Claimed OU circuit of Rosemary Ainslie

[AbbaRue]

I have said this before on another topic.
There may be laws of physics that prevent using the output of a device to power itself.
Because it somehow disrupts the effect.

But one could build multiple copies of the device and use the output from #1 to run #2
and the output from #2 to run #3. Then use the output from #3 to run #1, thus closing the loop.
There should be no laws of physics that prevent one from doing this.
If you have enough of the devices running off one another the close loop problems will widdle away. 

So before someone says they can't close the loop they should try this method first.

[WilbyInebriated]

I'm not spending my time complaining about scientific method, you are. With all of the BS you spew, you could have done the experiments 100x times by now.

And don't think we don't all know that if it wasn't a MOSFET you found to complain about, it would absolutely be something else. Kindly tell us how in the world a slight difference in a MOSFET could ever produce OU.

what BS is that? could you be specific? probably not

tk is just getting what he gives, you can cry about it all you want, it won't change the fact that his method is shoddy, assumption is his usual measurement and he lies when his errors are exposed.
perhaps you can show where tk "predicted from inspection of..."? probably not

[newbie123]

Hey TK:

It will be interesting to see how this all ends.  I have a feeling we are going out on a whimper.  Aaron's MO is to only respond to one in ten issues that arrive from his statements and his clips.  For example, he took down the "proof of oscillation" video that was noting more than him looking at Moiré patterns and thinking he was looking at the MOSFET in oscillation.  He stated that he was going to have it double-checked or something at report back.  In fact he will never report back and conveniently forget it.  Another example that comes to mind is the two day period where he was convinced that avalanche breakdown was directly related to "oscillation" and he started issuing proclamations about this to the minions and even marked up his schematics.  I don't think that we will ever hear from Aaron about avalanche breakdown again, nor will any of the participants in the thread ever say anything about the lack of follow-up on the oscillation video or the avalanche breakdown issue.  Hence, this one will go out with a big whimper and nobody will say anything.

Almost no one on his web site seems to want to hold him accountable for this kind of stuff and nobody ever seems to question a "proclamation."  So .99's endgame scenario will probably come true and nobody on the Energetic Forum will have anything critical to say, the whole thing will just fade into obscurity.

Now we all know what they do to you in Singapore if you dare to spit your chewing gum out onto the sidewalk, can't forget that.

MileHigh

Bizarre behavior isn't it?    Instead of doing the right thing, and admitting they're wrong (to prevent more confusion) ...   Some folks such as Aaron will just jump to something else, and basically change the subject... and essentially mislead people.

It's no wonder Energeticforum.com has 100s of threads that tout "Free Energy!"  and NOT ONE single excess energy measurement or conclusion....   They just fade way with 1000s posts of speculation just as the "COP 17" thread will...

[Asymatrix]

what BS is that? could you be specific? probably not

tk is just getting what he gives, you can cry about it all you want, it won't change the fact that his method is shoddy, assumption is his usual measurement and he lies when his errors are exposed.
perhaps you can show where tk "predicted from inspection of..."? probably not

The BS is feigning ignorance and claiming that the thorough science/analysis is somehow wrong because of the slightest variation with a MOSFET. That assertion alone actually proves beyond a doubt that you are trolling.

And it's funny that you wanted TK to use a MOSFET off ebay. Imagine that, all this BS about accuracy, and you'd be fine with a God-knows-what spec MOSFET off eBay.....

[TinselKoala]

What in the world is Harvey up to?

Notwithstanding the initial 1.8A capacitor current spike, if we were to take the 800ma of current as a flat line (worst case scenario) and multiply it by the source power for the 200ms duration we find that we draw 3.84 Watt Seconds out of our source. Now, if we evaluate loosely, the inductor power from 468 Watts down to zero (which it didn't quite reach) over the next 200ms, we end up with 33.08 Watt Seconds. [(468 / 2) *.707 * 0.2]

Where does the apparent gain come from?

Erp, Harvey. 

How do you get Watt-seconds from multiplying "source power" times "current" times "time"? But never mind, you probably meant source voltage, not source power.

And at the end there, you aren't computing energy correctly.

Or is that the point?

(Edit--maybe I see what you mean. You are trying to say that the average power dissipated during the second 200 ms is somehow greater than the average power delivered in the first 200 ms. But it isn't. The power dissipated in the ringdown is not represented by the height of the spikes, thus it is not represented by an average or rms value derived from the waveform. It is rather the rate of decay of the exponential envelope that represents the power dissipated. The ringdown, as you well know, is just the same energy sloshing back and forth between capacitances and inductances. If nothing were dissipated, the ringdown would not decay. A little is lost to heat in every cycle, though, so the ORIGINAL ENERGY that was input is dissipated over a long time, and the rate of dissipation is represented by the rate of the exponential decay envelope. Not by the average or rms value of the ringdown waveform. Right?)

Second edit: I can't quite figure out what Harvey is getting at. Perhaps I'm totally misinterpreting what he's trying to say.
But I do know this: He's winding up with an answer in Joules, or watt-seconds, which is energy, so he's comparing energy in during the first 200 ms with an energy value that he computes from what happens during the second 200 ms... but in the second case, where he computes it by taking the rms value of a power waveform times the time, that is not equivalent to integrating the power waveform over that time. So it isn't an energy value that represents any real quantity. It's not the power dissipated in that time period; it's a false addition of the same energy (that in the first peak) over and over to itself (because of the rms sign flipping), minus just a little each cycle for dissipation...
The true state of affairs in the ringdown is this:the area under that first cycle peak, or spike, represents the energy in the system of L and C. It sloshes back and forth, the sign of the current changing every half cycle, and a little going away as heat with each cycle. The energy goes one way, then it comes back, then it goes one way, then it comes back. It's the same energy. It decreases a bit with each cycle. Harvey, and Rosemary too, seem to want to add the energy to itself with every cycle, and call it a gain. But if you compute the total energy over the entire ringdown, you see that the area of the first peak is just what all the little decreases in each subsequent peak add up to, until the thing flatlines. That is, the total input energy (represented by the area of the first cycle's peak) is dissipated over the whole of the ringdown.