Claimed OU circuit of Rosemary Ainslie

[0c]

Perhaps the easiest and fastest way, without the DAQ bs that Jibguy favors (but will not conduct himself) would be to rent a Clarke-Hess 2335, and measure the input and output power directly with no BS in between.

http://www.clarke-hess.com/2335.html

Thanks, TK. Now if you could write up an unambiguous test procedure (protocol?) that any dummy having access (jibguy maybe?) to a Clarke-Hess 2335 could follow, we can proceed from there. Please use a subject line like I have here so the posts will be easier to find. I didn't want to start a new thread to hold this.

For the moment, as far as I know, the circuit in the Quantum article (and the equivalent gotoluc diagram) is the only baseline we have. So any references to test points in the procedure should be made relative to that circuit. The procedure can be amended later if a modified or different circuit is found to be more appropriate.

I would appreciate it if MileHigh could post the details of his test protocol here. Again, it should be explained in a step-by-step fashion using simple english terms that any dummy (like me) could follow.

[ramset]

TK,
More from the Boss

Ramset - abject apologies. I actually watched all the links. They were really interesting. Sorry about being shirty. I thought it was another attack at my own circuit.

May I add that I am really impressed that TK duplicated gotoluc's experiment. It seems that I may have underestimated his ability to be impartial. Just ask him to apply the same impartiality to my little circuit. It would be a welcome change. The circuit offers nothing new. It just shows a gain on the measurements of energy in/out that classicists can't refute. That's the only reason it's on offer.

Thank you - and, again, apologies.

[jibbguy]

The Clarke-Hess appears to maybe not  be "microprocessor calculation based"; therefor i do not know if the transient voltage capturing can be wholly trusted or not yet for this case. The reason on-board calc or PC analysis software is considered "better", is because it only looks at raw "DC" signal (meaning "unaveraged" by any actual circuit), then does an "area under the curve" -type math averaging using a constantly rolling time base (but please don't confuse this again with actual "Integration"; although the functions are done in similar ways). The advantage of this is, it does not rely on assumptions about repeatable waveforms like most "RMS'ing" circuitry does, and you can control the Sample Rate / Frequency Response at least up to the maximum value, to better insure there is no "Digital Signal Aliasing". Also, scopes nearly always have higher Frequency Response than traditional power monitoring gear; which of course can make a huge diff with fast transients. So generally i would say "go with the storage scope", since even the lowest price ones have at least "20 MHz" F response these days. Perhaps the cheapest way to go is a PC-based scope with a "USB box" Front End. These often have very nice sample storage features for much less money than any stand-alone DSO (or a least the capability to "sample and hold", or "freezing" a screen for calc measurements and "screen saves").

If there is any physical circuity for performing the "RMS'ing" internal to the device (like a DMM has when set to "AC/RMS", which actually physically conditions the signal into a DC representation first, then displays the value), they the device will almost certainly fall down when reading non-repetitive transient spikes (and their Frequency Response is usually rather poor to boot).

I can't really  tell yet if this is the case with that Clarke-Hess unit or not; but in my experience, we only trusted the on-board or PC software generated math-based calcs in these cases for the above important reasons.   

Regarding the limitations of the Fluke 199: It shouldn't matter if it can do "Integrations" on board or not (because it can do "Averaging").... And with the non-repetitive waveform, it can simply be used in "sample and hold" mode to read the calcs. It has some significant features of a DSO; which in this case could be very useful, as captured data could be sent to a PC for all kinds of later analysis. And it does have the battery operation which gives it the "Differential / Isolated" input. In many ways it is ideal for this application.

Now you could do classic "Integrations" as mentioned if you wish once the data is captured and stored for later analysis, but since they are generally  "reset-time-based"  you would probably have to arbitrarily choose a reset time factor: 10 mS? 1 second? 5 seconds? 10 secs? Which "reset" time for Integration would be best to choose in other words.. So the significance of the result could be a little hard to understand, as it will probably simply appear as a constantly rising slope representing "accumulated" voltage over time up until it "resets" back to zero and starts climbing again... although it really wouldn't hurt to try it. 

