Claimed OU circuit of Rosemary Ainslie

[allcanadian]

@spinner

P.S.
It's still kind of fun, isn't it?
I would like to have a "FET OU heater" for myself, too...!
But, I'm just an ignorant skeptic, so I'll probably never see the revelation....

Every day I wake up is fun, LOL, and if the truth be known I am an ignorant skeptic as well. I am ignorant (lacking knowledge) of many facts, in fact I know for certain no matter how long I research and experiment I will never know everything I would want to. I am skeptical as well, in the thousands of hours of research I have done you learn to differentiate between what is BS and what is not, but again the fact that I am ignorant dictates that I could be wrong about anything I prejudge as BS, so what in the hell do I know. The one thing I do know and you may as well, is that more and more people are coming to an understanding of what is required to succeed in this technology and it's time has come.
regards
AC

[Hoppy]

Well, they are almost on their own to enjoy each others company over at the Energetic forum, now that I've been disconnected as a naughty skeptic!

I've now learnt from Rosemary that the 'load' itself produces the 16 parts of the energy gained by this super heater circuit!!

Hoppy

[TinselKoala]

Well, they are almost on their own to enjoy each others company over at the Energetic forum, now that I've been disconnected as a naughty skeptic!

I've now learnt from Rosemary that the 'load' itself produces the 16 parts of the energy gained by this super heater circuit!!

Hoppy

Sure it does. Right.

But where does it go, and how can it be put to use?

Since it arises only from Rosemary's calculations, and has no other affect on reality, its only observable use is to bolster her pitiful attempt at theory.

When I think about all those various mathematics and physics and engineering homework problems that I struggled with for YEARS, learning what I know and practicing it...then to see what gross errors Rosemary's combination of arrogance and ignorance can produce...it gets me pretty hot under the collar, that's for sure.


Never fear, this small interlude in my own program concerning this fiasco is just a pause, so that I can properly prepare the protocol and data logging for the longer-term battery discharge experiments. I am confident that these will answer any questions that may remain about battery charging and long-term energy balance.

Meanwhile, I note that her application is still being referred to as a "Patent".

Why is this important? Because having an actual issued PATENT gives a person a certain cachet that a simple application--which anyone with a fancy lawyer can file, about any topic whatsoever without the least vetting--does not.

For example, can you imagine the scene if I walked off the airplane in JoBurg with an _application_ for a visa, and showed the immigration folks my _application_ for a passport, and identified myself with my _application_ for a driving licence?

And I note that the Quantum article still has not been retracted nor its errors corrected; there still has been no proof--no document, no report, no calibration certificate-- from any outside lab or institution's vetting of any part of Ainslie's apparatus or claims: just "Rosemary says". And "Rosemary says" morphs from "verifying scope calibration" in the paper, to "verifying the experiment and its conclusions" in current discussions.
We are not even allowed to see a picture of her apparatus or a scope shot of its operation.
We still don't have her original data or spreadsheet to examine; we don't have the exact complete circuit diagram used (OR DO WE??); we still don't have an answer to the questions about the load inductance; we still don't have an answer about the differences between what Aaron says now and what Rosemary says in the papers and application...

We have, in fact, exactly jack from Rosemary. Zipons and Antitruants.

Most of what is ACTUALLY KNOWN about the behaviour of Rosemary's claimed circuit comes from...where now?


_________________________________________

"As an amateur, the prospect of attempting a meaningful comment on physics is, at best, inappropriate."
--Rosemary Ainslie
http://rosemaryainslie.blogspot.com/

[TinselKoala]

Two points with reference to .99's post:
Zeroeth, he's right about everything as usual, but I just want to clear up a couple things. First, the inductance and frequency: 2.4 kHz which Rosemary calls "high" but which is in fact audio, that is, VLF in terms of oscillating EM or RF. This frequency is far from the natural resonant frequency of the circuit. The inductance cited in Ainslie's paper for the load is close to the theoretical value calculated for an inductor of the physical dimensions cited...too close, and too low, for physical reality IMHO. At this small (0.00864 milliHenry, IIRC) inductance value the resistive component is entirely dominant and the diode has almost no observable effect. BUT: in practice it is nearly impossible to use such a small inductance. 6 or 8 inches of lead-in wire, if not carefully routed, will approach that value, and e.g. Aaron's Ohmite resistor has about 0.150-0.200 milliHenries of inductance, or twenty times the load Ainslie cites. AND I have found that the diode makes a difference at higher inductances, and using 200 milliHenries (an electromagnet core) I was able easily to charge a cap to over 600 volts.
And third, in the control experiment graphed above, I was driving the mosfet with the DP-101 pulse generator, which at that low frequency has a very nice clean square-cornered pulse with a rise time of under 5 ns, faster than any of my analog scopes can resolve, and the 4.5 percent dutycycle was carefully set with reference to the LeCroy's parameter display.  So if the 555 timer's dirty signal is required for the "magic" to appear, one can disqualify this data for that reason. But then one is resorting to religious pleading, not scientific. Besides, I have tried various combinations of clocks and duty cycles and freqs, with similar results.
Anyway, I don't believe that, at the "normal" Ainslie drive parameters, much power is lost in mosfet heating or in other components. At longer duty cycles there is more mosfet heating; using dirty drive signals there is more mosfet heating; using a mosfet with higher internal resistance like the 2sk1548 there is more heating; using higher inductances there is more heating; all the expected stuff.

EDIT to add: It is appropriate to ask why the two curves aren't closer together, after all. Especially if the circuit is "efficient", that is dissipating most of its power in the load rather than in the components.
There's probably less lost there than "Mr. Finger" can detect, and I don't have enough thermocouples to see for sure.

[Grumpy]

When the electrical input to a load last only a fraction of a second, a steady state thermal condition is never reached.  Therefore, transient temperature rise should be calculated and when doing this, convective, conductive, and radiative cooling contributions are usually neglected.  However, this is a "continuous" transient heating process.

If anyone thinks these effects are anomolous, then harness them.  This is easier than in-depth transient heating analysis or 100 pages of arguing.  Boiling water with that circuit would be impressive.