Claimed OU circuit of Rosemary Ainslie

[ramset]

H,
also look here
http://www.overunity.com/index.php?topic=7679.msg190845#new

[0c]

(Edit to add, no, I do not consider 0c to be a troll. )

(a stalker maybe?  ) Thanks for being so candid.

[ramset]

TK
Yes thanks for sharing [and all the doing!!!]
Chet

[TinselKoala]

(a stalker maybe?  ) Thanks for being so candid.

Let's say, "A fellow traveller." I think that would be most accurate.

[TinselKoala]

OK, back to "work". (EEK, I scared myself.)

I would really like to know the make and model of the function generator used, if one was used, to drive the Ainslie circuit for her reported experiment. She's not telling me, but it's an important question.
I need to know its adjustment capability and characteristics: Peak output voltage into 50 ohms; pulse width range; DC offset capability; sweep functionality or not; and so forth.

In the Quantum report of the experiment, of course, the FG is not mentioned AT ALL and the clocking is assumed to be from the accompanying circuit diagram--the infamous 555. There is also NO MENTION of the flyback diode and it does not appear on the diagram.

Yet in the EIT.pdf report of the same experiment:
In the EIT.pdf paper, the only mention of a FG is the little symbol on the diagram in that paper, and this phrase in the text:
"The oscillator is adjusted to output a frequency of 2.4KHz at a 3.7% duty
cycle on time. Adjusting the variable resistor in series with the gate of the
MOSFET reduces the gate current and results in random oscillation that
overrides the predetermined frequency and duty cycle."

The oscillator. And in the equipment list she makes much of the fact that her Fluke 199C is calibrated, and other equipment parameters are noted with calibration information. Yet the FG is not mentioned.
And now the flyback diode has mysteriously appeared and is a critical component of the experiment.

So, you have to see how this makes me think that the 555 circuit WAS in fact used in the reported experiment.
But if it wasn't, the information about what WAS used to clock the circuit is necessary, to make sure that what has been called a "typical first year EE mistake" (in reference to ME in the second video!!??!!) has not been made all through Ainslie's work.

I am coming to the opinion that we are being Mylowed, yet again.

(I note that in the NakedScientists thread she several times refers to the Fluke 123 scope she used. OOPS, in the papers I have it's a 199C. It's an easy mistake to make--the 199C is only twice the physical size of the 123, and when you google them quickly for a picture of a scopemeter you might get confused, especially if your eyesight is even worse than your memory...
No matter, as I have shown, I have BOTH a 199C and a 123 at my fingertips, and as soon as she gets her story straight I can use whatever she used in my replication attempt.)


Oh, and another question: with so many people building her circuit, with her right there giving instructions, and the circuit is supposed to be making COP>17, and the all the sophisticated measurements being made, many of which according to her are showing OU...

Why hasn't anyone reported burning their fingers!!??!!???