Claimed OU circuit of Rosemary Ainslie

[jibbguy]

Please check the specs sheet or manuals for these "10 supplies" of yours, do they specifically read "Input To Output Isolated"? And i mean those exact words; they are of very specific meaning. Also read what they are rated for in output impedance. Having resistance between Signal Low and Ground is NOT Isolated. I think you will find that the majority of calibrated DC supplies are not "Input to Output Isolated", and are in fact "Single Ended To Ground".

Regarding "design criteria" these are observations that are "likely" but not yet proved (as i DID state)... So that was disingenuous. I guess you would rip us for that too if it were specifically stated  as not having proof lol Actually if you did read my article most of that was stated there anyway. 

Lol as for the "belief"; you are quite convinced it does not work, so i think its obvious to all here we can call that one a wash

But the difference between you and me is i believe in furthering science by studying these circuits, whether the mainstream says they are "not possible" or not. Ripping us any way possible is not conductive to research or furthering science, it is usually a way of attempting to assert "superiority". I think you will find that such an attitude is counterproductive and won't matter in the end

Building two circuits, with 2 more batteries, actually adds more questions than it answers. Simple substitution of the element is wiser

We are willing to do what is necessary to test it properly, and have.

[Vortex1]

Sorry if you felt ripped, that was not my intention, but I see where it could have been perceived that way.

Regarding power supplies, mine are fully isolated to prevent ground loops in testing. A chassis ground is not connected in any way to the plus or minus outputs, though it is available and can be strapped either way.

But the difference between you and me is i believe in furthering science by studying these circuits, whether the mainstream says they are "not possible" or not.

You don't know me and what circuits I have or have not studied to further science so please don't use that "old saw"

Building two circuits, with 2 more batteries, actually adds more questions than it answers. Simple substitution of the element is wiser

I guess you didn't even look at the circuit I supplied. Only one battery for the power and only one oscillator circuit.

Actually, you have not thought this through. It is the combination of the special "Ainslie" resistor acting upon the oscillator that creates the chaotic oscillation requirement.

The plan was to feed this special oscillation to both resistors so that they both experience the same pulse conditions.

It is not possible for the control resistor alone to produce the chaotic oscillation effect because it does not have the required inductance and stray capacitance to retrigger the 555 at the higher and chaotic rate, therefore it would not be an "identical" test.

Buffering the "chaotic oscillation" produced in the circuit and feeding it to another FET driving the control resistor would be as close as possible to identical.

Null balance techniques are very effective and were the heart of early measurement since the invention of the balance scale.

I have played with similar pulse circuits for a long time. So have scores of other engineers. No one ever noticed an anomaly where a power resistor of that size and rating suddenly burnt up or caught fire consistently and reproducibly. This would have been reflected in a study and recall of the equipment and would certainly have been noticed, documented and probably patented long before Rosie was born.

So yes, I am a little biased on the non-believing side and actually hope very much that I am wrong.

And you can publicly throw a pie in my face if I am wrong, because I will be so happy to be wrong on this one that it won't hurt a bit.

Kind regards....V

[Rosemary Ainslie]

Vortex - I have no idea what your actual intentions are in this 'so called'  replication to prove our test as shown in your advice to fuzzy to use a power supply.  This first suggested test parameter is ridiculous and only shows how little you understand about the purpose of these tests.  The battery has a resistance at plus/minus 24 volts and is thereby able to benefit from the recharge potential in those collapsing fields at the load resistor.  Put a power supply in series with the resistor that, in turn, is supplied by plus/minus 220 volt from a utility supply source - and I can guarantee you that the induced collapsing fields in the inductor will not breach that level.  Therefore will the returning energy NEVER be able to replenish the source.  Your understanding of the experiment is lacking or your scaling efforts here are wanting.  Take your pick 

The first and overriding object of the Quantum test and Fuzzy's replication is to prove something about the properties of current.  I am reminded, yet again, how little of our paper you actually understood.  The thesis is that current flow is not some vague abstraction related to 'flow of charge' but that it has properties of mass.  It is proposed that these 'things' - particles - return to their source to neutralise that imbalance.

If you want to effect a reasonably intelligent replication as a counter arguement can I impose on you to at least keep to the argument? 

For Rosemary to imply that a simple test setup may be acceptable to simple people like myself but never to academia is a bit of an insult, considering I've had over 40 years of temperature and power measurement skills and would like to believe I am rather good at it.

I have no opinions whatsoever on your areas of expertise.  Was rather amused at your private message where you state that none of us are worthy to 'sweeeeeep your floors'.  Golly Vortex.  Are you suffering from delusions of grandeur?

