Claimed OU circuit of Rosemary Ainslie

[TinselKoala]

No, what got you kicked off isn't your disagreement. It was your belligerent, arrogant and egotistical attitude and your personal attacks that had nothing to do with the issues at hand.

You could be right about that circuit not doing 3%, I don't know. I choose to use a circuit that I already know for a fact does produce 3.7% and 2.4kHz.

What you are absolutely wrong about is that 97% duty cycle will not give results and it will.

You can't even get your own lies straight. I have always said that long duty cycles produce heat. In fact it only takes a couple of minutes using the original 555 timer to make an ACTUAL ainslie load overheat. That's why I said that HER ORIGINAL DATA could not have been made with the 97 percent duty cycle--her resistor only got to 50 degrees above ambient--UNLIKE YOURS.
So once again you are lying about what I said and did, and you are continuing to make some other circuit than Ainslie's, with different performance parameters. So why are you discussing it here? I am trying to do what Ainslie did. You are doing something else, apparently.

[TinselKoala]

Here are some FACTS:
1) Rosemary Ainslie does not have any issued patents. She only has filed patent applications, which apparently are no longer current.
2) The Quantum article and the EIT.pdf paper describe the same experiment, yet one uses a diode and the other does not.
3) The Quantum article gives a 555 timer circuit that produces an inverted duty cycle from what is claimed in the paper.
4) The EIT.pdf paper cites the Quantum article as the only reference, and refers to the circuit given there.
5) The stated inductance of the Ainslie load is quite low, and most people are using much higher inductances. Yet Ainslie specifically states that the load resistor was chosen "for its inductance" hence implying that a low inductance is important.
6) The claim is being made that most any circuit of this type running at most any frequency and most any load inductance or duty cycle will produce overunity. Yet no overunity is being shown. Especially not 17 times overunity.

These are just a few undeniable facts that have emerged from my work.

There are more undeniable facts as well.

Time will tell.

[TinselKoala]

And I find it quite hilarious that you are finally showing those particular waveforms.

Because I have been showing identical ones for about a month now, in my YT videos and on this thread.

But it's nice that you finally figured out how to display a waveform (almost) properly.

[0c]

I'd like to suggest we start a Murakami Magic thread. He's obviously next in line for a Nobel. But it's not the Ainsley circuit, it's his own brew and deserves its own thread at OU.com. Certified by Aaron!

So let's make sure we have the circuit right, and the test protocol. Let's get it all down to a science so everyone can see it and we can all get something built to heat our homes and reduce our utility bills by winter.

Now, how much heat does it generate vs. power consumed? 17x, you say? Sounds good to me. Have you started selling them yet? Where can I get one? How come you are not using it to promote your book yet, as you are with Rosemary's circuit, which doesn't work (see Bonus #10 near the bottom of the page at: http://www.thequantumkey.com/index.html ).

[poynt99]

@Poynt99

Disagreements on EF is one thing but to insinuate that any of us will lie and make up results is really pathetic. You should be ashamed of yourself.

This is what you are referring to?

Yeah,

It was time to get out. It's an up-hill battle with R&A and sometimes it felt as if we were playing into the hands of a collective troll. I sure hope that is not the case.

What MH said about the folks there "not knowing what they don't know" seems so applicable.

The facts will come out if they're obtained by a competent crew. My greatest fear is that the data will be swayed, manipulated, or just plain mis-treated with the same eager bias evident in every step of the debative process thus far. All "seemingly positive" results have been met with unhindered exuberance and improvidence, while the sobering heavily backed-up facts of the classicist have only been shunned, ignored, slandered and incoherently questioned.

A most basic level of technical understanding is required before true judgment can be impartially placed on any theory or accepted practice. I think it is quite evident that R&A are not quite there yet.

.99

Lie and make up results? Sorry if it was not clear to you, but that is not what I was trying to say exactly.

Swayed, manipulated, mis-treated in the context of a heavily biased position is what I meant. I do not expect or even think that you guys will deliberately lie or make up results. I just think the results might get mis-interpreted and used incorrectly; all because of bias, and wanting to believe so badly.

I'm not even accusing you guys of doing it on purpose, I'm just saying that I can see this happening. I see it happening already with your latest scope shots.

Anyway, just ignore me and everyone else Aaron, at least until folks have had a chance to review your officially submitted results. The only thing that counts are your results, if properly obtained. They will speak for themselves, and I have told Rosemary the very same thing. The same goes for TK or anyone else seriously doing the tests.

.99