**UN-CENSORED" Rosemary Ainslie COP>17 Circuit ??

[fuzzytomcat]

ITEM NUMBER ONE

WORKING COMPLETE "QUANTUM" COP>17 EXPERIMENTAL DEVICES WITHHELD FROM OPEN SOURCE

http://www.energeticforum.com/60279-post511.html ( July, 13 2009 )

witsend
Senior Member

Joit - is your waveform proving TinselKoala's point? Is that 555 switch wrongly presented? To me it looks like it is. In which case, I must apologise to all concerned. Clearly the Quantum article was wrong.

So, to all concerned - to everyone who built the circuit as presented in that article, and if, indeed, it is wrong, my abject apologies. I had a shrewd idea it may have been wrong because, thinking back, a university professor kindly edited the quantum paper prior to presenting it to the IET. And his first recommendation was that we omitted a detailed circuit of the 555 switch as being irrelevant to the claim. Which is why I was reluctant to endorse the Quantum article as being a correct presentation. I just wish, in retrospect, that he had pointed out the error if he had seen such. In any event, it seems that I have been entirely at fault. My own objection to it was due to the lack of the feedback diode - which was the entire subject of the exercise. I knew it was in the apparatus. It certainly was not in diagram.

I would point out though, that my reluctance to admit this prior to ascertaining the fact was due to the person who presented that diagram and assisted me in that first article. He is a good friend and he, like all of us, was 'giving' his time. I was not keen therefore to expose the problem unless I also knew it was a problem. So, if you're reading this, don't even worry. In any event, the blame was not his. I should, at least, have had the circuit vetted - considering my own inability to read such.

So. Many apologies, even to TinselKoala and anyone in the entire world who duplicated that circuit. It is wrongly presented. I am sincerely sorry that I have wasted so much of your time. And Joit - you've put the question to bed. I would be very glad to refund you for your time and trouble - if required - and if I can get the money to you with our exchange control. Just send me an account on the PM system. You've done a very good thing here.

What I do assure you all is this. The switch may have been wrongly drawn. Our own duty cycle application is NOT. I have the experimental apparatus available and it has been checked by EE's even at universities. We have also, over the years, built many different 555 switches and by different people. And there are replicated experiments by others using nothing but a functions generator. And all this prior to publication. More to the point is that the battery duration is consistent with measurements based on the duty cycle. But, in point of fact, after publication I never experimented again for a period of 7 years and I certainly never even looked at the article again. The only reason I could scan a copy for the blog when I eventually did this, was because my children kept a copy of the original publication. I was just so dejected at the entire lack of interest it seemed to generate. I had no idea that the test would really ever be duplicated.

Therefore, please take this admission as a sincere apology to all those who have tried to build the switch according to the quantum article. I see that the Quantum article was the primary reference point as the IET paper was only posted to the blog after July. It seems that Ramset and TinselKoala started their thread on OU.COM in mid June. Unfortunate. But there you are. Sorry guys - It's all I can say.

A WORKING COMPLETE "QUANTUM" COP>17 EXPERIMENTAL DEVICE

I have the experimental apparatus available and it has been checked by EE's even at universities.

Why were the October 2002 Quantum COP>17 experimental devices knowing and willfully hidden from the Open Source Community after July, 13 2009 ??

1) It's not a COP>17
2) It's being hidden because of "errors" in the Quantum article electronic diagram, electrical calculations and recorded data
3) It's being hidden because of Intellectual Property Rights of Rosemary Ainslie, Investors or others involved in South Africa
4) It's being hidden because of a requirement for a 100% "Independent" verification of any experimental device close to the self authored October 2002 Quantum article context or content for a self serving Academic thesis paper
5) Secret hidden alternative motives
6) ??

TAKE YOUR PICK - 1 through 6 ( or all )

Some would try to lead you in belief of destroying, dismantling or even loosing a incredible device that is a COP>17 ..... who in their right mind would do something a stupid as this,  especially anytime "AFTER" the date of July 13, 2009 of the Open Source posting ....