Throughout the history of science, researchers have devised very simple and excellently crafted devices to make extremely fine measurements. This is way before DSO's were available.

Not sure of your point here.  So what?  It all evolved to the Textronix and their multiple brands of impeccable instrumentation and we were proud to use such.  This particular 'rolls royce' example has published specifications that are proven and carry their authority.  At its least such data is unquestionable.   

[Rosemary Ainslie]

Hi guys today I tried this circuit but no heat came.  I have to say that my 24v batteries are low about 18v I am not using a shunt cause a guy told me you can eliminate that.
Any help please?
Thanks

Hi gurugi.  I think the problem is probably due to the voltage at the supply.  If the two batteries have  combined voltage at 18 volts then each battery supplying the energy is about 9 volts.  A typical 12 volt battery is considered pretty well dead at 10 volts.  So - at 9 volts - I don't think that there's nearly enough energy being delivered.  You probably need to recharge those batteries.

But I'd be intrigued to learn if there is any evident voltage across the load resistor at this level of voltage from the supply and what that potential is?  If there is, then I'd also be interested to know if the battery drops below 18 volts on an extended run?  Can you let us know.  I think Fuzzy saw evidence of a continued energy exchange at a really low battery voltage - and that would be really interesting to us even if the heat over the load resistor is hardly noticeable.

Another thing that's quite important is that you ensure that the switching cycle is working.  We use low 'on' duty cycles but this defaults to about 50% when that resonating frequency takes over.  Do you see evidence of this oscillating frequency?

[Vortex1]

Vortex - I have no idea what your actual intentions are in this 'so called'  replication to prove our test as shown in your advice to fuzzy to use a power supply.  This first suggested test parameter is ridiculous and only shows how little you understand about the purpose of these tests.  The battery has a resistance at plus/minus 24 volts and is thereby able to benefit from the recharge potential in those collapsing fields at the load resistor.  Put a power supply in series with the resistor that, in turn, is supplied by plus/minus 220 volt from a utility supply source - and I can guarantee you that the induced collapsing fields in the inductor will not breach that level.  Therefore will the returning energy NEVER be able to replenish the source.  Your understanding of the experiment is lacking or your scaling efforts here are wanting.  Take your pick

Only two possibilities? Nice setup Rose, but how about a third choice possibility, that you do not speak the language of engineering. Your text above is proof enough. With all due respect you do write a good science fiction paper though I'll give you that.

The first and overriding object of the Quantum test and Fuzzy's replication is to prove something about the properties of current.  I am reminded, yet again, how little of our paper you actually understood.  The thesis is that current flow is not some vague abstraction related to 'flow of charge' but that it has properties of mass.  It is proposed that these 'things' - particles - return to their source to neutralise that imbalance.

I  will not argue with your thesis, it is good as far as a thesis can go.
Now the proof is to make lots of heat above that supplied by the power source as you claim. This has not been demonstrated.

If you want to effect a reasonably intelligent replication as a counter arguement can I impose on you to at least keep to the argument?

If you can keep to your claims and not try to switch gears into your thesis abstractions (which are fine and dandy if you don't make grandiose claims)

Quote from: Vortex1 on January 16, 2010, 06:56:43 PM

    For Rosemary to imply that a simple test setup may be acceptable to simple people like myself but never to academia is a bit of an insult, considering I've had over 40 years of temperature and power measurement skills and would like to believe I am rather good at it.

I have no opinions whatsoever on your areas of expertise.  Was rather amused at your private message where you state that none of us are worthy to 'sweeeeeep your floors'.

Perhaps you should post the whole PM so its not taken out of context.

Golly Vortex.  Are you suffering from delusions of grandeur?

I'm not the one writing papers that attempt a new explanation for the physical laws. Your serve.

[/quote]
Quote from: Vortex1 on January 16, 2010, 06:56:43 PM

Throughout the history of science, researchers have devised very simple and excellently crafted devices to make extremely fine measurements. This is way before DSO's were available.
[/quote]

Not sure of your point here.  So what?  It all evolved to the Textronix and their multiple brands of impeccable instrumentation and we were proud to use such.  This particular 'rolls royce' example has published specifications that are proven and carry their authority.  At its least such data is unquestionable.   

Yes the Tektronix (spell it right) equipment is some of the finest. I have a large collection going back to some of the very early tube models, maybe 30 in all. But even a Rolls Royce can crash and burn in the hands of the unskilled. As for the data.....you know the old adage.....garbage in=garbage out.

I wish you well in your work...try putting some low pass filters on some of your scope inputs, you might be surprised.

Best of Luck...You will need it...V