Claimed OU circuit of Rosemary Ainslie

[ramset]

OC
you selfish Bastid !![only kidding I've been trying to do the same]
Freeing up TK !!

This needs closier
These guys should  MAKE SOME HEAT already!!
COP up the Kazzooo enough back slapping
Where not talking COP .oooooooo1


   COP 17    +1700% and rising   lotsa f**kin power  BURNS the fingers stuff
not 2 degrees over ambient [my farts are OU then]

Aaron boil water, count the time, no voodoo just BTU 1700% SMOKINNNN..

6 weeks 2 degrees
1700%???

No criticism just facts if Rosemaries circuit has legs let that dog run[circuit]
define the"" effect""and make it grow!!
Thats the reason TK is here
a published paper that claimed COP 17

So far 2 dgrees above ambient [ something stapled to Aarons desk?? not Rosemary's}

DEFINE THE EFFECT, PRODUCE THE EFFECT!!ENHANCE THE EFFECT!!

BOIL some water  1700 % you better have a fire extinguisher

Chet

[TinselKoala]

I don't believe in going around quoting, i personally think it's kinda lame for the most part in these cases. But peeps saw above that you accused Aaron of not being able to read a scope: They can come to their own conclusions what you meant there.

I gotta say, once the one bogus explanation is exploded, moving on to the next one like nothing happened will garner diminishing returns (just as it was 3 days ago with the last red herring, the "ground loop" stuff based on "Single Ended to Ground" input circuit oddities which were totally MOOT in this case; nearly as much as the "triggering" claims).

Although now i think we have gone through all possible obfuscations regarding the instrumentation (although i could be wrong about that, hehehe ).

I guess it's your bad luck you ran across someone who knows WTF they are talking about when it comes to test & measurement instrumentation. Those 18 years in the field, traveling all over the world to over 24 countries, visiting over 450 mostly high-profile Customers on-site (such as every NASA center, Edwards AFB, Fort Meade, several nuc power plants and plenty of coal-fired ones, a dozen other important military bases, N.I.H. in Bethesda, hundreds of major hospitals including Johns Hopkins and Mayo Clinic, and virtually every major University in the U.S. doing medical research and many doing physical science research as well)... Wasn't totally wasted time after all. That resume is not to brag: Just to show that if you make a claim about instrumentation, you had better have your ducks in a row next time... I used to feed my family on what i know about it. 

Sure the DMM is not accurate in reading transients it only proves SOMETHING OF INTEREST HAPPENED (...which i will remind peeps, was in denial for weeks in the above thread).

And i will say again (as i did several pages ago), the only accurate way of amplitude measurement in these cases is to capture them on a digital storage scope or data acquisition system with a proper high sample rate, and let either the on-board calc functions or PC-based analysis software do the averaging... These are pretty much infallible (i've done months of Beta Testing on these in the past and i know for fact they can be relied upon... They ARE the industry standard and multi-million dollar corporate decisions, or important medical Studies, are based on their results every day).

I would personally very much like to see us all move in this direction (digital storage and PC analysis): It will gain us credibility and professionalism that will utterly shut up critics, and allow our positive results to make it into the mainstream much faster. Of course the problem there is "cost"... They ain't cheap (even to rent). And the faster the max per-channel Sample Rate, the more expensive the devices get. You can get a "Dataq" 4 channel DAQ system, with analysis software thrown in for free, for about $300.. But what use is "280 samples per second" here?? NONE at all of course (well except for reading "Temp" which can be very slow). The per-channel Sample Rate should be at least 10 times the fastest F you want to record, for real accuracy. That would mean that we need to capture this with AT LEAST "2.4 Megasamples / sec" sample rate PER CHANNEL. 

As for Aaron's vid, he showed what he set out to do. And at the time, it was enough to totally refute the claims of "no oscillation"... Which are now sunk. 

If he couldn't get it to trigger at the higher time bases, it is because it is "astable" and not "STABLE", get it? It must be a REPEATABLE cycle at a measurable repeatable period for the scope's triggering circuit to work properly.

