Claimed OU circuit of Rosemary Ainslie

[ramset]

post from Jolt

Hi
I did complete right now the Timer Circuit with the Parts from the Quantum article.
I had only a 5k Resistor instead of the 5,2k.

But the Timer does, what it says.


Its actually One Line, but i had to use a longer exposure time.
Clock is set there 2µS, Scale at 200µS Voltage 1V, Probe 1:1, Source 8,5V
Else i used all other Parts what are in the List.
I can adjust it as i need it.

So? i guess i save better my further Comments on that....

PS. Seems, some better bake a Cake as to make Circuits, and cry, when they dont work for her.
__________________

[TinselKoala]

TK is absolutely knowingly spreading disinformation not only about this circuit, about me and the forum.

In his youtube post, he said:

"
TinselKoala (1 hour ago) Show Hide
Marked as spam
Reply
There seem to be certain individuals who are having trouble figuring out the exact circuit used here. Hopefully those individuals will read the description to the upper right of this page, and follow some of the links to Ainslie's original documents, where the circuit I am using is described.
Or, Rosemary, maybe you can ask Aaron to undelete the post where I showed the photo and the circuit.
See, that's one of the problems with allowing censorship. You might miss something you need to know."
"

Tk, you can post your pics and schematics here. I have asked TK not to participate in the thread I started because he is disruptive, lacks respect and tactfulness and is incredibly arrogant. I don't know if his attitude is welcome here but it isn't welcome in my own forum. I always encourage different points of view if it is on target but when someone starts to argue the difference between a patent application and a patent, it is obvious what the persons intent is and it has nothing to do with sharing replication attempt data. It is to cause trouble.

I asked him not to post 3 times, once in a PM and twice in the thread. He continued to post, which is an obvious sign of his true colors and willful intent to have zero respect for anyone starting a thread or moderating a forum.

I deleted the two messages because I asked him not to post anymore to begin with and I said I WOULD delete any more posts that he makes.

So many people with nothing to offer but disrespect and lack of results always wants to claim CENSORSHIP because for people that don't know better, believes that it implies that there was something worthy to be censored - an egotistical way of elevating one's own worth through deception.

Again, it is common sense that he can post any pic, video, opinions elsewhere on the web and his deleted posts were because of blatantly disrespecting the wishes of the person that started the thread (me) and has ZERO do to with censorship. We have links back to this thread here in OU so don't flatter yourself on the censorship claim because it is bogus.

TK is ANONYMOUS and is not confident enough to use his real name or show his face while he hides behind a username and insults others. He claims others have met the same failure as his and again, failed to provide their names or their willingness to show the failures themselves.

Any childish prankster can hide behind the phone while calling someone up and insulting them.

Good luck to you all and your replication attempts and remember that TK's failure to produce results only is a failure for him and only applies to him and over time, more attempts will reveal the value of the circuit and not one individual's attempt coupled with arrogant disrespect.

There are members that are getting interesting and positive results with heating at very low duty cycles, which is something that TK has been unable to figure out how to do. Results are results and documentation beats conversation any day.

Well, by now you have read at least 5, countem, 5 different "replicators" who have actually demonstrated heat in the load, as I have, and have explained why it happens and what the problem is with Ainslie's calculations.

So, if you accuse me of posting disinfo about you and or the circuit, Please Support Your Claims by pointing to ,or quoting, this 'disinformation" that I am posting.
Everything I post about this circuit and my experience with it is true. Much of what I have posted comes directly from Rosemary, or someone posting as witsend in her stead. I give references, links, and very clear video explanations of what I've done.
SO, where's the disinfo? Do you mean where I say "many of my relevant posts have been deleted by "moderation""? Is the beef over the use of "many" instead of "two"?? (EDIT: I suppose I have to concede this point. Only in some third world countries is "two" considered many. So I'll go and change my slanderous scandalous misinfo. When will you change yours? Rosemary's?)
Because it is undeniable that at least two relevant posts of mine were deleted, one of which was in answer to a direct question from Rosemary as to what circuit I am using.
Is it about the patent vs. patent application? Who's spreading disinfo here?
Do you think I should show my application for a driver's licence the next time I show ID, or is there actually a difference between an application and the thing applied for? It is apparent to me, from reading all the posts on various forums, that she wants people to think she has actual patents, when she doesn't.
Disinfo? No, speculation about what is true.
Now, there's the issue of the duty cycle. Do you not realize that some people are even having circuit boards manufactured with that circuit? Which as I have shown many times and others have shown as well, does NOT and CANNOT do what Rosemary says it does. Disinformation? Yes--but it's not coming from me.

