Claimed OU circuit of Rosemary Ainslie

[Harvey]

I agree and have mentioned it to Rose. Apparently they have done some number crunching, but I have not seen it.

.99

You can crunch this very easily yourselves the file is available to all. The time is in the left column. If you do not have excel you can download a viewer from Microsoft or use the open source Sun Microsystems version "Open Office".

Cheers,

[poynt99]

The folly of powering the 555 switch from the same supply, or even a seperate supply with a common earth (star earth) is that it makes analysis of the resulting complex waveforms very difficult. It makes much more sense to me if the switching is opto isolated, so that the discharge can be studied without the added complication of the effects that the 555 common power connection present.

Hoppy

The 555's direct connection to the MOSFET is what makes the "magic" appear. Without the 555, this circuit would never go into funky oscillation mode. It has nothing to do with Hartley oscillation, nor the MOSFET itself, it's the feedback from the MOSFET Drain that causes the 555 to retrigger. It's interesting that some have had difficulty getting this mode of operation, where with my setup it is almost the contrary.

The good news is that I can easily obtain a stable/clean or retriggering-type oscillation from my build, so I am confident I can test all scenarios. While in the "one" funky mode (there are a few), the retriggering is indeed aperiodic, but the overall oscillation is periodic. Therefore, I would call this mode a "quasi-aperiodic" oscillation.

Anyway, I'll have wave forms later on to show clearly what I'm saying here

.99

[Hoppy]

The 555's direct connection to the MOSFET is what makes the "magic" appear. Without the 555, this circuit would never go into funky oscillation mode. It has nothing to do with Hartley oscillation, nor the MOSFET itself, it's the feedback from the MOSFET Drain that causes the 555 to retrigger. It's interesting that some have had difficulty getting this mode of operation, where with my setup it is almost the contrary.

The good news is that I can easily obtain a stable/clean or retriggering-type oscillation from my build, so I am confident I can test all scenarios. While in the "one" funky mode (there are a few), the retriggering is indeed aperiodic, but the overall oscillation is periodic. Therefore, I would call this mode a "quasi-aperiodic" oscillation.

Anyway, I'll have wave forms later on to show clearly what I'm saying here

.99

I must admit having read back my post, it does come over nonsensical given that as you say its obvious that without the 555 direct connection the various 'funky' effects would not show. I think my brain is starting to go a bit funky at the moment thinking about the various test results posted, so I'll take a rest and recharge my own batteries!

Lets hope that Rosemary was right all along and can claim that elusive OU prize.

Hoppy

[Rosemary Ainslie]

Hoppy - I understand the prize comes with the requirement for perpetual motion.  I am reasonably sure that this circuit has nothing to do with perpetual motion.  So.  No.  I will not be applying for a prize.  Frankly the only prize here would be if the claim made some more effective inroads into mainstream than I've managed to date.  And if so, it's entirely due to Fuzzy's impeccable testing standards. 

[poynt99]

Rose,

Could you or anyone please indicate how the power calculation is being performed from the posted data from Glen?

Could someone explain what the "strong negative average on the battery power" statement is based on?

All the average numbers posted are "positive" so what's missing? I have not seen anything illustrating how exactly the numbers are being crunched, so we are left to speculate.

If one were to multiply the average shunt current times the average battery voltage (not sure this is what they are doing), then this comes to an average power of 6 Watts from the battery.



.99