Claimed OU circuit of Rosemary Ainslie

[MileHigh]

Hoppy,

I wanted to comment on the waveforms that you posted yesterday but did not get around to it.  You put in a much larger inductance and therefore you only we able to see a snippet of the exponential waveform because the time constant became much much larger.  To get back to "normal" you would have had to slow down the clock by about 10X and then the familiar pattern would be visible again.

I've tried gate resistances up to about 10K but still no oscillations that Aaron describes.

Aaron still has not seen any oscillations himself but thinks he has, simply because he is unable to properly drive his oscilloscope in interpret what he is looking at.  He made another clip today and through the whole clip his scope disply is intermittently flipping back and forth between very narrow spikes and another pattern.  He never makes a serious attempt to stabilize the display so whatever he was looking at was inconclusive.  Aaron being Aaron, he pays almost no notice to this major problem and plods on.

MileHigh

[TinselKoala]

Wilby:

I have seen you around but I can't seem to recall any of your postings.  I don't want to prejudge you but I would not be surprised if your typical posting is something like "Great build!", "It should show great gains!" or "Cool!"

For the "stfu" - get your jackboots and brown shirt and report to "Doc" Peter Lindemann.  Just hope and pray a "Night of the Long Knives" never happens!

MileHigh

The "wilby" bot is just a troll. The recent posts are exactly representative of his usual posts. You may safely put him on your "ignore" list as he gets stuck  on single topics and will go on wasting pages and pages on them.

[TinselKoala]

From Rosemary:


1 -Re the 555. .."It CANNOT be adjusted to make the shorter duty cycles using the component values specified."
I cannot comment here. All I can assure you is that we used switches that could enable the required duty cycle.

Then don't. Everyone who has built it using the specified components knows that I am right. Except maybe for Joit, who is still learning how to bake cakes.

2- I have NEVER discussed the MOSFET. I cannot understand your point here. Certainly this was never discussed. You simply stated it as fact. It is not true. The duty cycle applied to the switching circuit is as claimed in the publication.

Wrong again. There was quite a long discussion and several videos concerning the duty cycle and the voltage at the mosfet drain, and we all remember it even if you don't.

3 -Evaluations of the oscillations were determined by experts - not by me. This includes a guarantee from Fluke that the numbers associated with those oscillations were correct. And Aaron has only withdrawn a video that relates to the HF sounds associated with resonance.

So you say. Let's see a report.

4 - The quantum article and the IET (Institution of Engineering and Technology) are indeed the same experiment. The difference between the two is that the paper submitted to the IET included the diode parallel to the load - as I wanted to emphasize the recharge cycle. This may possibly have been a mistake. But as the paper was not published it really does not matter. The only reason we duplicated the experimental data and apparatus associated with the Quantum publication is because I have the written consent to associate the accreditors names in relation to that publication. It may have been difficult to rally their interest again 8 years after the initial publication. This is the more so as it seemed that in many cases, personnel associated with those tests have changed.

I refer to the paper as the EIT paper because that's what the link on your website calls it, and that's what the .pdf file is named.
It may be difficult to rally interest about a device that "they" acknowledge to be 17 times overunity? Yeah, right.

5 - This is simply not true. Many replications were done by all those associated with accreditation - with the possible exception of one instance where the test was demonstrated rather than duplicated by the accreditors. It is precisely because of this that I was not able to get their full reports. Had I paid for the reports I may have been in the happy position of demanding them I did not know enough at the time of advancing the replications that I should also have demanded their test results. And 'vetting' certainly does not apply to calibrations of measuring instruments. What nonsense.

I would add here that - to a man, and notwithstanding the lack of their reported results - they required that the test be evaluated by academics in order to explain the results - which could hardly be considered anomalous as they were also replicable.

I remind you and everyone else that you have produced ABSOLUTELY NO EVIDENCE AT ALL that anybody has even looked at your work, much less confirmed it.
What nonsense, indeed.

6 - I do not want people to think that I have a patent. On the contrary. I am most anxious to advise everyone that I do not have one. And have done so on every reference to this that there is no patent. It was in the introduction to my blog. But I also assure you that I was invited to register a patent at the expiry of the period where the patent was published for the public to lodge any prior claims. That documentation is on record. And if you doubt this too - then check with the patent authorities. Their correspondence to me is on public record.

