient"

from your resistor.

If the first then you have some proof the "Ainslie" circuit may be "ordinary" and does not meet advertised claims.

You also may not be supplying the "chaotic oscillation" supposedly required.

If the second, then I suspect you have an error in your wiring. You should be getting some heat in the resistor based on the duty cycle of the FET and the voltage level. You can calculate this based on your 18 volt supply.

As for the 0.25 ohm shunt, it is for measurement purposes of instantaneous loop current and supposedly not required.

There is more but lets see what you say about this first.
A...V

Hi Vortex thanks for response it's the second one absolutetly no temperature rise
maybe something with the wiring I will recheck everything.
Thanks

[Vortex1]

jibbguy:

Regarding the above ideas, as "baselines" to show "conventional" non- Ainslie Effect figures they could be useful.

They could also be the death knell of an imaginary effect which has yet to be successfully demonstrated or replicated by other than the Ainslie team.

But i never understood why you guys always want Fuzzy to do stuff that ruins the efficiency and kills the effect that is required for it to work in the first place

If supply impedance is an issue, it is a quantifiable parameter and should be a component of the specification, and included specifically in the documentation

No one has yet reported the effect to WORK without the battery, it appears so far, to be a required ingredient. This is not so "outrageous"; if you consider that the re-charging from the pulses appears to be a significant part of the total energy efficiency (probably the higher output impedance of a batt as well). Hell, it may prove in the future that there IS a way around it, but at present it appears there is not.

From my observations, no one  succeeded in making it work with the battery.The data supplied reflects a faulty measurement technique.

Additionally, you are making generalizations about the impedance of batteries, which is dependent on plate area and electrolyte density. Further, a power supply can be higher or lower impedance than a given battery based on either's design.

> What happens when you pump pulses back into the "minus" plug of a REGULATED calibrated DC supply?... Does the total current usage of the supply go down (as, for instance measured by a watt meter inline with the power cord), by the same amount as the pulses would provide with a batt?

You should not even have to ask this, but I'll give you a hint: it depends on the design of the supply...generally it will be reflected in a reduction in power supply drain, but if it is a full op-amp type output versus single ended, this may not be true. This is because full op-amp power supply will expend some energy trying to smooth the incoming pulse in order to keep the output precisely regulated. I have a few HP 6823A's that will do this.

> And even if it would (which i seriously doubt), can those pulses exist the same and at the same amplitude in the first place when the much lower output impedance Calibrated Supply is used instead of a battery? Would not the impedance of the circuit change dramatically, not allowing the effect to be seen (remember this takes careful tuning of pots to get it into the desired condition, it is what we used to call "balanced on the head of a pin".. something i've seen old cascaded instrumentation op amp circuits be many times in the past in conventional commercial electronics).

Once again you have made an assumption that a regulated supply always has a lower output impedance than a battery. Which battery? Which regulated supply? All are different and you cannot make such generalizations.

> What would be the effect of the "Single Ended to Ground" grounding scheme of the supply on the circuit (...they are not "Input to Output Isolated", at least not the ones i have seen)? Could this Ground, going eventually to Earth through the internal power supply components of the unit "ruin" the effect completely? I've seen this affect circuits more times than i can remember, unless the rest of the circuit is then taken to ground as well...And again, when "balanced on the head of a pin" such effects have greater possible importance.

I do not know what type of power supplies you are talking about. I own maybe ten HP supplies as well as a handful of others and they all have line isolation and the output floats with respect to "earth" ground.

Again if the "effect" is this sensitive, it should be part of the build specification.

This is not the first device to show a similar effect with lead-acid batteries; and no one ever complains that "cars" are pretty much useless without a battery, and that they are not "single ended to ground" and should require a wall plug to operate

Most portable devices such as cars require batteries. Capacitors do not yet have the kW/Hr density but they are getting close. A large capacitor as part of a power supply can mimic battery impedance and allow for the recharge effect.

So in review,

Issue One: The battery is "needed" , at least as far as we know so far, to absorb the pulses as "charge".

A capacitor can receive and store charge and be selected to have the same impedance as a battery.

Issue Two: The pulses and effect need a very specific impedance and fine tuning to exist at all.

This is not an engineering problem

Issue Three: Grounding this circuit through a supply could "kill" the effect altogether.

If it could be positively demonstrated in the first place.

I would agree that it would be nice and very useful for verifying through a separate means of simple current calcs if the effect COULD work the same with a power supply as the Source (or a bank of capacitors too). But when it cannot, should we just walk away from it and refuse to study it then, because some folks "don't like batteries"?

There are simple calculations for power using batteries, but so far the Ainslie team is preferring noisy data crunching.

That is not logical thinking. We understand the problems with battery charge calcs, Fuzzy certainly does.

I agree with you here, batteries can obfuscate.

But we do not have the luxury of "choosing" how it works.

But we can exercise critical thinking before believing that "it works"

So perhaps the suggestions, which are welcome when they are positively offered in the interest of seeing this studied in the best possible method, should be on measuring "battery charge" or "expended heat energy" the most effective ways using the restrictions present.

I outlined a very simple test which I will soon perform that will determine without a doubt if there is any excess heat. It will involve a non-inductive "control" resistor driven at the same pulse rate and duty cycle. I will look for excess heat over the "control". I will use batteries to get that red herring out of the way.

No one has yet reported the effect to WORK without the battery, it appears so far, to be a required ingredient. This is not so "outrageous"; if you consider that the re-charging from the pulses appears to be a significant part of the total energy efficiency (probably the higher output impedance of a batt as well). Hell, it may prove in the future that there IS a way around it, but at present it appears there is not.

Again the mantra of it "working" based on a set of faulty data.

More generalizations about battery impedance.

Sorry if I sound a little blunt, but I get a little nervous when I see so many generalizations thrown around as fact.

Bear in mind that I would be very pleased if the effect is real, because I won't have to stoke my wood stove anymore!

Lets use our critical thinking to insist on a test that includes a non-inductive "control" resistor of the same physical size and rating as the "Ainslie" resistor and drive them both side by side at the same pulse rate and see if any differential heating is produced.
No need to do any power calculations in this approach.

The proof of the pudding will be in the (H)eating

This is the direction I will take.

Kind Regards....Vortex1