Claimed OU circuit of Rosemary Ainslie

[TinselKoala]

Well, to quote meatloaf "Two out of three ain't bad"

And you know precisely why I'm disappointed in what your doing here. The whole reason Rosemary had the engineers build this circuit was to see in her theory panned out or not. That was what...in 1998?. When they found a COP>17 naturally they concluded she was on to something, filed for a patent and tried to have it confirmed by academia. Failing to have the matter properly addressed she managed to get it tested by the guys at Quantum. When they got the same results the article was published. Then it just died on the vine. From her perspective she has something worthwhile and she's banging heads with a bunch of thick skulls that wouldn't know a true anomaly if it rattled and bit 'em in the butt. And then you come along and kick her while she's down. Did you really expect me to do anything less than evaluate the matter in depth? And with all your experience, you know precisely what a multifrequency harmonic overlay looks like on a scope and your waving your hands around jabbering 'lost triggers'. Of course it didn't set well with me. And isn't your own words that insisted on "exact replication" as the only true measure for falsifying the whipmag? But you kluge who knows what together, even misrepresenting the 555 schematic as having an inverted signal and try to pass it off as a valid comparative analysis of her original work. You know full well that the values of those control pots allow full latitude of the pulse adjustment.

Whoa, I just fell off my soap box - now I lost my train of thought. And why are you up so early? o.O
Well on that note, I'm gunna hit the racks.

Harvey, it appears that you are badly misinformed. It's understandable that you think what you do since you are working with bad information.

First, the 555 timer. Build it for yourself. It performs as I have indicated many times. It CANNOT be adjusted to make the shorter duty cycles using the component values specified. This has been confirmed by many others, including even Joit. Your saying that I know "full well" implies that I am misleading about this issue--look and see how many times I doubted myself and asked for others to build and check my findings!!! When people finally did they confirmed that I was and am right.

Build it yourself and see.

Second, if you look at the original discussions with Rosemary when I first reported this, you will see that they were (and are still ) confused about the signal at the mosfet Drain being HIGH (batt voltage) when the mosfet is OFF. This is related to the 555 issue.

Third, it is more and more certain that the "oscillations" reported are lost triggers on the scope. I have a lot of experience with the Fluke 199, I daresay more than Rosemary, and it's really not a very good oscilloscope as these things go, and certainly Aaron has demonstrated his incompetence with scopes and scope signals many times.
His last set of videos shows this particularly well--no, wait, he's altered the past again...that vid is gone.

Fourth, you are misrepresenting the experiment. The Quantum article and the EIT pdf are describing the EXACT SAME EXPERIMENTAL RUNS, not two different instances. Look at the numbers, if you can stand to.

Fifth, no independent replications of the COP>17 or any of that was done. Rosemary's "vetting" consists of calibrations for the scope and other instruments, verification of the values of the components, and so forth, and NO RECORD EXISTS of any other vetting or overunity.

You see, the story here is like the story of the Patent. She
wants people to think she's got a patent; only when pressed will she acknowledge that it is only a filed application with no vetting whatsoever. And when she talks about other labs "confirming her findings" that's not what they did at all. They confirmed her resistor was 10 ohms, and the like, and they did NOT bother to issue her a written report. But she talks about this as if some respected lab tested her circuit and found it to be overunity. It did not happen that way, Harvey.

My "kluge" of who knows what as you call it, is the most accurate replication of what AINLSIE HAS REPORTED in her papers. And I am able to reproduce her HEAT PROFILE, and most of her other numbers.  And it has been shown time and time again, by me and by others who know, that using Rosemary's calculation and logic, one can come up with large OU figures, for MY configuration, as well as hers. But when measured CORRECTLY and analyzed correctly, there is no OU, of course.

Harvey, you need another drink. It's not like you to misrepresent and misunderstand facts like in the above post. And wasn't it your "exact as possible" replication of the "wimpmag" what enabled you to realize what its explanation was? So too, my "as exact as possible" replication of Ainslie's work that allows me to understand how it is in error--for in error it certainly is.


You might like to look at the two Ainlsie threads on the Naked Scientists Forum. Your "depth evaluation" is actually quite shallow, I'm surprised you can see at all through all the mud you're kicking up.

I invite you to build the circuit for yourself and test it however you like, before you take sides in the matter. I would tend to believe you, if you posted a scope shot of a random aperiodic Hartley resonance oscillation.

Or is that a "Harvey" oscillation--big and fuzzy, but invisible when looked at closely?


I can even arrange to send you a mosfet or two, if you like.

Not blown ones, either...or is it now deemed necessary to use damaged components to achieve the Ainslie Effect?

[TinselKoala]

Below are two scope shots taken at 10V / 0.1ms across the inductive resistor with probe on + rail.


The first is taken DC coupled and the second AC coupled.

Hoppy

@Hoppy: Are you quite sure of that?
That looks to me much more like a shot of the voltage drop across the current viewing shunt resistor.

[Hoppy]

@Hoppy: Are you quite sure of that?
That looks to me much more like a shot of the voltage drop across the current viewing shunt resistor.

Hi TK

Yes. There's virtually no inductance in my resistor, so I doubt there's much in Aarons, although my resistor is physically smaller. I cannot see how any spikes from these resistors can do anything to boost real power!

Hoppy

[TinselKoala]

Hi TK

Yes. There's virtually no inductance in my resistor, so I doubt there's much in Aarons, although my resistor is physically smaller. I cannot see how any spikes from these resistors can do anything to boost real power!

Hoppy

I am quite confused then. We are talking about the LOAD and not the current-viewing shunt, right?

Have you measured the inductance in your resistor? I have measured an Ohmite resistor similar to Aaron's and find it to have 0.150-0.200 milliHenry, not a negligible amount and about 20 times what Ainslie specifies.  The inductance, however, makes little difference in the gross features of the signal.

The signal at Ainslie point A, the positive rail side of the load resistor, should be at battery voltage when the mosfet is OFF and when the mosfet is ON it should read somewhat less--but certainly not zero.

However, at the shunt resistor, when the mosfet is off you should get zero voltage and when the mosfet is on you should get something like 500 millivolts to 1500 millivolts depending on the value of your shunt. I get 600 mV with 0.25 ohms, at the Ainslie frequency and duty cycle.

[Hoppy]

I am quite confused then. We are talking about the LOAD and not the current-viewing shunt, right?

Have you measured the inductance in your resistor? I have measured an Ohmite resistor similar to Aaron's and find it to have 0.150-0.200 milliHenry, not a negligible amount and about 20 times what Ainslie specifies.  The inductance, however, makes little difference in the gross features of the signal.

The signal at Ainslie point A, the positive rail side of the load resistor, should be at battery voltage when the mosfet is OFF and when the mosfet is ON it should read somewhat less--but certainly not zero.

However, at the shunt resistor, when the mosfet is off you should get zero voltage and when the mosfet is on you should get something like 500 millivolts to 1500 millivolts depending on the value of your shunt. I get 600 mV with 0.25 ohms, at the Ainslie frequency and duty cycle.

I too get about 0.6V across my 0.25R shunt.

Hoppy