Claimed OU circuit of Rosemary Ainslie

[TinselKoala]

So let's see:

Aaron says you cannot use Spice, or the fact that using Spice reproduces all the behaviour of the circuit including load heating but NOT including OU...to disprove Rosemary's thesis.

And Rosemary says that you cannot use her actual circuit, like I did, which shows heating in the load like her published results, with conventional analysis which does not show OU, to prove that her circuit (which was what, now?) does not produce OU.

Apparently, only analyses that show OU on the Ainslie circuit are valid to test her circuit with. If it doesn't show OU, you (or I) didn't do it right. Since the OU has already been proven. So be sure to analyze this circuit (or a different one?) with a method that will show OU, otherwise the method is wrong. QED.

How can one argue with logic like that? I certainly cannot.

[NerzhDishual]

@TinselKoala,

I was just giving some informations about "yet another claimed
OU CCT using squares waves and a coil" (YACOUCUSVAC).

We still had YACC (Yet Another Compiler-Compiler)
http://dinosaur.compilertools.net/#yacc
Now we have YACOUCUSVAC.

Due to the draconian specifications of this CirCuiT I do not intend to
reproduce it.

To be clear:
I'm not a skeptic. I do "believe" that "OU" (COP >1) is possible and not
only with heat pumps just because that there is an 'Aether' that could be harnessed.

I'm just wondering whether this "achievement of OU" were not (for the moment)
also a strange and elusive phenomenon that is reserved to some fortunate few
Something could only work with somebody or in some place or during some time.
Kinda paranormal Go figure... See William A. Tiller.


@Tagor.
Merci.

@FuzzyTomCat,
Thanks.
I have amended my page. BTW: it was not up to date as the Quanthomme page
http://quanthomme.free.fr/qhsuite/circuitzolt.htm was updated since March 2005.
Translation here:
http://translate.google.fr/translate?u=http%3A%2F%2Fquanthomme.free.fr%2Fqhsuite%2Fcircuitzolt.htm&sl=fr&tl=en&hl=fr&ie=UTF-8

Happy to see that you could get in touch with Zoltan SZILI.

Very Best

[TinselKoala]

EgmQC - I need to endorse Armagdn03 here. Our paper shows what is well known as a Parastic Hartley Effect. It's a random oscillation that needs to be taken out of signal circuitry. It's well known and problematic. What has not been known is that it gives a remarkable overunity result as it applies to applications for heat.

The point is this. No-one seems to be able to duplicate that resonance. It is characterised by spikes that are entirely aperiodic - and it is, therefore, very tricky to compute. Hence the need for specialised measuring equipment.

Parasitic Hartley effect? Hmm...google is stumped too.

But that's ok because I have a "specialized measuring equipment"--the Fluke 199 ScopeMeter that she originally used (but on the NakedScientists forum she said it was a Fluke 123--no matter, I have both.)

This scope is a child's toy compared to the LeCroy that I have demonstrated, and it has well known (at least by scope users) triggering issues on spiky signals. I have even inserted trimmer caps in my circuit in an attempt to make it produce any non-regular behaviour--and it won't.

I am almost certain that what she is describing here is false triggering of the FlukeOScope, but without seeing a scope trace from her it's just a conjecture. But a strong one.

I will be posting a video tonight of this false triggering phenomenon, and maybe she can tell us if what she saw is anything like what I will show.

But I don't expect any real cooperation. After all, she is sitting at a computer, typing words, while I am lugging expensive test equipment around, building circuits and testing them, while swimming upstream with one hand.

[Cloxxki]

Demanding recognition vs. requesting verification.

Perhaps you would spend your time wiser by just making a two-column list.

One for the firm believers, nomatter what. 
And one for those who put serious doubt in an inventor who chooses to discredit their long-awaited replicators when they post critical questions.

It's interesting how this circuit seems sufficiently complicated to maintain this myst of doubt, or hope actually, yet also simple enough to be replicated easily.

Really, if TK has it right here, the article should be corrected by the editors. It being out there discredits the OU community more than it helps now. Even if it does work, the inventor is not really cooperative. In a less serious thread the inventor would be accused of being as WIB. Drawing attention of the world's most energetic OU researchers, directing it away from things that really matter, obvious gains for technology to be made at the cost of the establishment.

[TinselKoala]

@Nerzh:  Yet another....

I suppose you are talking about Zoltan Szili, who is familiar to me. He says 99 percent of his work is done on simulations.
And Rosemary is very excited about Zoltan. Even though DrStiffler has cautioned us about the specific simulation program that Zoltan uses--it won't produce results contrary to CoE unless misused.
Somehow, this does not surprise me.

So, I guess the situation is like this: If your simulation doesn't produce OU behavior, you cannot use it to test Ainslie's circuit, because as everyone knows, simulations are unreliable and in the hands of intellectually dishonest researchers they could be used in an attempt to disprove OU, and that proves they are inappropriate tests.
And, if your simulation does produce OU behaviour, regardless of whether you are operating it correctly or not, it CAN and should be used to PROVE (not disprove) the Ainslie circuit is OU.
Somehow, this does not surprise me either.

Um.
Could I have another beverage, please? I don't seem to be drunk enough to understand this logic.