Claimed OU circuit of Rosemary Ainslie

[NerzhDishual]

>>> Personal message fot FuzzyTomcat,

I have received your personal message.
I cannot answer it as the forum 'send message' function
is not working for me

BTW the 'Spell Check'  is no working too. 

So, here is my answer:
I'm a member of the Energetic Forum since a while and
aware of the Rosemary Ainslie's thread. Infortunately,
I'm not allowed to see the attached pictures and to post anything...

I had 'stolen', the wed page about the Zoltan Szili's FE circuit in
this famous (French) site : http://quanthomme.free.fr/
And more precisely here:
http://quanthomme.free.fr/qhsuite/circuitzolt.htm

I very rarely 'steal' web pages and if I do it, I, at least, give the
URL of the initial page. That was not the case about the Zoltan FE CCT page.
Shame on me...

However, as I'm sometimes at phone with the Quanthomme site webmaster,
I guess that I could be forgiven )

Very Best

[TinselKoala]

Uh huh. Are you giving us the Zoltan story to illustrate yet another case of measurement and interpretation error? Sorry, it's got to take its place in the queue.

[tagor]

>>> Personal message fot FuzzyTomcat,

I have received your personal message.
I cannot answer it as the forum 'send message' function
is not working for me

BTW the 'Spell Check'  is no working too. 

So, here is my answer:

......

salut  NerzhDishual

i have posted your answer here

http://www.energeticforum.com/renewable-energy/4314-cop-17-heater-rosemary-ainslie-23.html#post60636

[TinselKoala]

You know, it's really remarkable. I identified the duty cycle issue last week, or even longer ago, and pointed out how it affects the manual "integration" that was used to figure the energy balance in the originally cited documents of the experiment.

And yesterday I was finally required to put together the simplest possible mosfet circuit (that would work more than once!) in order to demonstrate in no uncertain terms that I was correct about that issue.

Aaron, the moderator of the thread on energeticforum, asked some questions concerning this circuit, which I answered unequivocally in the video for all to see. The circuit turns the mosfet ON when the gate drive is HIGH: therefore power is supplied to the load when the gate is HIGH. And the voltage at the Drain pin (where the load is normally connected) goes LOW when the gate drive is HIGH and power is being supplied to the load.
Load ON, Drain signal LOW. Load OFF, Drain signal HIGH.

That's now been demonstrated by now sufficiently enough that even Aaron will agree.

And the 555 circuit also behaves as I said. The output pulse goes HIGH for a long time wrt the LOW period.
And it cannot be adjusted to deliver a 3.7 percent ON duty cycle with the components specified. This has now also been conclusively demonstrated by many builders. Even some who still apparently do not understand the first point above.

THEREFORE, sorry to shout, the complete circuit turns the load ON for 96 percent of the time. Not for 4 percent.
This is deductive reasoning and it is correct, and has been confirmed by experiment over and over and over.

Now, logically, if the designer tells us to use a function generator to do what the 555 was doing, but herself makes the same error about duty cycles referred to above--the mosfet drain cycle, remember...it is almost certain that the same error about the load cycle will be made. THEREFORE again, the data in the paper, since they were probably generated using the wrong duty cycle figures, are invalid.

This is inductive reasoning...it could be wrong. It is up to Ainslie to show the error. With data, Rosemary. I believe you said you still have the original apparatus. Let's dig it out, hook it up to any scope you want, and see how it behaves.

[TinselKoala]

We now have posts on the energeticforum that are saying that a 555 timer was NOT used in the Quantum experiment  and the EIT paper.

However,  Rosemary has said that she always used a 555 timer; the Quantum article gives the circuit; the EIT paper refers to the Quantum article as its only reference; the EIT paper specifically says that the experiment was done with a 555 timer, although its circuit is not given in that paper.

So once again the story is changing in an inconsistent manner. What, exactly, including the timer, was the circuit used? How the HELL are we supposed to replicate if the maker does not specify the circuit?

And it is abundantly clear that Rosemary used the wrong duty cycle--otherwise she would have instantly explained otherwise -- but since she does not understand that the load is OFF when the point A is ON or high, ...
oh, never mind.

I just hope they get their story straight and at least specify the EXACT circuit used to make the Quantum and EIT paper data. I don't give a flying flimp about what other circuits were or are being used or recommended. My point is and continues to be that those papers are WRONG and it is extremely likely that, since a 555 timer WAS used according to Rosemary, the duty cycle was figured into the calculations incorrectly.