Claimed OU circuit of Rosemary Ainslie

[Rosemary Ainslie]

The message I get from this, is that so far my results are a failure, useless and are meaningless. I would have to agree if the goal was to prove COP>1 and to achieve accurate measurements. However, I do believe that Fuzzy's results are as much of a failure as my own, and by that account should be equally discounted.

It should be noted however, that my measured POS values all check against one another, and that is by three methods, including the oscilloscope.

Again Rose, I am sincerely asking for your metric used for rating how good the results are in each case. How are the "gains" measured/computed?

.99

Poynt - I will not give the analysis you are looking for here.  I can refer to the results from the data and that is it.  You can do this, Harvey, MileHigh - anyone else.  But not me.  Surely you see this?

And your results are a failure - except in that they are accurate results of the test you conducted.  It would be nice to see more data.  But I trust your presentations.  You can redo the test a million ways and still come up with the same results.  So what?  That only gives us your results.  Your results are definitive according to your test.  We're hitting a blind spot here Poynt.  Here's an analogy.  The record for high jump is set at - let us say 8 meters.  Someone then scales 15 meters.  Many try to break that record.  Some claim it's impossible and the 15 meter mark was never breached.  Some claim to try for 15 meters and fail.  One or two people manage the 15 meters AND scale the new level AND their efforts were video'd.  Does the fact that the majority failed that level then discount the two that breached it?

[Rosemary Ainslie]

Poynt99

Can't you see that Rosemary is just playing a game with you and Fuzzy. You have already clearly shown that the circuit is under unity as was quite clear from the beginning!

Hoppy

Hoppy.  I am certainly NOT playing games.  This thing matters way too much.

Incidentally - I watched and thoroughly enjoyed that link.  Thanks for that. 

[Hoppy]

Poynt - I will not give the analysis you are looking for here.  I can refer to the results from the data and that is it.  You can do this, Harvey, MileHigh - anyone else.  But not me.  Surely you see this?

And your results are a failure - except in that they are accurate results of the test you conducted.  It would be nice to see more data.  But I trust your presentations.  You can redo the test a million ways and still come up with the same results.  So what?  That only gives us your results.  Your results are definitive according to your test.  We're hitting a blind spot here Poynt.  Here's an analogy.  The record for high jump is set at - let us say 8 meters.  Someone then scales 15 meters.  Many try to break that record.  Some claim it's impossible and the 15 meter mark was never breached.  Some claim to try for 15 meters and fail.  One or two people manage the 15 meters AND scale the new level AND their efforts were video'd.  Does the fact that the majority failed that level then discount the two that breached it?

Rosemary,

Question: Where is the evidence for the original 8 metres (COP 17 as I recall).

Hoppy

[MileHigh]

Harvey:

No I am not calling it quits based on Poynt's latest results.  But to see them discounted for unjustified reasons after all this time is totally wrong.  I think that his recent results coorelating the electrical power in and thermal power out are the first real results we have seen after all this time.

No one will have an identical replication and the argument that the replication has to be identical is false.  It seems to me that the "reference" schematic is the one that Aaron tweaked to give the proper duty cycle just two months ago.  Why should that modified schematic be the "reference" schematic?  At least he did not put his "added value" current limiting trimpot to the 555 supply in the schematic itself.

You are asking for Poynt to generate a sample each hour over a seven hour period.  There is no valid reason to do this Harvey.  I even made a posting a while back to Glen explaining to him why he was wasting his time doing his own six or seven hour tests only to generate redundant data.

Poynt's data is perfectly valid and it simply can't be discounted.  The ball is now in Glen's court.  He has all of his DSO recordings and his thermal profiling.  Unfortunately some or all of his DSO recordings are suspect showing negative battery power.  I distinctly remember him changing the orientation of his load resistor between tests though and he has to account for that with at least two sets of thermal profiling.  I don't think that he ever picked up on the fact that he needed to measure the temperature of the load resistor itself at the start of the test as the "ambient" temperature but that can be overcome by plotting his thermal profile data.

So the jury is still not out in the sense that we should all be willing to see more data.  In another sense the jury was out before this thread ever started and Poynt's data confirms this.

AC:

You have done a great job in answering the questions without really answering the questions.  Your battery treatise is just a bunch of verbage that does not answer the question.  Batteries and power supplies have a simple mission, to maintain the correct voltage across the load.  Same deal on your resistor treatise and if you are talking about the self-resonant frequency that is irrelevant for this circuit.  Ditto on the ground issue, you are way off.  Whether you are grounded or not, the only issue is the voltage difference across the two power input terminals of the circuit which is supplied by the power supply or battery.  It will make no difference if you are grounded or not, the load resistor will still see the same potential difference supplying energy to the circuit.   For a battery or an isolated power supply, you could have no earth ground connection, or connect the earth ground to the supply ground, or connect the earth ground to the supply +24 volts, it will make absolutely no difference and the circuit will operate in exactly the same way.

Rosemary:

I have just seen your post and am blown away by the efficiency of the argument.

Incorrect, AC threw some sentences together but none of what he said answered my questions and I'm not expecting a reply from Glen. 

Also like Poynt I went back to look at the #5 test and saw nothing of significance.  I don't know why you are focused on that test.  I am now reading your more recent comments and I can see that you want to be selective and cherry pick the results that appeal to you.  That is totally unscientific, don't lose your grip Rosemary.  Ironically also there is noting to cherry pick.  Poynt has produced valid data and Glen's DSO recordings for test #5 look out of kilter, he doesn't even have positive battery power delivered to the load based on Harvey's crunching.

MileHigh

[allcanadian]

@Milehigh
Quote:
"Whether you are grounded or not, the only issue is the voltage difference across the two power input terminals of the circuit which is supplied by the power supply or battery.  It will make no difference if you are grounded or not, the load resistor will still see the same potential difference supplying energy to the circuit.   For a battery or an isolated power supply, you could have no earth ground connection, or connect the earth ground to the supply ground, or connect the earth ground to the supply +24 volts, it will make absolutely no difference and the circuit will operate in exactly the same way."

Ok I see the problem here, you are confused about the topic of discussion. The "INPUT" - I N P U T - was never in question, we know and can say for certain that the resistive inductor is charged by the source as shown in every circuit. When the circuit is disrupted,stopped,opened,current flow ceases then the resistive inductor will discharge. The inductive discharge IS the topic of discussion for the last few pages of posts. Here is a simple experiment I am sure you can handle:
1)Take a coil of wire and attach an NE2 or suitable neon bulb to either side of the coil then to ground, next quickly connect and disconnect the coil (both wires) to even a low voltage battery--does the neon flash?
Yes it does, we know and can say for certain that a neon bulb will not light for no apparent reason therefore we can assume energy has discharged through the neon to ground through a single conductor.
2)Do the same experiment only this time replace the ground with either terminal (+) or (-) of a second battery, power supply or scrap of metal.--Does the neon flash?
Yes it does, we know and can say for certain that a neon bulb will not light for no apparent reason therefore we can assume energy has discharged through the neon to something else through a single conductor.

As a electronics wizard with 30 years experience I am sure you can find a battery of some sort, a small neon and a simple coil of wire from somewhere. It will take less than a few minutes of your time and then we can chat about why you think the components and circuit connections do not matter.

P.S.-- It should be noted that my son in grade one recently built a small PM motor for show and tell which utilizes this hoky-poky,mystic new age weirdo effect found in any physics textbook. A 3v battery charges the inductance turning the rotor, a reed switch disrupts the current flow and two 10mm LED's are lit to full brightness through a single wire attached to the coil, if he can do it I am confident that you can.
Regards
AC