[TinselKoala]

Compare the above reference to my work about the duty cycle of the Quantum article with this much more current post from Rosemary:
http://www.overunity.com/index.php?topic=9442.msg262082#msg262082

And once again, just build the circuit and see for yourselves. Wilby, master of correctness and triviality, why don't you deal with this issue? Just what is the TRUTH about the Quantum circuit duty cycle? It involves what, seven dollars worth of parts and a light bulb?
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rSFS99SaZTA
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=18raNyVTL6g
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lXielVyBauo

Some Fluke0Scopy:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JU1YGaEBKwM

[Harvey]

Compare the above reference to my work about the duty cycle of the Quantum article with this much more current post from Rosemary:
http://www.overunity.com/index.php?topic=9442.msg262082#msg262082

And once again, just build the circuit and see for yourselves. Wilby, master of correctness and triviality, why don't you deal with this issue? Just what is the TRUTH about the Quantum circuit duty cycle? It involves what, seven dollars worth of parts and a light bulb?
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rSFS99SaZTA
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=18raNyVTL6g
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lXielVyBauo

Some Fluke0Scopy:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JU1YGaEBKwM

Hi TK,

You are absolutely correct in your reference to the increased duty cycle on the Hexfet. Here is a snapshot from the famous test #13 that we used as a basis for the paper that Rosemary rushed to rejection against the advices of all other authors involved.

Enlarge

As you can see, in the "preferred mode of oscillation" (a phrase I specifically coined when writing that paper) the gate does adopt a duty cycle of 57.32%.

The circuit in this mode simply aborts completely any ties to a resonant action and develops a symbiotic retriggering mode solely dependent on the NE555 internal voltage references and a non-destructive zener breakdown in the output transistor emitter inside the NE555. This pass through current finds its way back upstream within the NE555 and causes the retriggering. I have confirmed this with Spice.

The TRUTH however, is that if the resistor itself actually matched that waveform we would have had considerably more heat than we did. How much more? Just look at the resistor power values in the attached spreadsheet to get a ballpark. 24V @ 50% would be similar to 12V @ 100%


In this mode, the duty cycle of the Resistor waveform (referenced to B(-)) adopts a 3.893% duty cycle as shown in this Channel 2 shot from the exact same test:
Enlarge

I'm certain it is the latter Duty cycle that the original technicians (what ever happened to those guys?) referred to in their work that Rosemary later copied and passed off as her own as she is now trying to do with Glen's work.

For a mathematical treatise of these duty cycles and waveforms on this specific test see these 3 posts:
http://www.energeticforum.com/inductive-resistor/5359-mosfet-heating-circuits-2.html#post93202
http://www.energeticforum.com/inductive-resistor/5359-mosfet-heating-circuits-3.html#post93751
http://www.energeticforum.com/inductive-resistor/5359-mosfet-heating-circuits-3.html#post93991

This mathematical work has NOT been professionally vetted and may have errors in it - so if you find any please feel free to point them out. I tried to be as accurate as possible but as mentioned before this is very difficult on an ever changing landscape of waveforms. The changing landscape is very evident in Glen's 5 hour videos of continuous operation.

So while I was able to show where the majority of the energy was, there is still about a watt unaccounted for. Because the data is discontinuous, I imagined that the extra watt was melded into the averages from oscillations that were not recorded. But then it could also be due to the projections made in my analysis. The entire methodology is messy and problematic.

Harvey

NOTE:
Because the IMG tags are not working above, I have attached the two images as well:
Channel 3 is the Gate signal, Channel 2 is the Drain Signal:

[truthbeknown]

. . .

1) It's not a COP>17
2) It's being hidden because of "errors" in the Quantum article electronic diagram, electrical calculations and recorded data
3) It's being hidden because of Intellectual Property Rights of Rosemary Ainslie, Investors or others involved in South Africa
4) It's being hidden because of a requirement for a 100% "Independent" verification of any experimental device close to the self authored October 2002 Quantum article context or content for a self serving Academic thesis paper
5) Secret hidden alternative motives
6) ??

TAKE YOUR PICK - 1 through 6 ( or all )

Regarding #4 Has anyone found a difference between Her Thesis and Ed's Thesis?

(http://www.overunity.com/index.php?topic=7929.msg262502#msg262502)


Truthbeknown
J.

