Claimed OU circuit of Rosemary Ainslie

[TinselKoala]

There are "points" that your skeptical group bring up - and is on record to show how much you, Poynt, Tinsel Koala and any other skeptics have a strong consistency in being wrong and making false claims.

   1. TK's (Tinsel Koala) claim the Quantum article timer is wrong (FACT - it works)

The REAL FACT: I said that the QUANTUM circuit produces an inverted duty cycle and cannot be made, using the specified componets, to make a 3.5 percent ON duty cycle. This is a fact and has been confirmed, by now, MANY times.

   2. TK's claim the Quantum article circuit won't oscillate (FACT - it does)

No evidence has been shown, Aaron. Your scope shots continue to be ininformative garbage.

   3. TK's claim the oscillation is a red herring (FACT - it isn't)

Yet heating and battery charging and ALL the other effects cited by Rosemary in the papers can be produced without "oscillation"...just not OU. Right. Plus there's that pesky lack of demonstrated oscillation, even from you....

   4. Poynt99 and Poynt's claim there is NO AC in this circuit at all (FACT - there is in the load inductive resistor)

Now you are distorting .99's points, and he can deal with that himself. But it's clear from your statements and your use of the scope that you do not understand AC, DC, DC offset, ripple, and so forth yourself.

   5. All claims the diode can't help charge input battery (FACT - it does)

Once again, distortions. The diode "helps" in the sense that MH explained above. And slowing a discharge rate is NOT the same as recharging. And the parameters under which the diode helps, and how much, and what kind of diode to use are now known...because of certain experiments performed and reported by ME (and ignored by the Ainslie crewe).

   6. All claims the spikes will damage the mosfet and that the ringing should be stopped (FACT - this mosfet IRFPG50 is designed EXACTLY for this kind of application)

Who said the mosfet would be damaged by ringing? Not me. Please provide a reference.
We have said that ringing is a power LOSS mechanism in the mosfet.

   7. All claims that the spike would be too small to be significant (FACT - on a decent circuit the voltage is 4 times the input voltage, it charges batteries or caps - it is VERY significant)

Voltage is not power, power is not energy, trala. And you are displaying once again your ignorance of this issue. If you like voltage, I have shown you how to get it--use a different mosfet and diode, for one thing.

   8. All claims that when the mosfet is off, the battery cannot conduct and therefore won't receive a charge (FACT - the diode in the mosfet allows just this exact current conduction as it is designed to do this!)

Reference please--I certainly never made any such claim and I don't recall seeing anyone else making it. What does the state of the mosfet have to do with whether the battery can or cannot conduct? You are incoherent, once again.

   9. All claims that the spike will disappear with improved circuit connections, etc... (FACT - it only makes the spike bigger)

Again you are confused. The spikes are a result of well-known phenomena; nobody claims that better circuit connections will make them go away; it is your "random aperiodic oscillations" that, if they exist, will be corrected by better build technique. More straw man argument on your part.

  10. All claims that the inductive resistor will change resistance as it heats up will throw off all the numbers (FACT - these resistors are made to be VERY ACCURATE at these operating temperatures. That is the whole point. They can be within 5% across a WIDE range of temperatures but the most discrepancy will be when they are extremely cold (way below ambient - or way too hot - this demonstrates the skeptics knowledge of this kind of resistor is completely lacking)

Once again you are wrong. The resistance changes MEASURABLY in your Ohmite resistor from room temperature to operating temperature. You might see it remain at 10 ohms with your measuring tools. You probably believed Mylow when he measured his magnet spacing with a digital caliper, too. You have no idea what precision measurement entails, nor do you understand the Temperature Coefficient of Resistance. It is your partial knowledge in this area that is misleading you into sticking your foot in your mouth over and over.

  11. Skeptics claim that a battery capacitance analyzer is an accurate way to determine battery capacitance for load testing and this supposedly makes the actual draw down tests unnecessary. (FACT - they are good only for sorting through batteries to see which ones need replacing or not. They are in NO WAY AT ALL - an accurate way to see what a battery will deliver.)

Again, you must be talking about a group of Straw Skeptics. Nobody I know would disagree with you on this one. But everybody I know would also put your "measurements" in this category as well.

