Claimed OU circuit of Rosemary Ainslie

[jas_bir77]

@TinselKoala
best of luck

[Groundloop]

@TinselKoala,

I have uploaded the Rosemary Ainslie patent. Can be found here:
http://www.overunity.com/index.php?action=downloads;sa=view;down=290

Also, I noted that she state in an article that she did add inductance to the heating resistor. See snip. If you read the patent then you can see in one of the drawings that she put the heating resistor (load) in parallel with the coil. I think there is more to this circuit than just the load resistor.

Groundloop.

[TinselKoala]

Erp. Yesss....

I have found very interesting behavior using the 555 timer circuit as compared to the FG output.

The FG output, set to 10 V peak and under 5 percent duty cycle, gave no heating of mosfet or load.

The 555 timer circuit produces pulses that are, as I expected, not as "clean", that is, rectangular, as the FG pulses, but a casual inspection would say that they are very similar indeed.

However they produce radically different behaviours in the Ainslie oscillator.

I'm still playing with it, but I can definitely say this much: the mosfet and load resistor/inductor do definitely get quite warm at short duty cycle (load resistor went up to 76 C quite rapidly); the major spikes are now on the leading edge of the pulse, and there may be more peculiarities of interest as well.

The 100R pot in the 555 circuit has miniscule effect on anything, until you look really closely at the spikes on a fast timescale.  It might be possible to induce false triggering with setting this pot, but it sure doesn't induce anything like random oscillations or parasitic ones either.
The 200K pot in my original circuit still has the greatest effect on waveform.

Also some power leaks through from the battery powering the timer circuit, but it really doesn't look like much, just off the cuff.

I will make a video showing what I mean later on tonight, unless the MIB get here first.


(I'm still not seeing anything like chaotic or random behaviour though...I have seen false triggering or non-triggering of the scopes due to the complexity of the spikyness...could she be referring to false triggering? I mean, even parasitic oscillations are usually regular enough to be resolved on the scope...)

[TinselKoala]

(light bulb goes on over head)

Is it possible that my FG is making the device operate at a duty cycle of 3.5 percent "on" and the 555 is making it operate at a duty cycle of 3.5 percent "off" ??
This would move the apparent position of the spikes, and would account for the vast heating discrepancy...

(runs off to check polarities, yet again....)

[TinselKoala]

WHOLLY CRAP!!!

The Ainslie 555 timer circuit as posted above produces a duty cycle that is from 0 to 10 percent or so OFF, and CANNOT be adjusted to make a duty cycle that is 3.5 percent ON.
When I was testing the circuit I inadvertently had the scope's "polarity invert" switch for the 555 channel in the invert position, and I compared the waveforms of the FG and the 555 and they looked alike--but of course since the 555 waveform was inverted, what represented "ON" peaks from the FG corresponded with OFF peaks from the 555 circuit.

So the complete circuit as specified in the above posts from ramset and groundloop generates what I would call a 96.5 percent duty cycle, NOT a 3.5 percent one. The mosfet is ON most of the time, the spikes are still on the trailing edge of the pulses, the heating is not unusual at all, and all the power calculations in Ainslie's papers are, shall we say, "in error" because of this mistake in duty cycle.

Can anybody confirm this with a quick build of the 555 circuit and an oscilloscope?