More "innocent protestation." I invite anyone to look at the threads on Naked Scientists Forum where you are discussing your "patent" with EEs and others who actually do have ISSUED PATENTS in the semiconductor industry. It is obvious to me that these people believe they are talking to someone who also has an ISSUED PATENT and you do not disabuse them of that idea.
Ditto me. I'll bet you that if I had not insisted on the issue, there would still be people that believe that you have a patent, when you don't.

But I've told you all this. I've proved it where possible. Why do you insist on these premises to your argument TK? When you know they are not true? It continually amazes me that you are still arguing the points that I have continually refuted. Is it because you assume that I am simply a liar? To what end? That I can enjoy this debate that rages through the internet? I will tell you that I do not 'chase' the media. I'm essentially a retiring person. That I put this forward was done after some real internal debate and dialogue between this natural inclination and the desire to discuss the model. The latter interest prevailed. Do you think that I could also enjoy reading your atrocious account of my character through every posting you put your name to? My stomach knots every time I read yet another one of your attacks. You are a dedicated bully - a kind of reckless thug who uses every possible talent - which is clearly quite considerable - to incinerate my name - my knowledge and my passionate interest in physics. To what end? Why all this time and effort?

Yep, you are a liar and distorter of facts. For example nobody has ever implied or intimated that I am "a technician involved in the repair of oscilloscopes." So the whole train of your distortions--using clients' scopes, etc, is a ridiculous distortion and straw man. In other words, a LIE that you wish people to believe about me. Just for a single example. There are many others.

I would have thought that if you are truly attempting to validate my experimental claims you would simply repeat the test conditions as required, and then post your results to deny them or approve them. Why does it also necessitate the absolute requirement to attack me at so many levels? Are you just naturally inclined to hurt other people. Or do you reserve this unbridled attack because I've presumed to challenge conventional knowledge regarding over unity constraints? I've said this privately to Oc and I'll say it publicly here. I think you're simply the playground bully whose taken trolling to new levels of expertise in order to entertain an audience.

But I'll hang in here. At least until Aaron either manages to prove or disprove the claim. In a strange way you represent a kind of closed minded malice that is the antithesis of everything that I hold dear. And I'm braced, of necessity - to your next attack. It will follow as day follows night.

I am not attempting to "validate" your experimental claims. That, believe it or not, is not how science is done. I am trying to invalidate them. If I (or someone with greater skill and knowledge) cannot, despite my best efforts, then and ONLY then should anybody pay attention to them at all. Falsification, or the inability to falsify, is at the core of the scientific process. But you are only concerned with "VALIDATION" so attempts to invalidate, when successful, to you look like failure and attack. You really should grow up, it is about time.
You will recall, if you look back and if Aaron hasn't deleted the posts, that I pointed out the 555 error and asked some questions, and you and your cronies immediately attacked me for being the typical debunking skeptic. I respond when I am attacked, and as I looked further into the matter I began to see certain patterns of prevarication and mendacity.
Well, you clearly had no idea with whom you were trifling. I have the ability to pursue this issue, PASS OR FAIL, all the way...all the way. If there was anything at all to your claim I could make the entire world stand up and pay attention, and you would see your brightest dream come true before your eyes. On the other hand, if your little toy can't make it past my preliminary vetting, there's no reason at all to embarrass anyone by inviting it into the laboratories with which I am connected, for real work.

The entire stack of junk that I used to show that your device is in no way OU or unusual in its behaviour, cost about 500 dollars. The most expensive single bit was the batteries, which I purchased especially for you. The digital oscilloscopes are legitimately borrowed by permission from and with full knowledge of their owner, and I certainly am not a "repair technician" nor am I qualified to attempt repair of anything like the LeCroy.
The last time I checked, what I choose to do with my time and my money is entirely my business, and if I choose to make any part of it "public" as I have done with my work on your toy, that too is entirely up to me. I have no "handlers" or bosses in this matter, although there are certain individuals who are watching this story unfold, with great amusement I hope.
So, Rosemary, once again you have posted incorrect statements, distortions, accusations and innuendo. But you have NOT posted any original data, any reports from independent vetting, any corrections of the errors pointed out, and you and your crewe have NOT posted anything like OU results. It's all been a wild goose chase, and the goose isn't even a goose.