  12. When skeptics analyzed my waveform of the shunt - it was determined all the ringing was above the 0 line in the positive including the bottom half of the ringing. (FACT - The middle of the positive and amplitude of the ringing after the negative spike is in fact the zero line - and by not knowing this, they admit they don't understand how to read a waveform.)

Again, I don't know what waveform analysis you are talking about, since you have such difficulty showing waveforms in a consistent and coherent way. All I've seen from you is uninterpretable garbage, so you can't be referring to my analysis here. And you've shown many times Aaron that you don't know how to even display, much less interpret a waveform.

  13. The skeptics claimed that the ringing cancels out any charging effect the negative spike will give. (FACT - The negative spike reduces what the battery delivers in net - the ringing down itself cancels itself out as far as battery charging ability but provides extra heat to the coil.)

Which is what I said, and what I showed on the LeCroy. Your skeptics must be on some other channel.
I also showed that the return of energy to the battery is very small, on the order of 1 to 10 percent of the energy DELIVERED BY THE BATTERY IN THE FIRST PLACE.
You are really reaching for those straws, now.

There are a LOT more.

Bring it on.

But be sure to include references, since you so often "interpret" what people are actually saying.

You are a liar, you distort the positions of others, you use classic straw man arguments, and you are simply and quite obviously WRONG most of the time.

[TinselKoala]

Aaron, your recent scope shots using the digital scope (a Fluke?) are a lot better. You are still showing a bit of false triggering but I see your "oscillations" and I agree that these are not a false signal FROM THE SCOPE.

Your circuit is still not "oscillating" in the sense normally understood. It is likely that it is responding to just what the 555 timer is sending it. A more informative set of scope traces would be to show the 555 timer output (not pin 3 but the total 555 circuit output, where it hooks to the gate attenuator) on one trace and the simultaneous load signal (your bottom right picture) on the other trace.

Now, you also must face this issue: The timer circuit in the Quantum article does not produce this behaviour, your original 555 circuit does not, several other 555 variants that I have tried do not, a function generator does not, a pulse generator does not...only the circuit you are using now, does. So what relevance does this have to the Rosemary Ainslie circuit, which she has said can be driven by any clock, including a FG?

And please, post your scope shots as individual jpgs or pngs, and put the text in the post rather than on the image. It is very difficult to read an image that is 3 times as wide as my screen. Of course, most of what you say in the text of your picture is wrong anyway. But one may safely ignore the text, since the only significant shot is the one on the bottom right.

Now, Aaron. To display a signal properly, we only want to see one or two cycles on the screen, not a whole row of them, unless there's some point to make--like your little red lines (but what about the other spike envelopes--like the DECREASING ONE just to the left? And what about aliasing? Look carefully at how that screen displays its images, and you might learn something useful.)
So, one or two complete cycles, with horizontal (timebase) and vertical (voltage) settings in view or given in text. Also some details about the circuit would be nice. "My circuit" isn't enough. "Ainslie circuit, 555 timer as here, load as here, main batt voltage here, waveform taken at Ainslie's Point A". Something like that.
Then one might be able actually to interpret the data, rather than having to filter the undigested kernels from the rest of the crap.

[TinselKoala]

Oh, and Aaron, you might want to check the Fluke manual for the meaning of those big letters on the display that say:

OL


If that's Rosemary's newly-repaired Fluke0Scope, you should be more careful.

Also, the fact that you have the scope set to display "Volts RMS" where you do is laughable.

[Hoppy]

Aaron

You highlight the results of my basic measuremnt test in red and post them on your EF as if you really believe that these measurements are accurate enough to confirm that the my system is running overunity. Of course its not! This test was done simply to take measurements using basic measuring instruments. I can assure you that when taken using very accurate measuring methods, these two figures will reverse. The figures quoted simply shows that the power levels between 'control' and 'circuit' are close, not the ridiculous 16x higher than being claimed by you and Rosemary.

Hoppy

[jibbguy]

It is not "laughable" to display an RMS reading in this case, especially across the heating element/ shunt resistor.

Are you suggesting that only DC power will heat it, and spikes of both polarities won't?

Or are you just attacking anything you can get away with?