Claimed OU circuit of Rosemary Ainslie

[0c]

The EIT paper and the Quantum article are at odds regarding the flyback diode.

Which is the EIT paper? Link please.

[TinselKoala]

Which is the EIT paper? Link please.

Hmmm---this is the Quantum article:
http://www.feelthevibe.com/free_energy/rosemary_ainslie/transient_energy.pdf
And this is the EIT paper:
http://dc147.4shared.com/download/110716349/15cc31e0/EIT_paper.pdf

Is it possible that there are two versions of the Quantum article circuit diagram? I see the inconsistency for sure, now that it's pointed out to me. I wonder if I have stuck my foot in my mouth bigtime??
I'm going to have to cancel my evening plans and go back to the breadboard, it seems.

I used the EIT paper at first, building for the FG input as shown, then I built the 555 circuit from the GroundLoop diagram and simply inserted it into the EIT circuit in place of the FG, using a separate battery supply for the 555 portion. Now I can see that this might not be equivalent to the Quantum circuit in the link.

So it appears that I have been testing a hybrid, of sorts, of the EIT and the Quantum circuits. Although lately I have not been using the 555 at all, just the FG.
I will have to do some exploration and experimentation to see if it makes a difference.

So there is still a question: The EIT paper and the Quantum article appear to  be reporting the exact same experiment. So I'd still like to know what the correct circuit was, that was used in the experiment.

Meanwhile, thank you so much for poynting this out, poynt99. It might mean that my rep is about to be totally shot down...

[TinselKoala]

All right, I've looked carefully at the Quantum article diagram, yet again.

It seems that the flyback diode is simply left out, or not mentioned, or something.

In the parts list the 1n4007 appears, and it's shown in the EIT paper across the load, and it's mentioned in that paper...in the Quantum diagram there's no diode across the load, and there's an unlabelled diode in the 555 Vcc line--in Groundloop's cleaned up version this is listed as 1n4148 like the other two, so that's what I used here...

I don't think this re-inverts the duty cycle like I was afraid of, but it's easy enough to check.

The only difference is the presence or absence of the flyback diode. I've already tested several in this position, but DUH, I didn't think to test "no diode" here.

And the beat goes on...

[poynt99]

I don't think the flyback diode is going to change the duty cycle, and as you can see I have verified that Ainslie and her crew have indeed inverted their calculations.

Next is to see if I can get the FET to oscillate, but will check out the wave form with a flyback as well.

.99

[poynt99]

I wasn't able to get the MOSFET to oscillate (no surprise eh TK?  ).

I tired the full range of the 100 Ohm Gate resistor and even added some stray inductance in the Gate and Source, still no oscillation. With the MOSFET in saturation 96% of the time it's probably no wonder it won't oscillate. So for fun I drove the MOSFET separately from a square wave with 3.7% duty cycle and still could not elicit any oscillation.

The effect of the flyback diode really just cleans up the pulses a bit, for either case, 3.7% or 96%. There is no substantial flyback present below 0V as Ainslie mentions. Apparently this is where her circuit gains come from, but in my case there is very little and only without the diode in place.

I think at this point it would be necessary to see a picture of the actual built circuit used for their testing. Poor circuit construction can play a large part in how circuits behave, particularly with high current pulsing type circuits. Was a cheap breadboard used perhaps, long wires, etc?

Also, after reading Ainslie's posts at energeticforum, I'm beginning to get the feeling that she doesn't possess the technical prowess to really defend against TK's points, and this by her own admission. Why then is she lashing out at anyone that questions the accuracy of her reports   Human nature.

.99