Claimed OU circuit of Rosemary Ainslie

[TinselKoala]

@TK
It is settled then, both of us agree my comments were out of line and I apologize for my behavior. Regarding Rosmary Ainslie's claims, as far as I can tell a printing error in the published circuit diagrams would have no bearing on her claims or her technology. Unless of course this mischievous printing error could somehow stop all of her circuits from working as stated and erase her patents from history by some divine intervention in which case I would be mistaken.
Regards
AC

Accepted, and I also apologize for my sarcastic tone. It's in my nature, but that's no excuse.
(gee I hate the mushy parts)

My point is simply that her theory (I have read her blog articles) seems constructed to explain certain observed phenomena under certain conditions, and if it turns out that the observations are incorrect because the conditions are other than as specified, it really does put the status of the theory in question.
In the "real world" of academia and peer-review, entire careers have been "tubularized" for similar errors.
But I'm really not too concerned about theories, anyway. I'm with Feynman as far as theories go:
"It doesn't matter how beautiful your theory is, it doesn't matter how smart you are. If it doesn't agree with experiment, it's wrong."

And I'm trying to clear up just that issue: Is it a printing error? Or is the error deeper than that?

Curious, isn't it, that the "printing error" circuit gives the exact inverted duty cycle at the exact freq range specified, instead of not working or producing some random frequency and duty cycle...I wish I could be that lucky.
And also curious that the "printing error" circuit behaves rather like the claimed circuit, as far as heating the load resistor goes, while function-generator driven versions (where the duty cycle is set at 3.7 percent ON) do not...and I'm not talking only mine, here. Others using FGs have also not been able to show load heating at short duty cycles, according to reports.

Of course, after all these years I am sure that the original tested apparatus that produced the COP>17 is no longer in existence, or cannot be found, or...something.

Down the rabbit hole...

(Oh, and what's this talk of "patents" and working circuits? All I've seen is a patent application and some diagrams, but I have not seen any circuits that do what she claims as far as being overunity in performance.)

[Groundloop]

@TinselKoala,

Attached is a snip from the article.

I have highlighted the part where she say:

"This article describes the precise circuit, as"
"depicted in Figure 1, that is used to expose this"
"benefit in transient energy. This is to enable and"
"urge others to duplicate the experiment and"
"determine the measurements independently."

Groundloop.

[TinselKoala]

Yes,  I see that, and I built the exact circuit (with the exception of the MOSFET, but that's not where the problem lies.)
If you want to see what I am talking about, check out that other thread, where I am trying to deal with DrStiffler saying that the 555 circuit is a misprint or has been "inserted"...Stiffler's position seems to be that it doesn't matter what was published, replicators can make up their own circuits rather than testing the published one--which he says is wrong, but he won't explain HOW it's wrong or WHY the paper has been out since 2002 with a WRONG circuit diagram...

The problem that I have identified is that the circuit in the above article Does Produce Heat in the load. It also has a 96.3 percent ON duty cycle, NOT the 3.7 percent ON that the authors of the paper claim. But a 3.7 percent ON duty cycle does NOT produce heating of the load.

So the conclusion is pretty clear to me.

Unless somebody can show me that Ainslie's circuit actually does produce the 3.7 percent ON duty cycle that is claimed in the above paper, I must conclude that the data and calculations based thereon are erroneous and that paper should be retracted.

And meanwhile I am coming to certain conclusions about the cognitive ability and style of certain OU researchers.

Let me review: I was presented with a circuit that Ainslie says is overunity. I built the circuit exactly as specified from Ainslie's publications. I found an inverted duty cycle, which invalidates the power calculations based on using the circuit. And now I am being told that the circuit is some unspecified misprint, even though it makes heat in the load and makes the correct frequency and makes the correct but inverted duty cycle...but the overunity claims in the paper are not wrong, so the circuit (which circuit, now?) is still worth investigation.

I've got to say, it's really hard to figure out how to do replications under these conditions. I mean, if the published diagrams are wrong but even so they produce the OUTPUT behaviour correctly...and correct diagrams are unavailable, and FG pulse drives at the specified duty cycle do NOTHING but FG pulse drives at the inverted duty cycle make things behave just as the "wrong" published circuit does...

Oh, well, what did I expect....

[ramset]

TK
quote<

Oh, well, what did I expect....
end quote

RESPECT !!
For taking the time and money to do exactly as Rosemary requested.[replication]
Hopefully she will show up.
Chet

[Groundloop]

@TinselKoala,

I found the other forum and did read the posts. LOL

I personally think you have done a good job replicating the circuit. The only person
that can clear up the "misprint" circuit is the inventor of the circuit. So far this has
not happen, so I must assume that until she decide to post the correct circuit, then
we are left with your conclusions that she got the math wrong because of the
duty cycle error.

Regards,
Groundloop.