Claimed OU circuit of Rosemary Ainslie

[BEP]

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?

Consider your solution confirmed. At least as far as your description of the real circuit behavior.

This circuit is not at all uncommon. In fact, I have one in-use for quite some time. I had to put a 2N2222 follower on the 555 pin 3 to invert the output so the 'REAL' ON cycle was the -short- part of the cycle. Using the CMOS flavor of the 555 you can have some very short pulses, once inverted.

The 100 ohm pot on pin 3 would just allow adjustment to a cleaner square wave out - or more sloppy. Whatever your preference. It does make a cleaner wave around 500 ohms with a 12V supply on the 555 while driving an IRF510.

The part values on the RC side would make it easy to push the 555 into La-La land. And yes, my sacrificial scope, an old 100meg Tektronix, can't keep up with the 555 when it goes ballistic with total cycle times less than off+on.

Attached is a way to fire the MOSFET with the shorter 'OFF' part of the 555 output.

[ramset]

TK
Does this mean I have to cut your grass for the rest of my life?
If your findings are true ,you've saved this community a lot of wasted time.


Chet

[TinselKoala]

@BEP: yep, I also have used similar circuits for years. I consume 555s and 2222s like candy. (My, they're crunchy.) And over the years I've learned to wear safety glasses around 555s that are hooked up to inductances. A liberal sprinkling of good fast diodes in the circuit will often keep the smoke in, but it is amazing how loud that little chip can be when it blows up. Tends to startle the landlord.

@ramset: lol, I neither sow nor do I reap, I just let it grow...
But before we consider the issue completely closed it would be nice to hear from someone (Rosemary? Are you out there somewhere?) who can confirm or deny that her research actually suffers from this problem. Although at this point it seems increasingly likely.

For your amusement:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=18raNyVTL6g

[Kator01]

Hi TinseKoala,

why not report your findings here in order to stop all the blah-blah of the so called experts and save time and energy of innocnet members of this group:

http://www.free-energy.ws/rosemary-ainslie.html

and ask Rosemary the relevant question her at her Blogsite

http://rosemaryainslie.blogspot.com/

As I stated before, you can save blowing your 555-chips by using the MIC4423-24-25.

NE555 can blow because of the huge reverse-current originating from the charge in the gate. It does not have anthing to do with inductance in this case.

Despite these facts, the low Inductance of 8 to 10 Myko-Henry does not store much energy at this frequency.
In another circuit where I was testing ( Cap recharge project byuser null_points ) I used a 2 Milli-Henry coil from an old speaker-filter. It had a inner resistance of 0.7 Ohm and I switched one fully charged cap with a BUZ11 via this coil to another cap. Here I found a very long off-ringing oscillation the frequnecy of which did not change much even if I used half of the inductivity ( 1 Millihenry ). Attached some the pics I made of this circuit including the damped oscillation. You have to adapt the frequency so the oscillation ends just before the next puls ( which i had not done yet in this pic set_ocill_01.jpg ) The red circled area is the time the flyback-diode is active. If it shuts of the rest of the flyback-energy oscillates between C1- and C2. Without the diode the oscillation was absolutly weird and the recharge efficiency very bad. I was able to regain the energy with this ultrafast diode so I had only a loss of 20 % at the end of the discarge-cycle. The discharge-cycle ended when the voltage-Level C2 and C1 was almost equal.

Frankly speaking : I think that especially if I observe the way, this is discussed in the above mentioned forum, this is jet another game of some known desinformation-agents acting in the free-energy.ws-forum in order to destract the attention of people.

Best Regards

Kator01

[ramset]

Tk
All
In regard to this circuit,I believe its  real purpose is to prove the following.

posted by User Skywatcher [and agreed upon by P. Lindemann]
Quote<
And that is that we can charge a coil, make a magnetic field and use the field in a non-impeding manner such as an attraction motor or other setup and then we can reuse most of the field when it collapses.
>end Quote

Chet
PS
See this type of claim seems feasible to me,but I am unschooled  in these matters