Claimed OU circuit of Rosemary Ainslie

[WilbyInebriated]

so after 19 pages what do we have, an unproven hypothesis (reached by adhering to some asinine attitude of "i'm not going to use the specified fet if it's the last thing i do") by tk...

damn, it's like pulling teeth.

edit: hold on, let me get a comfortable chair and some popcorn, this is classic "science", i don't want to miss it it. 

[TinselKoala]

it's a $4 part. i've made it abundantly clear in prior posts that tk can easily afford it. why he chooses not to is beyond me. why you all are naive enough to think i was serious after i made explicit points of tk's demonstration of his deep pockets and his willingness to bet, why anyone would think i was serious is also beyond me. 

nice try on the misdirection though...

Maybe it was the part where you said, "send me your address and i will send you the part, you worthless bum" that made us think you were going to send me the part.

And I have already explained several times that I do not need, nor will I be ordering, the minimum 10 parts that my suppliers want me to order, and I have philosophical objections to using ebay for anything--it's against my religion, which is an obscure sect of Sufism that does not believe in auctions or "buy-it-now".

And speaking of misdirection--this thread is about "Claimed OU circuit of Rosemary Ainslie".
So, without even referring to my "replication" which is making Wilby prance around like a debutante with a bladder issue...

I will here reiterate several problems with the Ainslie affair.

First, the Quantum article and the EIT paper give circuits that are different in several respects, yet the data and descriptions contained in the works appear to be describing the exact same experiment and control runs. The Quantum article's diagram does not include the flyback diode and the article does not even mention it. However, the EIT paper's diagram does include the diode, and current statements from Ainslie say that this diode is absolutely necessary.
Since these two papers are describing the same experiment, there is a major inconsistency here that needs to be explained.

(And I didn't even mention the mosfet or the duty cycle, did I.)
(But I will now.)

Second, the circuit as published in the Quantum article definitely produces a duty cycle that is inverted from what the paper claims. And definitely the flyback diode is not on the diagram. These are facts that anyone can check for themselves.
So definitely this circuit is in error. And yet it has not been corrected or retracted by Ainslie, and she rejects all criticism and questions about this topic. Why? I see this as a major problem. How can we trust anything from Ainslie, if this is how she regards the truth and correctness of publication? Her name is right there on the paper.
I mean--it's OK to make mistakes, I even make them sometimes...but to willfully let them stand and to refuse to correct them after they have been pointed out--that's something different.

Third, she refers in various places to her "patents"--and yet, I cannot find any issued patents in her name. I find patent applications on the links that I have been given--applications, not issued patents. I have asked her over and over to confirm that she has patents issued--to deafening silence. Why not just give me a link to an issued patent? I must conclude that there aren't any, and she was "exaggerating" when she called them "patents". Of course I am always willing to be proven wrong with evidence, and I would be especially happy to see patents of these particular ideas.

Fourth, there's that pesky MOSFET. That self-oscillates for her, every time. But nobody else (yes, Wilby, there are others using that correct IRFPG50 mosfet that I refuse to buy) has been able to reproduce this behaviour. Then there's that "random chaotic resonance" that the mosfet is able to achieve, when the gate drive current is turned DOWN. Another effect that nobody has been able to duplicate. What is up with that? If you read Ainslie's posts you would have to be a total "wilby" to not get overunity, no matter the mosfet, the frequency, the duty cycle, or whatever---until of course you try it and report failure--then she can come up with all kinds of things you aren't doing right.

Fifth, there's the issue of reproducing her heating effects and numbers. Hmm. Now I must mention my circuit and experiment. Even though I didn't use the same mosfet, I got the same heating in the load (within experimental error and accounting for the 2-ohm difference between my load and her reported load). So actually that's another data point that says the Quantum circuit is in error--because it generates a 97.3 percent ON duty cycle, and I'm using a FG at 3.7 percent ON--so my experiment supports her generated heat values, and at the same average input power that she calculates--mine is about 1.1 watts average.

Odd, isn't it, if my mosfet is wrong, that it works just like hers does at 3.7 percent ON, and heats the load the same way. What do you say to that, Wilby?

The problem is that, when I take the exact same load and put 1.1 watts through it with a regulated DC supply with negligible ripple--that's straight DC, so voltage x current = power--I get "exactly" the same heating of the load resistor.

TO reiterate again once more: I have had no problem repeating Ainslie's INPUT power and EXPERIMENTAL load heating. It's the CONTROL part of her experiment that I have a problem with. My control experiment indicates no overunity, not because the experimental load doesn't heat up enough--it's because the CONTROL load heats up just the same on straight DC power.

And if Wilby can explain how my choice of mosfet could account for these facts, I'll buy the drinks if we ever meet. Explain coherently, I mean. The usual hanuman chatter probably won't convince me.

[WilbyInebriated]

So here's a picture of my "replication" of Ainslie's circuit. I couldn't find the IRFGP50 MOSFET locally, so I used a similar one, 2SK1548. And instead of using a 555 timer clock circuit I just used my trusty Interstate F34 function generator to make the gate drive pulses. And instead of using a .25 ohm current-viewing shunt I used a 2.5 ohm shunt. But the rest is as specified.

1,2,3 things non spec, but the rest is "exact"

nice try on the misdirection though.

what "others". no one here is. and really we are talking about YOUR circuit. nice try on the misdirection again.
i've said several times i agree with you mostly, it's your pompous ass combined with a standard approach of substituting whatever you have on hand that i have issue with.

edit: as i also said before, get the right fet and put this to rest or shut up. furthermore don't expect people to "fund" you or send you parts with the incorrect approach you have taken so far.

[0c]

I'll be checking my mail every day, looking for a little package from you.

Sounds like something I might say.

(Oh why, oh why do these discussions degenrate so?)

[BEP]

I just read (and understood) the quotes from 'her'. Now I have an extreme headache. My fault, I know.

So ON is OFF and OFF is ON. No wonder some folks have trouble reading a scope.

For the life of me I can't think of any diode that can 'block' at 2c. Even with forward, <1c, current they aren't on by default. If the current is careening at 2c the diode is a short circuit.

The read was ..... interesting. I'll agree on a few points but my conclusion is this: These ideas can never be proved as it would require equipment that is either faster than 2c or worked in a time warp.

At least with these ideas it doesn't matter that I can't get to my bench because there is no point in trying to test those theories. I've already done the 'you can't see it because it is impossible to measure with current equipment' <expletive deleted>.

Like most, I truly hope things like free energy will be realized and proven. I still spend a large amount of my free time toward that goal.

It is a good thing I can't get to my bench right now.