Claimed OU circuit of Rosemary Ainslie

[qiman]

The recent posting of Aaron's (or rather Peter's) 555 timer circuit, that "will" make a 3.7 percent ON duty cycle, is FINALLY an admission from the Ainslie camp that the ORIGINAL circuit, as published in the Quantum article, and as referenced in the EIT.pdf paper, CANNOT under any circumstances perform as Ainslie claimed in those documents.

Here is where you continue to not tell the truth and deceive people as usual.

I never said my 555 circuit is the quantum circuit. But the quantum circuit WILL work a it works at ANY duty cycle.

This is NO admission of a fault with the quantum article circuit. Does it do 3%? I don't know because I'm not interested in building that circuit.

I post this because this is what I happen to be using and that is it. It is what it is and not the fiction you're creating in your mind about it and spewing to everyone else.

Your very pathological in the truest sense.

@Poynt99

Disagreements on EF is one thing but to insinuate that any of us will lie and make up results is really pathetic. You should be ashamed of yourself.

[qiman]

And I am still waiting for some apology or at least acknowledgement that I was right about this issue ALL ALONG, since 6 weeks or so ago. And this was the issue that got me dissed and kicked off energeticforum

No, what got you kicked off isn't your disagreement. It was your belligerent, arrogant and egotistical attitude and your personal attacks that had nothing to do with the issues at hand.

You could be right about that circuit not doing 3%, I don't know. I choose to use a circuit that I already know for a fact does produce 3.7% and 2.4kHz.

What you are absolutely wrong about is that 97% duty cycle will not give results and it will.

[TinselKoala]

@TK
Quote: post #758
"It is clearly no longer possible to consider rational discussion with R&A. They can both of them just make things up out of dreams or science fiction."

LOL, this science fiction you speak of is in fact an integral part of all modern physics, not the simplistic BS many are taught in highschool however. I would suggest reading James Clerk Maxwells--"A dynamical theory of the electromagnetic field" and "On physical lines of force", I found both very enlightening. If you have issues with this I will save you some time. All energy in all forms relates to motion, an applied force over a distance, this work a function of time. Time a measure of change to be considered in both a relative and an absolute sense. Therefore you cannot hope to consider nor understand energy in any sense of the word without first understanding time in a relative sense as it always relates to everything else. Now tell me, How can you hope to understand the nature of the energy in and around your circuits without first understanding "what" energy is fundamentally?. Maybe you should also ask yourself why you have pre-judged certain person's based on your lack of knowledge and not necessarily their's. Time is energy as it is inseperable from it, as is space. Hence the term space/time as a fundamental description of all energy in any form it may take. If you are such a wizz at this maybe you can answer this simple question for me-- what is electricity? This simple question would seem more relavent to the circuit in question than any other as fundamentally it applies to every aspect of it.
Regards
AC

No, the real question here is this one: How can time be used as a fuel?
Please show me some serious peer-reviewed references--just a single one will do-- that shows how time can be used as a power source. Or that "time" flows.

And I don't have to understand the nature of energy. All I have to do is to be able to replicate results that were generated by a simple method, and confirm their analysis. So far, the results I am getting are quite in line with the published experimental results from Ainslie. And this data, when correctly analyzed, indicates an efficiency of the circuit to be much less than 1700 percent. In fact it is somewhat less than 100 percent.

None of this requires that I "understand" the nature of energy. Rosemary doesn't, you don't, I don't, Aaron doesn't. Anyone who says they do is mistaken or lying.

All that it requires is that I understand the RELATIONSHIPS between certain quantities, including ELAPSED TIME aka DURATION. And that I do.
Energy is the time integral of the instantaneous power waveform. The instantaneous power waveform is computed by multiplying each voltage sample by each synchronous current sample.

The resolution of my sampling (1 GHz LeCroy 9370M DSO) is 500,000,000 samples/second. The frequency being sampled is 2400 cycles per second. A possible higher frequency of oscillation is in the 1.6 MegaHertz range. So for each cycle of the waveforms I can use between 300 and 200,000 voltage and current samples to compute the instantaneous power waveform. For EACH CYCLE.

Anslie's figures were taken from a spreadsheet analysis that included, by her statements, 5 or even 6 samples per cycle, and her analysis technique was developed, apparently, without the conceptual aid of the Calculus.

The Fluke ScopeMeter 199 has a bandwidth of 200 Mhz and a sample rate at the timebase setttings used of 20 Megasamples/sec, or one-twentyfifth that of the LeCroy. In addition, the LeCroy does trace integration on board in real time using numerical methods and all the bandwidth it has available, whereas the Fluke cannot do this, and must export its data to a spreadsheet for manual SELECTION and ANALYSIS. To make the process at all wieldy, only a small number of samples can be analyzed this way.

One does not need to understand electricity to know that the light will come on when I flick the switch, all other things being normal. And one does not need to grok the fullness of the seventh dimension to be able accurately to measure a circuit that produces SEVENTEEN TIMES more energy out than in.

And I'd still like to see you fill your tank with time, and drive off.

[qiman]

Did you read that attached .pdf? No, of course not. Perhaps you can tell us, Err-on, what RMS power is and what it means.
I provide you with documentation, all you provide is asininity.

I have indeed not been able to achieve COP>1 with this circuit. Neither have you.

Do I now have the correct waveform to use? Is that a scope shot of the GATE of the mosfet? And made using your new 555 timer from Peter?

Where is the random aperiodic oscillation that was so important last week?

You can't even be consistent with your misinformation, Err-on.

Listen non-monk man,

My original oscillations came easy with using higher frequencies.
At lower frequencies, it is more difficult to get it into the same
oscillation.

Unlike you, I do things methodically when I actually do my real tests.

First no oscillation and zero resistance. Then full testing with smoothed
out ring, then with no ringing. It is obvious what to use. And all at 2.4kHz
with no oscillation. Then I'll do the same tests with oscillation.

I do these long tests with each little tuning change on the circuit so I
can see what actually happens instead of jumping to conclusions like you
and your friends in the peanut gallery. "Spike dosen't charge", etc... what
a bunch of rotten bologna.

I do things point by point and have NOT reported any results and any
of your claims of what results I'm seeing from you is complete fabrication
as usual. Please don't hate me because I know what I'm doing and I actually
use a very systematic and methodological approach to each part. You seem
to throw a bunch of mud on the wall and see what sticks. That isn't science,
it is a three ring circus.

Everything I have posted is random so far in each step of the investigation
but none of this has anything to do with power comparisons. I have posted
what I posted so far to help people and not to confuse them like you.

Those are scope shots of the SHUNT. Over a 0.05 ohm calibrated shunt.

rms is root mean squared and I know how it is applied. Play your games
as usual but it doesn't change the fact that the scope takes the real
readings and considers the spike coming back.

The FACT is, I know what the true power measurement is and how to
obtain it. I know what I mean and I know what I intend and anyone
that is reasonable will see this perfectly well.

The MYTH - this is you wanting to distract people with your dog and pony show
of rhetoric so that anyone with low self esteem and low comprehension of
the facts will be distracted by the fact that I don't use the same technical
jargon to explain the same thing. But that has nothing to do with the FACT
listed above.

When you have no value in your argument and you have apparently lost,
you resort to name calling, disrespecting all of our names, etc... I've known lots
of monks and you sir have disgraced the very concept.

[qiman]

And I don't have to understand the nature of energy.

ROFLMAO . And you don't have to get results either!!

If you do actually understand the nature of the energy, you will GROK the essence of what the circuit is all about and will know how to tune it to do what you want it to do. LOL

Take care,
From: The Grokmeister