Claimed OU circuit of Rosemary Ainslie

[alan]

The problem that I have identified is that the circuit in the above article Does Produce Heat in the load. It also has a 96.3 percent ON duty cycle, NOT the 3.7 percent ON that the authors of the paper claim. But a 3.7 percent ON duty cycle does NOT produce heating of the load.

quite logical dont you think, more current flows, thus more heat is wasted.

ask yourself why you would want a small dutycycle?

MY 2 CTS, havent studied the circuit very much, so my view could be wrong:

The dutycycle must correlate/compensate the time constant of the coil, the time it takes for current to rise.

at one instant, you get potential difference over the coil - this is felt by the load, without current going through it - call it static electricity, or scalar wave, or radiant energy.

I think you can even up the frequency, while keeping the same dutycycle in units of time, not percentage.

While the FET is low or non conducting, a displacement current flows, inducing a magnetic field and all, and voltage is built up, current stops flowing [contrary to a closed loop] but voltage stays there, just like a regular wire, and the field collapses because current changes to zero amps.

Now introduce ground to the coil, current starts flowing through the coil but gets inhibited by the reactance, while the potential over the coil remains.
After a short pulse duration, when FET gets low again, the voltage on the ground side gets replenished.

I don't know if you have done this, but analyze this:
measure with a scope the voltage over the coil while pulsing, but also when switching on the power.
see if it gets magnetized when switching power on, but while fet stays in non conducting state.

You can conclude that a bigger coil is better, because current will rise slower.

[TinselKoala]

Hi Alan
Thanks for taking a look. But I suggest you spend a moment and look at the Quantum article and the EIT pdf paper (links above in the thread somewhere.)
The heating of the load is the "output" of this circuit as claimed, and as far as I can tell the overunity claim depends on the true duty cycle that was fed to the mosfet. The heating of the load isn't in question, but rather what duty cycle was actually used to produce the heating shown in Rosemary Ainslie's paper.
I've built the circuit exactly, with the exception of the MOSFET--the one that I'm using is the 2sk1548 which has similar parameters to the IRFPG50. However the mosfet isn't the issue for me--but rather, the duty cycle of the 555 timer circuit.

One possible reason for the "mistake" if there is one, is the fact that the voltage at point "A", where she monitors the load, is high (that is, at battery voltage) when the MOSFET is OFF. This might make some think that the duty cycle at this point is short, when actually the load is OFF when the voltage here is high. So the load is ON (current flowing through it, causing heating) when the voltage at "A" is LOW, which means the circuit shown here is making a LONG duty cycle not a short one.  Current is flowing in the load (and being drawn from the battery) for 96.3 percent of the time, not 3.7 percent as the papers state.
Hence the OU calculations are in error.

UNLESS:::Unless I have made some really embarrassing mistake. So I have been trying to get people to build the 555 timer portion of the circuit at least, using the Quantum paper (or the cleaned-up diagram from Groundloop) to verify or deny that it makes the duty cycle that I found.

If I've made a mistake I would really like to know, because I'd like to continue on with output measurements, as it's an interesting project. But if what I've found re duty cycle is true (and I don't consider it confirmed yet) then there isn't much point in continuing, that I can see.

As far as the magnetic measurements that you suggest Alan, I'll position a Hall sensor in the appropriate place and see what it does, the next time I fire up the system, which will probably be later this evening. I think I've already looked at the voltage drop across the load, looking for power injection from the FG or timer circuit...but I can't really remember right now, so I'll repeat those measurements as well. Thanks for the suggestions...I don't know what to do with the findings but maybe you will.

--TK

(EDIT I don't know why you removed your comment; it made perfect sense to me...)

[alan]

-

[alan]

I made it some more readable 
I've read the article

my comments wasn't really relevant to the circuit, I had something different in mind, remembered the circuit incorrectly.
I thought the load was placed parallel over the coil, but the load is the inductive resistor itself.

Have you done any temperature measurements?

anyway, I saw your vid's and you did a great experiment, I give it a thought later again.

[WilbyInebriated]

tk

i see you tossing the word 'exact' or 'exactly' out in a few of your posts. maybe you need a refresher?
http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/exactly

did you drop the $10! for the correct fet yet? i should think after your $1000 U.S. equiv. offer to mylow? and your own admission that you spent $900 and 80hrs of your time on it (mylow's wheel) you wouldn't be so pompous as to expect us to think you can't cough up the $10! for the correct fet for this 'debunking'. i should also think you wouldn't want to leave this fet issue open for contention whatsoever. nice work as usual.