Claimed OU circuit of Rosemary Ainslie

[ramset]

just left this post

A scientist searching for OU [rare as hens teath]
MIB ? bad oil guy?

Can't use equipment?[every day of his life]

wonder what the COP is of this device.

YouTube - Dirod 1

Or this one.

YouTube - Bonetti Machine clip #3
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
Aaron is on the right page" heat some water" If your COP is that high

then your BTU will be obvious

You go Aaron make it so boil some water make steam Forget all these tests
HOT WATER HEAT is what where after COP 17 and higher

Chet
PS you don't need a lab for that

[TinselKoala]

Heh. Thanks for posting that, Chet. I was just reminiscing...
But they might like the Resonance Effects for Everyone vids better, since they are so impressed by charging a cap thru a diode, and might like to see what a real resonance from a mosfet driving an inductive ringing system is like.

And every time I look over there I am more amazed. Joit has finally admitted that even his 555 circuit can't make short duty cycles. Now if we can just get people to follow that thought all the way through her energy balance calcs...

And in practically the same sentence where she gripes about me calling her a mendacious prevaricator, she proceeds to post yet another canard saying that neither I nor anybody else has done power measurements...I beg your pardon, Rosemary, but that's a lie too. Or, rather, another statement of your willful ignorance.

Have you ever looked through the OU.Com thread on this? It beggars belief. Malice hardly describes it. And the amount of money that is spent on displaying tests and parading brand new state of the art equipment that is never effectively used.

Money? When a COP>17 claim is being made? What is money when the world is at stake?
Brand new state of the art equipment? Where?
Never effectively used? You mean MISUSED like Aaron and Joit's scope work? I laugh in your face, liar.

Weeks go by without a single test result - just promises of this. Yet we are constantly advised that the claim is wrong. Has it ever occurred to anyone that - to this day - no single power measurement has been made on the circuitry?

More lies. I have been reporting test results for a month or more, sometimes several a day. And I have made MANY measurements, published my raw data and ALL test parameters including scope shots and photos of the apparatus and videos of it being operated and tested. And I have even made so far 3 full experimental runs comparing heat profiles.

No test has been run to duration of a battery capacity.

And no test has been run under water. There is no need. The heat results are far more more conclusive.

Brand new state of the art equipment is constantly on display but never are its full functions referenced. Small irrelevant points become critical evidence of a lack of proof and are championed with an unabashed repetitiveness that is boringly persistent but brutally destructive. But no actual proof is offered.

There's that brand new state of the art equipment again. You must be talking about someone else, because all my stuff is obsolete junk. But it still works fine, and more importantly, I know how to use it.
And the significance of the points I keep stressing is fatal to your claims. If you used the wrong duty cycle, as it is increasingly obvious that you did, your energy calculations are wrong wrong wrong.

Where's the circuit, Rosemary? It's been over a month now. You have shown us NOTHING except words. And many of those words are, well, as I have shown, untrue.

And everything that I have said about the circuit and its performance and testing is TRUE and VISIBLE and REPEATABLE by anyone who can read a circuit diagram and an oscilloscope manual.
But who is repeating ANY of the Ainslie effects, and how?
Just Aaron, by screwing a mosfet to his workbench and violating every rule of good circuit construction to make a feedback circuit. But even he can''t get much heating at short duty cycles.



http://www.energeticforum.com/renewable-energy/4314-cop-17-heater-rosemary-ainslie-32.html#post61506

[jibbguy]

What Aaron is seeing there in his vid is not "false triggering" / being "off trigger"... Or anything to do with a friggin' scope trigger! 

I'm not sure why this particular avenue of denial seen here infuriates me so much (we should all be used to it by now), but it does. I will try to be "civil" nonetheless (lol but it's difficult).

When a scope drifts off-trigger but the waveform's Frequency doesn't change, the signal representation ROLLS across the screen. With the scope's time base set the same as before; the waveform will still be visible and mainly recognizable, just looking like an old TV with "Horizontal Hold" problems.

The "Triggering" circuitry by itself CANNOT CHANGE THE SCOPE'S TIME BASE SETTING!! ... Thus, when previously set to see 2 or 3 cycles spaced across the screen, you can't suddenly get it to display 400 cycles squeezed together (showing the unmistakable "all white" solid envelope that denotes a way-too-slow time base setting)... By simply screwing around with the Trigger Level. You good folks out there try it yourselves and see what i mean. It will take a significant change in the signal's actual Frequency for this to be seen.

Frankly, i am finding it hard to believe that these peeps claiming the contrary don't know this. On one hand they are accusing Aaron of making a very "noob" mistake, yet we find it is THEY who are claiming an utterly NOOB and COMPLETELY MISTAKEN point in denial... Which is certainly doing their credibility no favors. And so they deserve to be lambasted for it (as turnabout is fair play), and perhaps their actual motives here QUESTIONED.... They certainly are not acting here as those who are seeking Truth, by putting forth weak justifications for previously stated strong opinions.