Simple "Average" calc's should be sufficient for all this i think; and might be easier to interpret.

LeCroix' are very good scopes, imo (and used to be one of the most expensive on the market). As long as you keep the probe ground lead from any "floating" location: The problem with this issue is (mentioned a couple days ago), we do not yet know how tieing the whole circuit to Ground through the Wavetek's Signal Low, the scope's ground lead, or anywhere else affects it yet (...because this ground through one of the instruments might somehow keep the MOSFET from going into astable oscillation, who knows).   

And as far as me doing this myself lol; i would be happy to IF I HAD ANY OF THAT COOL STUFF

I realize that in our American consumer-based society, "Poverty" is a serious crime Well i'm guilty then, hehehe. No more fun toys to play with (except an old "Fluke 79" and a seriously broken Gould DSO that needs a CRT), i generally spend what cash i can get on stupid stuff like fixing the roof these days... But that doesn't mean i forgot how to use this stuff yet. Maybe some millionaire who wants to see "Free Energy" finally realized for Humankind, will help out and send me a well-stocked bench, lol. Or more likely, maybe my next job coming up will allow some after-hours testing with the project's equipment  

[TinselKoala]

Thanks, TK. Now if you could write up an unambiguous test procedure (protocol?) that any dummy having access (jibguy maybe?) to a Clarke-Hess 2335 could follow, we can proceed from there. Please use a subject line like I have here so the posts will be easier to find. I didn't want to start a new thread to hold this.

For the moment, as far as I know, the circuit in the Quantum article (and the equivalent gotoluc diagram) is the only baseline we have. So any references to test points in the procedure should be made relative to that circuit. The procedure can be amended later if a modified or different circuit is found to be more appropriate.

I would appreciate it if MileHigh could post the details of his test protocol here. Again, it should be explained in a step-by-step fashion using simple english terms that any dummy (like me) could follow.

You take the Clarke-Hess and hook it up to the Ainslie circuit on the input side, like an ammeter, in series. It sits there and measures realtime current and voltage and power factor while your circuit is working. So it reads the input power with low insertion loss. Then you take it and put it on the output between the Ainslie circuit and its load. The Clarke-Hess sits there with low insertion losses and measures the voltage and current and power factor coming out--hence being dissipated by the load. You take the second measurement and subtract it from the first. If the number is positive, that is the power loss in the circuit itself. If the number is negative, you have just discovered overunity performance.
It is done with smoke and mirrors--very tiny ones--which is why the unit costs so much. And I believe it would do a sufficiently good enough job in this case. The stuff jibguy is worried about might account for a couple percent inaccuracy. Not 1700 percent.

Now, Jibbguy.
About Aaron's video.

First, he is using a higher driving frequency and a 50 percent or so duty cycle. So his inductive ringdown with that Ohmite resistor--which I estimate between 160 and 200 microhenries--is much closer to the driving frequency than in the true Ainslie circuit like mine.

Bearing that in mind, please look at Aaron's video at 6:43, and in the region around 7:25.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Z84u7--u3Qw

Aaron's scope is losing trigger on a perfectly normal signal. The voltmeter reading drops because the slow irfpg50 is not fully on before it is being told to turn off.

I show a true parasitic oscillation riding on the mosfet drain signal here:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=igRqMU2r-v0

When you are done there, the video of my build of Aaron's circuit is uploading.

[ramset]

Well...
''When you are done there, the video of my build of Aaron's circuit is uploading''

This is VERY benevolent and above and beyond the call.
TK You are a Gem A pearl AAA.......One cool Dude ,and it helps that you can use the smarts God gave you, so well
Please post a link.
PS
TK
I don't know if you noticed but Rosemary is being denied access to the forum
I told her I would PM Stephan [perhaps you can][more appropriate]
this could have nothing to do with OU,, but still needs attention after all ,she is the Boss 
Chet