EDIT to add: I see now that we have an "abject apology" from Rosemary, after nearly, what, TWO MONTHS, for the "incorrect" circuit diagram of the 555 timer in the Quantum article. Never fear, Rosemary, the simple addition of a 2n2222a transistor and a couple of resistors is sufficient to flip the output, without significant distortion, and I'm sure anyone who cares has done this long ago. I know I have. Lindemann's more complex circuit isn't necessary--unless you want those "oscillations". The Quantum circuit is pretty clean if you give it enough input voltage.
Of course, you get the best spikes with a "really" clean pulse, like from a pulse generator.
And, no, I do not accept your insincere "abject" apology, Rosemary. I have taken literally weeks of flack over your "delegation of understanding" and your poor vetting of your own publications, and even to this very day my finding about that damn 555 circuit is being questioned, by people who really should know better. So, no, just a post from you, abjectly apologising in an insincere way, doesn't smooth my ruffled feathers at all. I see it as just another lie from you.

[MileHigh]

Aaron:

A few comments on your resonance treatise:

It is a synchronization in the circuit plain and simple. With all resistances, impedances, etc... taken into account, the circuit will be at a resonant frequency when everything is timed right... charging coil discharge, etc... impedance of battery, etc...

Ahhh.... that's an incredibly crude description.  The simple description is that resonance in a circuit is when it naturally oscillates at some frequency determined by the capacitance and inductance and active components.

Basically, we know the SG type circuits find their own resonant frequency for the most part. Yes, there are the sweet spots, but the wheel spinning gets up to speed and the speed sits at wherever is the exact perfect timing for everything it its own circuit taken into account. Magnet spacing, coil, battery, transistor switching, etc...

It is an example of SELF ORDERING. That is resonance.

When the SG circuits self oscillate, it finds its own frequency according to the above.

Here you are off by a country mile.  The final speed of an SG motor is based on energy in and energy out being in balance.  The motor will spin at a speed where the energy being supplied by the pulsing power coil is in balance with the energy being burned off due to friction in the bearings and air resistance.

Indeed it finds it's own rotational frequency but it is due to the energy balance, and has nothing to do with resonance in terms of its accepted definition.

Change the voltage for a resonant circuit, and the resonance frequency does not change.  Change the voltage for a Bedini motor, and it speeds up and finds a new balance point.

"I can see clearly now the rain has gone."

Depending on gate resistance, frequency, etc... the aperiodic pulsing is an indication in and of itself that it is pulsing in resonance and it is not a steady frequency...it will stay close to the same frequency (the pulsations) but not exactly because in reality, with nature's perfect imperfections, the frequency is FUZZY

I think that something else is FUZZY.  You can have metastability implying that a circuit can randomly jump around between a few different resonant frequencies.  Or you can have "standard" resonance at one or more fixed frequencies.

The rest of your posting is like the "resonance demo" clip that you took down where you were looking at Moiré patterns and thinking you were looking at a some kind or multiple frequency resonance phenomena.  In both cases you generate verbage but not much else.

Even without oscillation, the circuit can show a gain (over 1.0 COP).

With oscillation, much more.

TELL US *WHY* AARON THAT YOU GET "MUCH MORE" WITH OSCILLATION.

Stop ignoring the question, inquiring minds want to know.  If you don't answer then everybody will conclude that you have no idea why and are just saying it because it "sounds right."

Step up to the plate AARON.

MileHigh

[MileHigh]

Hey Joit!

And Mr. MH Weisenheimer knows of course, that there is no different at all Wires, because he did hundrets of practical Tests with different Materials,
because Doctor Know-all is our best. You wish. MH

GET IT. YOU NEVER WANNA AND WILL GET OU. DROP A EGG OVER YOUR THREAD THERE.
CLOSE IT, LOCK IT. IT DOES NOT MAKE SENSE FOR YOU. AND YOU KNOW IT.

I can almost see you jumping up and down in frustration! lol

For weeks now you have been attacking the skeptics so I was just "playing ball" with you, have some fun!!

You know how a movie has a "tag line"?  For example the tag line for the movie "Titanic" is "Nothing On Earth Could Come Between Them."

I have a *great* tag line for the Energetic Forum and I am asking you to pass it onto Aaron.

"Like Singapore on Acid."

Isn't that great?  Just think about it and it should make some sense to you.

Have a good day Jumping Jack Joit!  (Did you bust a button on your trousers? lol)

MileHigh