Quote from: TinselKoala on January 20, 2014, 10:02:42 AM
Sure.

There is an even easier way to "fix" the duty cycle issue in the exact Quantum 17 circuit, though. You will note that in the original circuit the 555 clock is powered by its own battery. This makes the duty cycle invertible by the use of the Secret of DPDT.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jVePUJJVAlc   (September 17, 2013)

That's a clever arrangement provided you have separate supplies.  Bad things will happen if you try and use it with a common supply.  Why are DPDT switches a secret?

Mark,

Do you mean Ah vs. Wh?

Poynt99 I meant Wh.  there is no reason that I can see for the huge battery banks.  If they were ever to find something with a gain that should be detectable in less than a minute.  Honestly, a good bench power supply would do.

The August 11 demonstration drew ~15W from the batteries.  If they think they need to turn Q1 on part of the time the power will jump by approximately 450W * Q1 duty cycle.  All the power gain they originally reported but the demonstrations showed was mismeasurement is supposed to be from the oscillations.  When Q1 is on it is just a surrogate switch.  So if they do need Q1 on part of the time it should only need to be for a very short time and small duty-cycle.  A 20Wh - 40Wh pack should be plenty.  At 72V they may have trouble finding a Li-ion pack smaller than 100Wh.

Quote from: MarkE on January 20, 2014, 10:09:54 AM
That's a clever arrangement provided you have separate supplies.  Bad things will happen if you try and use it with a common supply.  Why are DPDT switches a secret?

The Secret of DPDT is a poke at Steorn. During their famous Waterways demonstration of their core-effect eOrbo pulse motors, they wanted to demonstrate that the rotation of the motor did not depend on the polarity of the DC pulses provided to the drive coils. This resulted in five minutes or so of screwdriver re-wiring work on their otherwise well-laid-out giant breadboard, and then another interval while the original connections were re-established. Apparently the Secret of DPDT was not yet known by the Lads in Dublin. I have also noted several other occasions when people who might have been expected to know better, were either fooled by a DPDT switch or failed to use one in an obvious application.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Frp03muquAo

Quote from: MarkE on January 20, 2014, 10:29:07 AM
Poynt99 I meant Wh.  there is no reason that I can see for the huge battery banks.  If they were ever to find something with a gain that should be detectable in less than a minute.  Honestly, a good bench power supply would do.

The August 11 demonstration drew ~15W from the batteries.  If they think they need to turn Q1 on part of the time the power will jump by approximately 450W * Q1 duty cycle.  All the power gain they originally reported but the demonstrations showed was mismeasurement is supposed to be from the oscillations.  When Q1 is on it is just a surrogate switch.  So if they do need Q1 on part of the time it should only need to be for a very short time and small duty-cycle.  A 20Wh - 40Wh pack should be plenty.  At 72V they may have trouble finding a Li-ion pack smaller than 100Wh.

The reason for the huge battery banks is obfuscation! According to the Ainslie team, a 12 volt LA or SCLA battery is "fully charged" whenever its open-circuit terminal voltage is 12 volts or more. I know this is hard to believe but I have substantiated it with references many times before. So with a bank of 4 to six nominal "12 volt" silver-calcium LAs with 60 amp-hours rated capacity (as were used for the trials reported in the daft manuscripts), one can run her circuit at high heat values for many trials before seeing depletion in charge using their definitions and instrumentation methodology. Which is just what happened.

Why not use a large capacitor bank? Because it does not obfuscate. Even though the "negative power product" is produced just as with batteries -- in fact, the waveforms are identical -- a capacitor bank discharges at the normally expected rate. Ainslie has used this result to claim that batteries are necessary. Of course.

You may note in the photo below, published by Ainslie in PESN just before the last set of demonstrations.... there is an extra set of red and black cables, terminated by large alligator clips, leading up to behind the oscilloscope, where something is concealed underneath a wadded-up textile, in Ainslie's neat-as-a-pin "laboratory". This "something" is evidently a power supply or battery charger. Odd, isn't it?