I think it's wonderful that people may be trying to PROVE ME WRONG. If it's so easy, why hasn't anyone shown that the 555 circuit Rosemary keeps saying she used, does something different than what I say it does? Hmmm...?

There is nothing to replicate here. Rosemary does not even know herself what her patent contains--see the thread on NakedScientists, where she says she has never even read the "patent".
The duty cycle is wrong, the energy calculations are wrong, the two publications describing the same experiment with different circuits, one with and one without that pesky diode...wrong.

Yes, there is certainly a lot of disinformation and knowingly wrong material out there about this topic. But it isn't coming from me. I can PROVE or demonstrate all the assertions about the circuit that I have made.

Can you? Can Rosemary?

At least Mylow had something himself to demonstrate.

And as far as arrogant disrespect goes, read the early posts, and read how people responded to me when I politely reported the duty cycle issue...which should have set off a lot more real alarm bells than it did. In this case I didn't start it. But I will carry it through.

(EDIT to add: now we see Joit's scope shot showing what appears to be a long on duty cycle...time to bake a cake.)

[TinselKoala]

Well, I can tell Joit won't be around over there very long.

And I see DrStiffler is trying to explain the very same thing Henieck has explained so well, here and there. He doesn't see the battery recharging, he knows the diode recirculates to the coil.

And in post 502 Aaron says:
"Take note that nothing has been removed." Which, even at the time he posted it, was and is a lie. In fact the post with the photo and another post were between 470 and 500 somewhere. And they are gone. And I obviously did not remove them. Since I can't even log on.

[TinselKoala]

Inductance in a coil of wire, from physical dimensions:
http://hyperphysics.phy-astr.gsu.edu/hbase/electric/indsol.html

The light bulb that I used in #4 and #5 measures 0.109 milliHenry. ( !! )
The load used by Ainslie is stated to be 0.00864 milliHenry.

I am actually having trouble finding a resistive/inductive load that goes as low as hers. Tonight I tried a stock 0.0082 mH choke, it measured 9.6 ohms DC. But it was small, low power handling capability, wound with fine wire.
Why am I speaking of it in the past tense?
Do you really need to ask?? Damn, it's hard to get the smoke back into those little things.


I've been using several others that can handle the power, but their inductance is a bit high; I would like to get Ainslie's number more closely. Calculating the inductance using the applet above gives the right ballpark figure based on the stated physical dimensions. So I will obtain still more nichrome wire--ribbon this time--and wind Yet Another coil.

Using the low-power but fairly close otherwise inductor as the load, I found some very interesting differences in the waveform with and without the various recirculating diodes that I'm trying. If you like spikes, it looks to me like the slower 1n4007 is actually making sharper and cleaner spikes. It may be that the ultrafast diode is actually switching so much faster that the scope trace is just dimmer for that one. I'll have to look at this portion on a faster scope later in the week.
But the signal without the diode is really weird. Not random chaotic resonant, I still think that's a myth caused by faulty scope triggering. But weird anyway, like the spikes on a cartoon dinosaur's back. And even weirder is how the scope trace transforms when a diode is switched in. It smooths out that old dino's backbone all the way flat. Does it send those spikes to the battery? It tries to...but the battery fights back.

A problem that catches people who are pulse-charging lead acid batteries, is that HV pulses will raise the battery's indicated no-load voltage to anomalously high values, considering the state of charge of the battery.

[allcanadian]

@TK
I watched your Electric OU 5: The Ainslie circuit as PWM Motor Controller--Effect of Recirculation Diode video. I think you have made a few very common mistakes in the video. One, your motor is a brushed dc motor which as Im sure you know shorts the inductive discharge through the commutator into the next winding each cycle, this cannot be considered as anything remotely close to a pure inductance. Two, you are simply pulsing a poor inductance at any old frequency with nothing resembling resonance, you know resonance. When an inductance is pulsed at resonance the input equals the output minus ohmic resistance or zero impedence. From your scope shots I will have to assume that either you do not know what you are doing or you do not know what resonance is. From your equipment I know you know better than this so I was wondering what it is exactly that you are trying to prove here?.
Regards
AC