Claimed OU circuit of Rosemary Ainslie

[ramset]

 MileHigh  said

Ramset: Yes I think that the concerned scientist's points are all valid and he indicates that he is taking care of the circuit issues related to analog setups and propagating square wave signals properly. You can imagine a scenario where someone has a 555 timer on a small breadboard a few feet away from the MOSFET setup and they are interconnected with a long separate light-gage wires for signal and ground. They might not be aware that there is a "whol' lotta' shakin' an' bouncin' goin' on" in the signal levels between the 555 setup and the MOSFET setup which would wreak havoc with the results.

Anyway, hopefully somebody will crunch some watts!

To be serious: IMHO, if there are results that indicate extra energy, the circuit would then have to be picked apart some more by the first reporter with a scope and such. In parallel with that you would need at least three other replicators that then verify the results. Everybody's results would have to be shared with everything reasonably documentated as far as procedures and measurements go. Everybody should be able to generate an Excel spreadsheet or other document for others to review. In my case, I simply suggested a test procedure that if properly documented should stand up reasonably well unless I made an oversight or mistake somewhere.

A biggie documentation issue for example that I did not touch on is the error tolerance in every one of the measurement steps made. As you process the data the error tolerances typically add up, so +/-1% becomes +/-2% and so on. That means if you measure 1% excess energy and your error tolerance is +/-2% then you've proved nothing.

Now we can't forget that the paper states a COP of 17. For every watt of electrical power you put in you get 17 watts of heat power out. If the results are indeed this good, then the data should leap off of the page. Keep in mind the recent Gotoluc experiments with the dim bulb and the bright bulb or the cool resistor and the hot resistor. I believe that in all of those experiments the input power from the battery was not measured. Therfore the relevant data for drawing conclusions from wasn't even there in the first place. If you document and measure correctly you should be fine.

[ramset]

Aaron said
fluffy charge
Quote:
Originally Posted by RAMSET View Post
But MileHigh is also right that the energy in these spikes is miniscule and, even over the long periods we are discussing, cannot sum to anything like a significant charge return to the battery. What it CAN do is make what they call over there a "Fluffy Charge" (i love that term) .................

I also believe that they are not capable of significantly recharging the battery, as MileHigh says.
@Aaron says
Not sure why this disinformation keeps popping up.

I'm the one that started the term "fluffy charge" or "fluffy voltage" over 5 years ago to explain that with some radiant spike charging, the voltage is "fluffy" (mostly a light static charge) that gets popped (usually) as soon as applying a load to it (if it is a straight inductive load).

About 6 years ago, I was using my Bedini circuits to charge caps. Microwave caps for example with super low capacitance. 2uf or less. The cap was connected to a separate battery with an SCR in the circuit. Neon bulb triggered at 90v and dumped the cap. THOSE spikes from that circuit gave my battery a "fluffy charge" where the voltage went up then was unable to power a load. The load I was trying to power from it was a strong inductive load so no wonder. If there is a resistive load, you will see power from it. In a mixed component like an inductive resistor, that "fluffy voltage" will see resistance and you'll have some real watts.

So, it CAN and DOES supply measurable power in real wattage over time. And, NOT all charging with spikes is fluffy. Look at the Bedini chargers, that is far from fluffy. Of course that is with a real coil. With the inductive resistor, it is simply scaled down and proportionately, the spikes are just as good.

You say: "cannot sum to anything like a significant charge return to the battery" but that is your opinion not based on fact or experimental evidence and if you insist it is, then that is only based on your experiments that have not been able to produce results that Rosemary, myself and others have achieved.

The term SIGNIFICANT is 100% subjective to what you believe to be significant but overlooks the fact that ANY volume of potential can do work and if it supplies 1 single nano joule of work, then that is ABOVE what the math says. Take those spikes and charge a cap, you will see that REAL work can be had from it.

I've already done the test and the spikes from the resistor can charge a cap quite nicely and even a second battery. I have the recovery diode and it charged the FRONT battery (2 X 12v 7ah bank) to as high as 24.65 when the resting voltage was 24.45 before the test. 24.65 is above the resting voltage before the test was started and over 12 hours later, the circuit is STILL running from the "fluffy voltage". Every bit of wattage I'm getting through the circuit until it gets back down to resting voltage is ALL above and beyond (totally free) what you claim I can get.

[ramset]

 MileHigh  said

Aaron: Even if you can do something with the feeble return spikes, you can't forget the banking analogy. So what if the bank gives you a check for $10 every year for being a good customer if your banking costs for your enterprise are $15,000 per year.

For the fluffy voltages for whatever projects are going on, I can suggest that everyone use measurements of a battery's output impedance as a second way of describing the condition of their batteries before and after charging, running load tests, etc. All that everyone needs to do is standardize on a few key values of 10-watt resistor to use as the output impedance testing resistors. You could determine and agree on the right resistors to use for various standard battery sizes and types. Then everybody could exchange data about the voltages, fluffyness, and output impedance measurements and be on the same playing field. The higher the output impedance, the fluffier the battery, so why not measure it? All that you have to do is connect the resistor across the battery, measure the voltage drop, do some basic calculations, and you have your data. Who knows, perhaps there is already a Java applet online somewhere or somebody could create it.

[qiman]

Explains my circuit:
http://www.feelthevibe.com/free_energy/rosemary_ainslie/ainslieheater.pdf

Youtube video demo:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Z84u7--u3Qw

When the circuit is setup, it is common sense how to get the mosfet to go into high frequency self oscillation. Duty cycle is irrelevant as Rosemary said because it can happen at 99% duty cycle, which I have done and it still sends power to the front battery.

[ramset]

 Allcanadian  said about Aarons replication circuit and vid
@Aaron
Thank you for finally showing the self-oscillation that Rosemary stated was required. I was starting to wonder if all the so-called experts here and were ever going to figure it out. It should have been obvious from the start that there was no way in hell the 555 timer could hit the true resonance of such a small inductance in the inductor/resistor, not in a million years. It also should have been just as obvious that the 555 timer rise/fall times are way to slow to produce efficient conversion, they must be at the minimum rise/fall duration of the mosfet, the circuit disrupter. Excellent video
Regards
AC