Claimed OU circuit of Rosemary Ainslie

[TinselKoala]

@TK
I watched your Electric OU 5: The Ainslie circuit as PWM Motor Controller--Effect of Recirculation Diode video. I think you have made a few very common mistakes in the video. One, your motor is a brushed dc motor which as Im sure you know shorts the inductive discharge through the commutator into the next winding each cycle, this cannot be considered as anything remotely close to a pure inductance. Two, you are simply pulsing a poor inductance at any old frequency with nothing resembling resonance, you know resonance. When an inductance is pulsed at resonance the input equals the output minus ohmic resistance or zero impedence. From your scope shots I will have to assume that either you do not know what you are doing or you do not know what resonance is. From your equipment I know you know better than this so I was wondering what it is exactly that you are trying to prove here?. Your going to have to do a lot better than that, did I mention I have 30 years experience in electronics?
Regards
AC

Mistakes? What mistakes?

I am simply showing a phenomenon in that video. How could I make mistakes?
I show what the Ainslie circuit does when you hook a motor up to it with a light bulb in parallel.
You are drawing some conclusions. Where are the conclusions I am drawing from this video? How have I applied or implied what I show in this video, to the Ainslie problem?
I think you are flaming a straw man here. It might look spectacular, and give you a warm feeling, but still, it's a straw man.

I respect your experience. But what does that have to do with this demonstration of an interesting effect?

And from your remarks about resonance, I can tell you know resonance pretty well. Maybe it even visits your home once in a while.
So could you explain to me Rosemary's Random Chaotic Resonance, and tell me how to obtain it in this circuit? Not the one with the motor, I am talking about the circuit with the 0.00864 milliHenry inductance that she used. What is the expected resonant frequency of this circuit?

Thanks in advance.

(Oh, and if you are concerned about mistakes in circuits and claims made in error about them...well, there are some doozies for you to look at, you know where...I'd be curious to know how Rosemary will respond to you when you tell her, along with all those others, that her circuit making the duty cycle is WRONG and so is her explanation and understanding of it.)

(Edited a thypo.)

[allcanadian]

@TK
When I read the comments below the video I thought it was pretty much implied that this is what the rosemary circuit was doing. Maybe Im losing it, LOL, I have been a bit cranky lately and stressed. I think maybe I need to stop posting for a few months again, keep at it Im sure you will get it.
Best Regards
AC

[TinselKoala]

@TK
When I read the comments below the video I thought it was pretty much implied that this is what the rosemary circuit was doing. Maybe Im losing it, LOL, I have been a bit cranky lately and stressed. I think maybe I need to stop posting for a few months again, keep at it Im sure you will get it.
Best Regards
AC

Heh, believe me, I know what you mean.
No, I was just fiddling and I thot that since the circuit is a highpower pulse width modulator, it might work pretty well on that little DustBuster motor. I had already scoped the inductive ringdown and looked at the difference the different diodes make there, but with my slow scopes one could see it but it wasn't very photogenic. Of course that was with the low inductance Ainslie load, or the surprisingly high inductance (relatively) light bulb. The difference with those looked small on the scope. So I was kind of surprised that it made such a difference with the motor. And you've got to admit, seeing the 2 elements in parallel behave oppositely in response to the change is kind of counter intuitive.

I hope you enjoy your break. I need one too. But the only thing I really want to get from this, besides the experience fooling with the gadgets, is to get a retraction of evident errors in the published information.

But I don't think I'll get it. Here's my sealed prediction (to be opened in three years):
XXXXXXXXXXXXXX
xXXXXXXxXXXXXXx
XXXXXXXXXXXXXX

later--
TK

[Cloxxki]

From my work I can reach EF just fine now. It also automatically logs me in. Maybe my internet provider (more evil than most) just doesn't like free energy research, and failed to spot ON.com just yet :-)

[Cloxxki]

[Rosemary]

Joit - is your waveform proving TinselKoala's point? Is that 555 switch wrongly presented? To me it looks like it is. In which case, I must apologise to all concerned. Clearly the Quantum article was wrong.

So, to all concerned - to everyone who built the circuit as presented in that article, and if, indeed, it is wrong, my abject apologies. I had a shrewd idea it may have been wrong because, thinking back, a university professor kindly edited the quantum paper prior to presenting it to the IET. And his first recommendation was that we ommitted a detailed circuit of the 555 switch as being irrelevant to the claim. Which is why I was reluctant to endorse the Quantum article as being a correct presentation. I just wish, in retrospect, that he had pointed out the error. In any event, it seems that I have been entirely at fault. My own objection to it was due to the lack of the feedback diode - which was the entire subject of the exercise. I knew it was in the apparatus. It certainly was not in diagram.

I would point out though, that my reluctance to point this out is due to the fact that the person who presented that diagram was a good friend and he, like all of us, was 'giving' his time. I was not keen therefore to expose the problem before I could ascertain the facts. So, if you're reading this, don't even worry. It's not a train smash. In any event, the blame was not his. I should, at least, have had the circuit vetted - considering my own inability to read such.

So. Many apologies, even to TinselKoala and anyone in the entire world who duplicated that circuit. It is wrongly presented. I am sincerely sorry that I have wasted so much of your time. And Joit - you've put the question to bed. I would be very glad to refund you for your time and trouble - if required - and if I can get the money to you with our exchange control. Just send me an account on the PM system. You've done a very good thing here.

What I do assure you all is this. The switch may have been wrongly drawn. Our own duty cycle application is NOT. I have the experimental apparatus available and it has been checked by EE's even at universities. We have also, over the years, built many different 555 switches and by different people. And there are replicated experiments by others using nothing but a functions generator. And all this prior to publication. More to the point is that the battery duration is consistent with measurements based on the duty cycle. But, in point of fact, after publication I never experimented again for a period of 7 years and I certainly never even looked at the article again. The only reason I could scan a copy for the blog when I eventually did this, was because my children kept a copy of the original publication. I was just so dejected at the entire lack of interest it seemed to generate. I had no idea that the test would really ever be duplicated.

Therefore, please take this admission as a sincere apology to all those who have tried to build the switch according to the quantum article. I see that the Quantum article was the primary reference point as the IET paper was only posted to the blog after July. It seems that Ramset and TinselKoala started their thread on OU.COM in mid June. Unfortunate. But there you are. Sorry guys - It's all I can say.