That is why a storage scope, PC-based scope, or PC-based Data Acquisition system with "sample & hold" (such as the Fluke 199) WILL show that signal in all it's glory via a "snap shot".  And that is important, as it really does need to be captured, measured, and analyzed... And of course it would be even better if an "FFT" could be done on it in PC-based analysis software so we could see the most common beat freq's verses amplitude (which could ultimately give us some important clues to making it more reproducible, and useful). THAT'S how it would be done in the "real world".   

But i believe that will come too eventually as the good folks out there reproduce this effect (...since they won't be listening to all the nay-saying anymore)

Jib, your remarks are better addressed to Rosemary than to me. In the VERY FIRST videos in the series, I demonstrated the DMM crazy effect and pointed it out as evidence that spikes were making it back to the battery. And I have shown cap charging thru a diode many times before with inductors pulsed by mosfets.
So you once again are burning a straw man.

The purpose of my investigation has been to check the specific claims of a specific circuit. Aaron's circuit is NOT the circuit I am examining; it is NOT the circuit used in the Ainslie papers, and it oscillates the way it does because of poor construction, and you know that perfectly well. Nobody who has built the ACTUAL circuit using proper construction has seen that oscillation--or at least has not reported it.

The Fluke 199 cannot do on-board integration.
The Fluke 199 cannot resolve very short or very long duty cycles.

The LeCroy that I have sitting here, can, however. Is the 9370M an acceptable instrument, Jib? I know it's old, and only has 1 GHz bandwidth with a sample rate of 500Ms/sec...oh, well, it's the best I can do, right off the shelf.
And as soon as I am able to reproduce AINSLIE's oscillatons, not Aaron's, you can bet your bippy that I will be analyzing them.

Ainslie has yet to provide any real information regarding the oscillations in HER circuit, which Aaron's is not.

There are several ways to test properly this circuit, 0c. Unfortunately,  all these ways are rejected by Rosemary. Only ways that show the circuit to be OU will be allowed.

Perhaps the easiest and fastest way, without the DAQ bs that Jibguy favors (but will not conduct himself) would be to rent a Clarke-Hess 2335, and measure the input and output power directly with no BS in between.

http://www.clarke-hess.com/2335.html

Earthtech International has one of these and I'm sure that I could arrange for them to test Rosemary's actual circuit, if I asked them nicely. I would even go so far as to pay for the test myself--with Rosemary's actual COP>17 circuit, of course.

And if we only had Rosemary's actual circuit to test.

Perhaps Jibbguy will tell us why the Clarke-Hess won't work, after he's read up on the instrument.

[TinselKoala]

Oh, and #2: For the folks that do not have access to the Clarke-Hess (like me right now) should read and use MileHigh's test protocol that he outlined on energetic forum.

But first, of course, you need to know just what circuit to use. Rosemary's (Which one)? Aaron's? Joit's? 

If you've got anything over unity, that test method will show it easily. And if you have COP>17...well, then, I suppose I'll be buying the beer _and_ the pizza.

[ramset]

TK
A request from the Boss

Ramset - I wonder if I could impose on you to desist from giving us links to TK's videos until he is in a position of show us the actual wattage measurements using the instruments to hand.

All videos - to date - have been somewhat misleading and utterly confusing.

Thank you
Rosemary

[TinselKoala]

TK
A request from the Boss

Ramset - I wonder if I could impose on you to desist from giving us links to TK's videos until he is in a position of show us the actual wattage measurements using the instruments to hand.

All videos - to date - have been somewhat misleading and utterly confusing.

Thank you
Rosemary

Heh. I saw that.

In other words:

Please don't distract me with facts. My mind is made up, and besides, I can't understand them anyway.

Misleading?
How about the Quantum paper's circuit diagram? How about the patent, which isn't a patent at all? How about the duty cycle, which is now utterly confirmed to be wrong? How about the waveform descriptions...verbal, with no scope shots? How about the Labs and Academics--who we only know about second-and third-hand. Where are these reports? Why can't we see them?

TK misleading?

Sorry, wrong again. The misleading information is coming from Rosemary.

Everything I post is understandable, verifiable, repeatable, and documented.