Aaron is also getting a small increase at the batt charge voltage on the DMM at the exact same time as the oscillation effect is seen on the scope... Verses when the scope is showing the "normal" waveform. Explain that one by "poor scope triggering".

And for the benefit of the folks out there who will now be SUCCESSFULLY building this circuit, and who also happen to have a storage scope (or a PC-based one that can "freeze" the screen): This talk about triggering is a total distraction, and give it no heed: Just take a "snap shot" (screen "sample and hold") of the signal.... Whatever is shown on the screen is the actual and accurate representation of the signal at that particular moment, and all this B-S about "scope triggering" be damned.  And please, if possible, post the "screenies" of that much higher F oscillation waveform for us all to look at, as it is of interest to many of us

So Aaron has gotten his MOSFET to go into astable oscillation (...just as Rosemary said it would). Congrats to him, and may many more folks out there now follow his fine example!!

[ramset]

left at EF

A scientist[FE scientist] works the resonance
Groundloop gutoluc and An FE scientist

YouTube - resonance effects for everyone
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5tW2g4KinuA

And from another scientist[TRON]

tank circuit video: resonance and harmonics
a great video on resonance and oscilloscope signals in a tank circuit
Make: Online : Short Circuit #2: Frequency multiplication with tank circuits

http://blog.makezine.com/archive/2009/04/short_circuit_2_frequency_multiplic.html?CMP=OTC-0D6B48984890

[TinselKoala]

What Aaron is seeing there in his vid is not "false triggering" / being "off trigger"... Or anything to do with a friggin' scope trigger! 

I'm not sure why this particular avenue of denial seen here infuriates me so much (we should all be used to it by now), but it does. I will try to be "civil" nonetheless (lol but it's difficult).

When a scope drifts off-trigger but the waveform's Frequency doesn't change, the signal representation ROLLS across the screen. With the scope's time base set the same as before; the waveform will still be visible and mainly recognizable, just looking like an old TV with "Horizontal Hold" problems.

The "Triggering" circuitry by itself CANNOT CHANGE THE SCOPE'S TIME BASE SETTING!! ... Thus, when previously set to see 2 or 3 cycles spaced across the screen, you can't suddenly get it to display 400 cycles squeezed together (showing the unmistakable "all white" solid envelope that denotes a way-too-slow time base setting)... By simply screwing around with the Trigger Level. You good folks out there try it yourselves and see what i mean. It will take a significant change in the signal's actual Frequency for this to be seen.

Frankly, i am finding it hard to believe that these peeps claiming the contrary don't know this. On one hand they are accusing Aaron of making a very "noob" mistake, yet we find it is THEY who are claiming an utterly NOOB and COMPLETELY MISTAKEN point in denial... Which is certainly doing their credibility no favors. And so they deserve to be lambasted for it (as turnabout is fair play), and perhaps their actual motives here QUESTIONED.... They certainly are not acting here as those who are seeking Truth, by putting forth weak justifications for previously stated strong opinions.

Aaron is also getting a small increase at the batt charge voltage on the DMM at the exact same time as the oscillation effect is seen on the scope... Verses when the scope is showing the "normal" waveform. Explain that one by "poor scope triggering".

And for the benefit of the folks out there who will now be SUCCESSFULLY building this circuit, and who also happen to have a storage scope (or a PC-based one that can "freeze" the screen): This talk about triggering is a total distraction, and give it no heed: Just take a "snap shot" (screen "sample and hold") of the signal.... Whatever is shown on the screen is the actual and accurate representation of the signal at that particular moment, and all this B-S about "scope triggering" be damned.  And please, if possible, post the "screenies" of that much higher F oscillation waveform for us all to look at, as it is of interest to many of us

So Aaron has gotten his MOSFET to go into astable oscillation (...just as Rosemary said it would). Congrats to him, and may many more folks out there now follow his fine example!!

It was MileHigh who first said that Aaron's scope shot might be false triggering, and then later he saw the rest of the vid and agrees that Aaron's circuit is feeding back and oscillating, and so do I. There is some false triggering, but definitely his circuit is blasting away. And it is also true that I have not been able so readily to make my circuit do that.
It is also true that adjusting the scope's trigger and timebase would have allowed the feedback oscillation to be resolved into a regular periodic waveform...but that would have been anti-OU, so we won't see that being shown.
It is also clear that Aaron's "success" is a result of poor construction practices.
And it is very very clear that his resistor isn't heating much at short duty cycles.
And it's very difficult to say what the duty cycle is during the feedback--because if the signal were only resolved properly, it will no longer be seen to be a pulse, but rather a more sinusoidal wave, and it would sound like a very loud screech.
Is it surprising that the mosfet passes more power when screeching than it does at a short duty cycle?
Not to me.
And if you really trust that DMM to read correctly under the conditions in Aaron's vid, you must be on someone else's payroll...because even the MiBs are not that naiive.