[Rosemary Ainslie]

Hi TK,

You are absolutely correct in your reference to the increased duty cycle on the Hexfet. Here is a snapshot from the famous test #13 that we used as a basis for the paper that Rosemary rushed to rejection against the advices of all other authors involved.

Golly.  There was NO RUSH.  All was on schedule.  It was you who were trying to stall things to avoid publication.  This because TIE required a COMPLETE disclosure of the author's accreditation.  I knew full well that you were caught between a rock and a hard place.  No accreditation and an anxiety to prevent the general public from learning about this.  Or are you in fact accredited?  I'm sure we'd all be interested.  LOL. 

As you can see, in the "preferred mode of oscillation" (a phrase I specifically coined when writing that paper) the gate does adopt a duty cycle of 57.32%.  The circuit in this mode simply aborts completely any ties to a resonant action and develops a symbiotic retriggering mode solely dependent on the NE555 internal voltage references and a non-destructive zener breakdown in the output transistor emitter inside the NE555. This pass through current finds its way back upstream within the NE555 and causes the retriggering. I have confirmed this with Spice.

This is an example of the Harvey waffle - for any readers that may be interested.  But I rather think that this technobabble is getting somewhat absurd.  How could the NE555 be transmitting/emitting (as a transmitter emitter LOL) a signal with a current that finds it way back 'upstream' wherever that is? and then cause a 'retriggering' IF it still shows a duty cycle at either 3% or 97% - 'off' or 'on'?  If it developed a 'symbiotic' retriggering then it would reflect the 57% 'on'.  Clearly it has NOT developed a SYMBIOTIC anything at all.  Just technobabble Harvey.  I realise how anxious you are to appear accredited.  But you must remember that accredited people read here.  And clarity of terms and precision of expression is definitely preferred.  And if you have proved this on SPICE then SHOW US.   

The TRUTH however, is that if the resistor itself actually matched that waveform we would have had considerably more heat than we did.

LOL.  If the TRUTH as you put it - is in that first analysis of yours in the MOSFET HEATING CIRCUIT then it's laughable.  It was based on some kind of mishmash of nonsense and protocol that required the averaging the voltage across the load resistor while it was in full resonating frequency - for heaven's sake.  And then you rather CROWED that you now had the PROOF that you were so desperately looking for - THAT THERE WAS NO GAIN.  I was alerted to this nonsense by an expert.  But I'm still at a bit of loss because you now seem to be more concerned that there's MORE energy dissipated than is evident as heat. Presumably then you've changed tack?  In any event.   Here we concur.  But that analysis is somewhat outside the league of myself and will need to be finalised by experts.  And to compute this is clearly at a level of complexity that I rather suspect is outside your league as well.  With or without respect.  Certainly your earlier 'averaging' of these values seems to point to this.  And even then that little exercise was accompanied by the tell tale harvey waffle.  Clarity matters Harvey.  You can't forever hide behind your handwaving.

I'm certain it is the latter Duty cycle that the original technicians (what ever happened to those guys?) referred to in their work that Rosemary later copied and passed off as her own as she is now trying to do with Glen's work.

I have NEVER copied anyone's work - unless it was duly acknowledged.  The real problem here is that you find it impossible to believe that a woman let alone an untrained woman - can come up with an original thought. LOL. But the truth is that there's very little that's different in this and any other simple switching circuit.  Else I'd be flattered at all this disbelief.  And let's face it.  One doesn't need to be an Einstein to think of switching an electric current.   

For a mathematical treatise of these duty cycles and waveforms on this specific test see these 3 posts:
http://www.energeticforum.com/inductive-resistor/5359-mosfet-heating-circuits-2.html#post93202
http://www.energeticforum.com/inductive-resistor/5359-mosfet-heating-circuits-3.html#post93751
http://www.energeticforum.com/inductive-resistor/5359-mosfet-heating-circuits-3.html#post93991

This mathematical work has NOT been professionally vetted and may have errors in it - so if you find any please feel free to point them out. I tried to be as accurate as possible but as mentioned before this is very difficult on an ever changing landscape of waveforms. The changing landscape is very evident in Glen's 5 hour videos of continuous operation.

I'll get back to you in due course on your mathematical treatise.    But I'll first refer it to experts.  LOL

Rosemary