Claimed OU circuit of Rosemary Ainslie

[TinselKoala]

Now, this thread is about the Claimed Overunity Circuit of Rosemary Ainslie.
So I am going to make a post concerning that circuit and those claims.

If I had a circuit that produced robust overunity at the levels that Rosemary is claiming, and she's claiming they can be easily gotten, and with common components, I would certainly be using it, if not to heat my home, at least to boil water for coffee.
Or, failing that, I would have a demonstration circuit set up that I could show to anyone who is interested, with some unequivocal means of demonstrating excess heat (SEVENTEEN times excess heat.)
Or, I would be able to keep batteries charged with real energy and run some lights or something for anomalously long times, and would be glad to refute any criticisms with solid proof.

But instead we have someone who seemingly doesn't understand the basics of electronics, formulating a wild elaborate theory based on flawed data from a poorly-designed and performed experiment, who ignores and flames the person who has done the most NEARLY EXACT reproduction of her experiment--even to the point of obtaining the same kind of heating in the load...and who cannot show any scope traces, any currently working build of her device, or any useful work performed by it.

And we seem to have picked up a parasite from being exposed to the flim-flam, as well.

Very much par for the course, I'd say, but still disappointing.

Oh, did I distract the thread from Wilby's pounding issue? Sorry...here, I'll reset it:

"send me your address and i will send you the part, you worthless bum"
"send me your address and i will send you the part, you worthless bum"
"send me your address and i will send you the part, you worthless bum"
"send me your address and i will send you the part, you worthless bum"

Damn, the reset key seems to be stuck.

[TinselKoala]

Just for grins, let's see what a COP of >17 means in reality, if it's obtained with these kinds of components and at the power levels claimed.

My 1500 watt space heater is pretty efficient, converting the electrical power into heat. Let's say it's 33 percent efficient, so when it's drawing 1500 watts from the wall it's making about 500 watts of real heat power, or releasing 500 Joules per second into the room. (1 watt = 1 joule-second, so one watt of power for one second is one Joule of energy.) It's eating 1500 Joules per second to do this.
(The real efficiency is probably much higher, of course. But let's stay with the 1/3 figure as it is a nice underestimate and easy to compute with.)
Now, if Ainslie's claims were true, we should be able to do much better than this, using the SAME heater (it's got a bunch of nichrome wire spirals in it; cut them to the right length, adjust the inductances by geometry, hook up a bank of mosfets and diodes, a wall-wart instead of the batteries...and Bob's your transvestite auntie.)
So now with a COP>17 available...that's a clumsy number, let's use 15 (to compensate for the wrong MOSFETS?)...
The heating coils may be assumed to have the same 33 percent overall electricity-to-heat conversion efficiency...we haven't done anything to them except cut and stretch them...so let's still say it takes 1500 Joules into the coils to get 500 Joules of heat out. But the mosfet circuitry will give us that 1500 Joules for 1/15th the cost--that is, 100 Joules. So the COP>17 Ainslie circuit would give AT LEAST 500 Joules per second heat out, for 100 Joules per second electrical energy in--which means, even with inefficiencies included, and cutting the numbers down a bit more for Wilby, you could still run a 1500 watt space heater for the same energy cost as a 100 watt light bulb.

Don't you think someone would have noticed?

[WilbyInebriated]

Just for grins, let's see what a COP of >17 means in reality, if it's obtained with these kinds of components and at the power levels claimed.

My 1500 watt space heater is pretty efficient, converting the electrical power into heat. Let's say it's 33 percent efficient, so when it's drawing 1500 watts from the wall it's making about 500 watts of real heat power, or releasing 500 Joules per second into the room. (1 watt = 1 joule-second, so one watt of power for one second is one Joule of energy.) It's eating 1500 Joules per second to do this.
(The real efficiency is probably much higher, of course. But let's stay with the 1/3 figure as it is a nice underestimate and easy to compute with.)
Now, if Ainslie's claims were true, we should be able to do much better than this, using the SAME heater (it's got a bunch of nichrome wire spirals in it; cut them to the right length, adjust the inductances by geometry, hook up a bank of mosfets and diodes, a wall-wart instead of the batteries...and Bob's your transvestite auntie.)
So now with a COP>17 available...that's a clumsy number, let's use 15 (to compensate for the wrong MOSFETS?)...
The heating coils may be assumed to have the same 33 percent overall electricity-to-heat conversion efficiency...we haven't done anything to them except cut and stretch them...so let's still say it takes 1500 Joules into the coils to get 500 Joules of heat out. But the mosfet circuitry will give us that 1500 Joules for 1/15th the cost--that is, 100 Joules. So the COP>17 Ainslie circuit would give AT LEAST 500 Joules per second heat out, for 100 Joules per second electrical energy in--which means, even with inefficiencies included, and cutting the numbers down a bit more for Wilby, you could still run a 1500 watt space heater for the same energy cost as a 100 watt light bulb.

Don't you think someone would have noticed?

LMFAO, you should apply for a job on mythbusters, your "science" would be a perfect fit.

just for grins, let us know when you get around to that "serious" work, and that test of your hypothesis about the irfpg50. is this endless prattle just that, your idea of serious work?

[TinselKoala]

No, I do it to rattle your cage, and it's something to do while the videos upload. In the one I'm uploading now I have the Fluke0Scope hooked up, and I show that it apparently defaults to 96.3 percent on duty cycles with short off times, and 3.7 percent on duty cycles with short on times. That is, those numbers are the maximum and minimum duty cycles that it will report. At least at 2.4 kHz. (EDIT: it does flip to 96.4 there for a moment but I can't get it to stabilize there. I would hope that the scope could do better than this.)
So this even calls into question the reliability of the "3.7" percent number, and especially the shorter number that she says happens during "random chaotic resonance"--which is almost certainly her term for false triggering of the Fluke. Which I will also be illustrating, if Wilby will cut me a break.

Oh, and there's also this:

"send me your address and i will send you the part, you worthless bum"

(I'll never get tired of that, it's so much fun. So you might as well just send it--no, wait, then you wouldn't have anything to bitch about at all, and we wouldn't want that.)

[TinselKoala]

LMFAO, you should apply for a job on mythbusters, your "science" would be a perfect fit.

just for grins, let us know when you get around to that "serious" work, and that test of your hypothesis about the irfpg50. is this endless prattle just that, your idea of serious work?

I'll be pleased if you can show me the error(s) in my calculations. Other than the one I made by expecting you to understand it, that is.