Claimed OU circuit of Rosemary Ainslie

[poynt99]

Interesting that my new meter measures almost bang on to the theoretical values for both my inductive resistors (20mm used in my tests, and 30mm not yet tested)

There's definitely something not right with the published Ainslie resistor specifications however.

.99

[poynt99]

Published Ainslie resistor specs:

- 10 Ohm ceramic wire-wound
- Length 150mm
- Diameter 32mm
- No. of Turns 48
- Turns spacing 1mm
- Inductance 8.64uH

If we input the dimensional specs as published, we get an inductance of 14.12uH.

Both my resistors have a turns spacing of 2mm, so it is curious why such a long core was used for the Ainslie resistor when the spacing is apparently only 1mm?

My estimate is that only about 55mm of the 150mm core was used if in fact the 1mm spacing spec is correct. This would yield quite a different theoretical inductance of 33.46uH as shown.

Fuzzy, what are the dimensional specs for your resistor?

.99

[poynt99]

Hi .99

I'm sure you as being one of the replicators agree the RA COP>17 circuit to make heat is a easy task but the hard part is to do it the most efficient way which is how I approached this project. I cannot say how important it is for anyone wanting to get results in any gains is by "fine" adjustments to the "gate" potentiometer in the 5 to 7 ohm range monitoring the battery voltage with a DMM to get the "HIGHEST" 24Volt battery bank voltage possible, watching the gate potentiometer backlash and getting the "LOWEST" mV reading from 40 to 80 mV on the oscilloscope probe tip between the Mosfet source and the shunt resistor.

I assume you are referring to the "mean" value as indicated for the shunt wave form?

The store bought resistor is impossible to get to these low Mosfet source pin readings and I will be making a even larger diameter 10 ohm prototype resistor to see if the possible gains can be greater yet.

If you are using the same resistive wire to make this new larger diameter resistor and you retain the same turns spacing, the inductance should decrease as you should have fewer turns.

I have ordered a "non-inductive" 0.25 ohm 1% resistor for the shunt from "Caddock"  http://www.caddock.com/  it's the same resistor that "Groundloop" is using and shown in his assembled PC board http://www.energeticforum.com/67009-post2474.html  it appears to be a P/N:  MP930-0.25-1%  http://www.caddock.com/Online_catalog/Mrktg_Lit/MP9000_Series.pdf

That's a step in the right direction

There is also some problems using the PCB mounted cermet type trimmer potentiometers as the tolerance is between 10 to 20% and the "Vishay" 10-turn SP534 potentiometers that I use http://www.vishay.com/docs/57065/533534.pdf  are a 5% tolerance which should minimize the readings jumping around as they do in the gate ohm ranges I've indicated.

The tolerance is only a rating of how close the theoretical resistance value is to the actual production value. It has no bearing on whether the value will jump around or not. The pot's power rating will have more of an effect on that, but thermal and hence resistance changes are relatively slow.

Are you aware that this potentiometer you are using for the Gate resistance is wire-wound, and hence it will have a great deal of inductance? 

As far as the "filter" you suggest ....... as long as it is a circuit that most members agree upon and documented properly I see no problem with me trying it after the changed "non-inductive" shunt resistor testing happens.

In the future prolonged testing I will include if I can the temperatures of the components again as  they appear to possibly be of interest and could be used in further testing if actually required.

Fuzzy
   

Glad to hear that.

.99

[Rosemary Ainslie]

   Hi Poynty

I've answered your post 2486 - on energetic forum.   Herewith that copy for those who don't access Energetic Forum.

Poynt - I'm answering you - your post 2486 - on this thread as I'd like to put these points on record.

You state that there is an 'incredible and fundamental flaw' to this approach - with reference to my statement that the quantification of heat dissipated at sundry components other than the load resistor is largely irrelevant. This is perhaps because you are still unfamiliar with the thesis of that paper.

The object of the tests is to determine whether energy delivered by a supply source is dissipated at sundry components connected to the supply in line with classical assumption. Therefore - if the sum of dissipated energies measured on circuit components equals or approximates the energy delivered by the supply then that points to an equivalence in the transfer of energy - in line with classical prediction. However, if there is evidence that the amount of energy delivered is less than the amount of energy dissipated - then that points to a conflict with classical prediction which, in turn, begs the question.

I might add that the thesis referred to proposes that current flow is a primary event. Subject to the availability of circuit components providing a closed circuit path back to the supply, then current will return to the supply and diminish potential difference. During the progress of this flow through the circuit - a secondary electromagnetic imbalance is established in those circuit components. The strength of these secondary fields precisely relates to the rate of current flow that effectively transfers the potential difference from the source to potential difference across those inductive circuit components. The switched cycle applied to the supply then allows a period during which this transferred potential difference can return it's energy back to the circuit. Provided that there is a path to enable this, then the second cycle generates a secondary event where the current flow is returned to those inductive components without diminishing potential difference at the source. And if that path is enabled it is possible to route the secondary current flow back through the battery supply source, thereby recharging the supply.

The amount of energy dissipated at the load will then, theoretically, exceed the amount of energy delivered by the supply in the first instance. Then the sum of the energy dissipated at the load component will need to exceed the sum of the energy delivered by the supply. For this only one comparative measurement is required - provided only that the required excess is measurable. Any other components that may also have a measurable rise in thermal energy - is of interest - but is redundant to the argument.

The fact is that we have not established this thesis on the partial completion of tests that have been recorded thus far. We have only pointed to the possibility that the thesis may have some grounding in the evidence of these 'partially completed' tests. To evaluate the actual energy delivered still requires the need to establish a value over a more significant time period.

I trust this answers your questions.

[Rosemary Ainslie]

May I remind you Poynty Poynt - that you promised us you'd be going on holdiay. 

I suggest that your use of the term is, at its least,  a misnomer???

LOL