New Rosemary Ainslie Demonstration Scheduled for Sunday, 4 August 2013

[poynt99]

In essence, I already have.

Could you repost that or post a ink to it please?

[SeaMonkey]

Could you repost that or post a ink to it please?

Perhaps you'd tell me what it is precisely that
you are seeking?

[gyulasun]

...
Someone, in due time, will discover the optimum ratio of External Inductance to Heater Resistance and with an efficient switching scheme make the concept work.  GMEast continues work on his adaptation and may make the necessary adjustments.

The intrinsic inductance of the heater coil is insufficient.

On the basis of empirically acquired understanding.

It is essential that the inductance be as near perfect as is practicable and that the switching mechanism to steer flyback pulses to the heating element be as near lossless as is possible.  The switching controllers used in state of the art switching supplies will simplify the process.  Some have external inputs to vary frequency, pulse width and dead time.

Hi SeaMonkey,

Reading your posts above, I assume you would use a much higher value inductance in series with the heating element than the heating element itself has (which was about 8-10 uH in RA's setup if I recall it correctly).  If this is what you meant, then using a higher value inductance you have to consider the increased impedance this series R-L combination involves, because using the same pulse frequency for the heating element first without a higher value series inductance in the same setup and then with it, it must be obvious that the current via the heating element can only be less when the higher value inductance is in series with it just because the increased impedance cannot let the same current flow via the heating element than in the no inductance case.
AND the moment you steer the energy stored in the inductance back to the heating element, you simply supply back part of the input energy which did not get to the heating element due to the inductance in series with it (an R-L voltage divider from the supply voltage point of view).

One more notice: the energy stored in an inductance is E=(L*I²)/2 and let's take a heating element with 10 uH self inductance and 1 Amper current flowing in it. The stored energy would be 0.000005 Joule, this is what you could steer back to the heating element in an ideal case. I know you noticed that the intrinsic inductance of the heater element is unsufficient, I just wished to emphasize how small energy can be recovered from heating elements.
Of course, using higher inductance value coils with very low loss factors and with sophisticated switching you can approach the ideal case (COP=1) and there maybe a really optimum ratio of external inductance to heater element resistance: remember however that the input supply voltage is divided between the heater element and the external inductance, hence the full input power cannot reach directly the heater element and when you utilize the collapsed field energy from the inductance you simply supply back the input energy that did / could not reach the heating element first hand.  I would appreciate your comments of course.

Greetings,
Gyula

[TinselKoala]

Don't forget losses in the switching element itself!

The particular mosfet that Ainslie used (and will presumably be using again when she reveals the "lost" Quantum apparatus) has a minimum Rdss of 2.0 Ohms when it is cold. It turns out that in the typical Ainslie oscillation mode, the oscillating mosfets are actually dissipating (wasting) more power than her load resistor is, because they are not fully turning on.

Unfortunately the recent demonstration/replication/test did not account for _all_ the power dissipation in the circuit, only that which appeared at the load. Someone who was interested in disputing the "debunk" might suggest that the mosfets themselves are dissipating significant heat and it is in the _total_ power dissipation of the circuit where any "benefit" could arise.

Yes, the demo/debunk tested a particular claim and found the claim to be false, and by extension all the incorrect data and claims based on them in the papers are also false. But for a committed claimant, though, the single data point tested is just a pothole in a wide road, easy to drive around. Those mosfets can get very hot!

And we have the rather strange "admission" from SWeir, in a comment on my YT channel, from data unfortunately gathered in secret:

When the battery wiring was reconfigured back to high inductance the heater temperature rose. There is no surprise there, the parameters of the tank circuit changed. However, the battery input power under the new configuration was not checked. So, the increased heat is anecdotal.

(emphasis mine)

[TinselKoala]

http://www.energy-shiftingparadigms.com/index.php/topic,2313.msg4864/

Ainslie has posted her agreed-upon statement of retraction... which she apparently intends to attach as a preface to the Papers, instead of taking them down!!

Guys - this is the text that will preface our papers 1 & 2. 

In June and August 2013 demonstration experiments were undertaken in an effort to reproduce the experiments and results reported in this paper.  The 2013 experiments were conducted under more stringent protocols than the originals. The experiments conducted:  June 29, August 10, and August 11 failed to reproduce the results reported here. 

The June 29 experiments were unable to bias Q1 as in Figure 3 without current flow also indicated in Figure 3. 

The privately conducted August 10, and publicly conducted August 11 experiments were unable to corroborate net zero or negative battery draw during periods of Q2 oscillation. Reference measurements taken at new sense points directly at the battery bank indicated average net positive battery drain of 14W to 15W.  Maximum heater temperature rise during these experiments was 21C.  From our electrical DC power to temperature rise tests conducted in 2011 and appear as Table II in this paper, a 21C heater temperature rise corresponds to an equivalent power of between 2.4W and 3.4W.  We therefore obtained heat output that was only a fraction of the input power.

As we are unable to replicate our earlier reported results, we respectfully withdraw this paper in both of its parts.

Details of the test protocols are available as August 11 Demonstration Outline_draft_05.pdf.  Test Phases 1 - 3 were conducted during the live demonstration.  We ended the demonstration after Test Phase 3 when it became clear that the net battery power drain was far in excess of the possible heater output power.

Kindest regards,
Rosie

(emphasis mine)

Of course "prefacing" a paper that is full of error and mendacity is far different from a retraction. The papers must come down completely, as there is absolutely nothing defensible in them and the statements and claims they make are flat-out wrong.

I hope she's "honorable" enough to send Stefan Hartmann, our good host, a letter of apology for all the vile things she said about him and all the harassment and aggravation she has caused by her blind attempts to defend an indefensible position.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1s9z620SFbA