Claimed OU circuit of Rosemary Ainslie

[newbie123]

No, the real question here is this one: How can time be used as a fuel?

I think the real question is ...  Where are the COP 2+  measurements (or self running circuits) and replications to verify  the claim.  If it works, it works..  Who cares about theory.

[TinselKoala]

I think the real question is ...  Where are the COP 2+  measurements (or self running circuits) and replications to verify  the claim.  If it works, it works..  Who cares about theory.

That's right. And since there aren't any, we can conclude that the big claims were bogus.

@.99. You are so right. The cognitive distortions, while perhaps not completely deliberate, are so severe that the folks in question will not even acknowledge supportive results, if it comes from the wrong side of the fence. Aaron has lied about several things in this regard: Contrary to what he spews venomously on his thread, I have 1) reproduced the Ainslie time-temperature profile, such as it is 2) using an approx. 3.7 percent ON duty cycle, from a FG and from a 555 timer; and 3) I have produced oscillations in the mosfet, although they are now acknowledged by Aaron to be irrelevant (since he gets all effects without them now) and 4) I have done many power measurements at many different combinations of parameters and 5) I have done many DC control tests at various input power levels and 6) I have shown in at least 3 different ways that the battery does experience spikes from the circuit that transfer energy back to the battery from the circuit, in spite of the classical analyses by MH and others...BUT 7) they are right that these spikes cannot recharge the running battery because the energy in them came FROM THE BATTERY in the first place.
SO that's at least SEVEN claims that Aaron makes continually about me and my work that are false. He says I didn't and don't and can't and all the rest--when in fact I can and do and have done.

What I also have done is make the measurements quantitatively with good instrumentation and proper protocol. Thus, I can clearly see that there is the same energy out as in. The load heats, no matter the parameters, exactly in line with DC at the same average input power. Maybe a bit less, in fact, due to losses elsewhere in the circuit. Some of the energy leaving the battery comes back to it. A miniscule amount per cycle. I have measured it, I believe, fairly accurately with one particular configuration and can do so with others--but it's tiny, only a few percent of the "forward" energy. And again this is not unusual in oscillating circuits. All it means is that less energy is delivered to the load during some parts of a wave cycle, and more is delivered during other parts.
What it can do, is charge up a battery or a cap external to the circuit, or a weak one parallelled to the stronger running battery (a bad idea for a number of reasons.) But the charge on the battery or cap is coming from the other battery, not from "time" or the fullness of zipons in the seventh dimension.
No free energy, no COP>17.
My results so far are convincing. With the new 555 circuit from Peter and confirmation of the fact that MY WAVEFORMS ARE CORRECT and have been so all along, I will be able to generate even more convincing results. Results that fail, yes, FAIL to show any overunity when analyzed correctly, but which can easily be misinterpreted by known mistaken techniques improperly applied.

[newbie123]

That's right. And since there aren't any, we can conclude that the big claims were bogus.

I think it might be too early to conclude the claims are 100 percent bogus  ...  But there's just nothing real to talk about until there's a well documented experiment (or video even) that shows a self running circuit, ou measurements,  etc (assuming "ou" is even possible).  Until then, you guys are just arguing about speculation.   

[qiman]

This is what you are referring to?
Lie and make up results? Sorry if it was not clear to you, but that is not what I was trying to say exactly.

Swayed, manipulated, mis-treated in the context of a heavily biased position is what I meant. I do not expect or even think that you guys will deliberately lie or make up results. I just think the results might get mis-interpreted and used incorrectly; all because of bias, and wanting to believe so badly.

I'm not even accusing you guys of doing it on purpose, I'm just saying that I can see this happening. I see it happening already with your latest scope shots.

Anyway, just ignore me and everyone else Aaron, at least until folks have had a chance to review your officially submitted results. The only thing that counts are your results, if properly obtained. They will speak for themselves, and I have told Rosemary the very same thing. The same goes for TK or anyone else seriously doing the tests.

.99

I'm glad to hear that. I honestly really appreciate that. I see how you might think that. But yes, I can speak for myself personally but I believe the same for others, but I'll simply report the facts in my testing. I can accept that I'll interpret them one way and you'll interpret them in another. They may not be the same interpretation.

We're all waiting for TK's full published scientific report demonstrating his maximum  competence with non-equilibrium circuit knowledge and tuning ability.

I'm sure it will be in depth and absolutely becoming of a metrologist, according to his anagrammatic soul twin RAMSET. lol

TK was the second to jump on it with in depth reports (Skywatcher was the first to report anything and it was positive). So TK should pave the way with published results starting with his own. I owe him that much. He deserves it. He probably spent more time on it than me and already said he wanted to submit his paper for publication. Good luck to him.

[TinselKoala]

The paper will contain lots of stuff like this, and my raw data and spreadsheet analyses will be made available to anyone that wants to see them. And I take pictures of the pertinent waveforms, too.

The below comments apply to the Ainslie circuit, driven by the Datapulse 101 at 4.5 percent ON, clean 5 ns risetime pulses. The gate atten is turned slightly down to make a current "B" waveform similar to Aaron's, with a nice smooth voltage ringdown on the load point "A". Battery voltage went from 25.1 at the start to 24.9 at the end, and after 15 minutes sitting came back up to 25.1.

Now, as anyone can see from the graph below, the Ainslie circuit does not put as much of the input power to the load, as does a DC supply at about the same average power.

So the only hope for OU at these parameters is if the difference is put entirely back into the battery, and somehow is multiplied by at least a factor of ten.
And the only way that's going to happen is if someone does the multiplication themselves.
In error, of course. Or in willful misunderstanding.