Claimed OU circuit of Rosemary Ainslie

[TinselKoala]

Sure, all that's fine, but let's not forget the specific nature of the claim, in the magazine article, the pdf of the paper, the patent application, and elsewhere: the circuit as published is alleged to produce 17 times as much energy output as heat, as it receives as input from the batteries. COP>17, for a specific set of circuits.
I believe that I have shown that the circuit AS PUBLISHED and as I built it, does not perform as claimed, and in fact could not do so, since the 555 timer circuit CANNOT be set to provide a short ON duty cycle. And in fact, as I have shown, the numbers she obtained and cited in the pdf paper can be accounted for precisely, by computing power using her incorrect figure of 3.7 percent ON, but using the correct 96.3 percent ON duty cycle that her timer circuit provides, the true energy supplied by the battery is in the neighborhood of 3 MegaJoules, and thus the circuit's COP is in reality <1/2, far from the >17 that has been claimed.
This fact is independent of the MOSFET used, of course, so the fact that I am using the 2SK1548 instead of the specified IRFPG50 should be irrelevant here.

Now, as to the issue of chaotic, random, or parasitic oscillations caused by "turning down" the 100R potentiometer in the published circuit: It ain't happening, folks. Not for me. What IS happening, is false triggering of the oscilloscope, which can certainly look like random oscillations. And of course parasitic oscillations can be induced by means cited in previous posts by others: poor circuit layout, stray capacitances, improperly meeting the demands of the MOSFET's gate capacitance, dirty gate drive pulses, and so forth. Unfortunately (!?!) my build does not seem to suffer from these "features".

I am prepared to consider arguments that the MOSFET I am using is not the exact one Ainslie uses, and so my results could be invalid for that reason. But please, if you are going to make that argument, read the data sheets for the two MOSFETS first and please provide some hard reasoning for your stance.

I am also prepared to repeat the experiment, if Ainslie or somebody else can refute my finding that her duty cycle, as stated in the paper, is reversed, that is, not what she says it is. This finding alone calls into serious question her OU claims and, by extension, her entire theoretical structure, so I should hope that it is taken seriously.

[BEP]

Is there any chance her load on the source pin is creating an inversion of the 555 output or causing some nonlinear state?

Then there is the 555. Output can go to what I term 'a garbage state' when you try for a <50% duty cycle, with this circuit and many other 555 circuits.

I think you are correct, TK. If there is such a measurement mistake the usual response from academia is to ignore the claim.

[TinselKoala]

I don't see how, with the specific component values, that there could be instability of the 555 or "flipping" of its output cycle. But sure, those things can behave strangely sometimes. And I am always prepared to admit that I may have made some weird error in my build--but I don't think I have. That's why I've asked for some independent confirmation of the 555 circuit, at least, and it appears we've gotten that.
(EDIT to add: I even went back and checked --again-- to make sure my 2sk1548 and her irfpg50 are both N-channel mosfets--)

Is Ainslie still around? I think that if I were she, I'd be whipping up circuitry, photographing scope traces, and all kinds of other stuff, in order to refute that fool skeptic TK who can't even put a circuit together properly to oscillate wildly.

What about it, Rosemary? Can you tell us, one way or the other: Does YOUR circuit give YOU a 96.3 percent ON duty cycle, as I believe, or does it really give you a 3.7 percent ON duty cycle as you claimed in several published places?
I can't really see going further in this research (calorimetry, etc.) until this question is resolved.

Inquiring minds want to know...

[TinselKoala]

I just checked the thread on energeticforum. Nobody seems concerned at all that her claims of excess energy are completely invalidated, IF her circuit in the pdf, which is the only one with reported test results, is doing what I found. They are happily theorizing and going off on tangents, while ignoring my work completely (except for ramset--thanks, Chet...)
When they should be seeking information from Ainslie, or building their own damn replications, or at least telling me why I'm full of crap.

[ramset]

TK
may i post a summary
perhaps a very brief # 3
Chet