Claimed OU circuit of Rosemary Ainslie

[TinselKoala]

So now the problem isn't getting heat, but getting too much heat. What are we comparing to? Certainly not the Ainlsie experiment.
If I run the circuit in the "oscillatory mode" that I can produce (which I still am not convinced is the same as Aaron's) it exceeds the power rating of my commercial resistors. 25 volts times 2.4 amps times nearly full on is more than 50 watts, anyway, and the closest I come to being able to handle that for a long term are the "catfood1 and 2" loads which are made from 2 ea. 25 ohm 50 Watt precision power resistors in parallel--the kind that are in their own metal heatsink cases and are supposed to be mounted on a metal chassis. And they get Hot Fast.
The custom load ("Bullitt1") that I made seems to be able to take the heat, but that's because I put it in oil. I'm pretty sure it would burn out if it was just dangling in air. I've blown several OTS chokes that didn't have thick enough wire or enough surface for heat dissipation.

[TinselKoala]

TK:

IMHO, it makes more sense to work with power measurements as we have been discussing.  Going the calorimeter route is unnecessarily complicated and watts are just as good as joules or calories in this case.  The calorimeter is just a watt integrator.  It's not really giving you any new information.  It may indeed be more accurate in the long run but like you said, the two goal posts are COP > 1 and COP > 17.  If you don't even hit COP > 1, then it's game over.

As far as I am concerned your leaky calorimeter test is the definitive reference at this point in time and makes it as clear as a bell where we currently stand.

I wonder if the DSO did something interesting today....

MileHigh

Sure, and it's important to point out that I'm not using the "leaky calorimeter" as a calorimeter, even. It's just there to reduce error in the temp measurement, raise the equilibrium temperature and slow down the rate of climb. Eventually it could be used to make quantitative energy measurements, because its leak rate at various equilibrium temperatures will be known, and the input power required to maintain those temperatures will be known as well. But that's way ahead of where we are at today, and likely won't be necessary anyway. DrStiffler actually started doing those kinds of quantitative calorimetry early on, but I haven't seen any results from him in a while.

[MileHigh]

On a side note, I think the believers actually miss us.   Without us around to fight with and kick around, the believer's forum actually shows down to a crawl and gets quite boring.  It's a love thing and a hate thing, throw in a bit of humiliation... I had better not keep going down that path.  lol

Next Christmas I want Ainsley mittens that always keep my hands warm on the coldest winter days.  Anybody listening?  lol

MileHigh

[WilbyInebriated]

RMA and TK are both just folk, probably neither have a real bad bone in their bodies.

RMA is setting herself up for a bit of ribbing though, what with the tall claims and absolutely no experimental data to back it up. Hell if it were me I´d have posted working circuits to various people for verification through independent calorimetry.

edit: removed some bad vibes, just like Jack Herer would have us all do.

so that's a no then? you can't provide any evidence of this "predicted from..." post. so where then is your integrity? you won't even call out tk on his bald faced lie, why is that?

[WilbyInebriated]

On a side note, I think the believers actually miss us.   Without us around to fight with and kick around, the believer's forum actually shows down to a crawl and gets quite boring.  It's a love thing and a hate thing, throw in a bit of humiliation... I had better not keep going down that path.  lol

Next Christmas I want Ainsley mittens that always keep my hands warm on the coldest winter days.  Anybody listening?  lol

MileHigh

it's completely laughable the way this magnanimous trinity makes up its own definitions of words ( like tk's usage of identical and exact, mh's usage of real, etc. )
it appears, as usual you need a refresher on definitions...

according to webster's revised unabridged dictionary, a skeptic is: "one who is yet undecided as to what is true; one who is looking or inquiring for what is true; an inquirer after facts or reasons."

thus, if evidence is presented, and your response is a knee jerk reaction of disbelief, if you assume a priori that the evidence cannot possibly be valid if it doesn't fit with your personal beliefs, if you think that there MUST be something wrong with the methods of the researchers responsible for the evidence, you do NOT fall under the definition of a skeptic. you would however, fall under the definition of cynic and debunker, and more pointedly... believer.

you haven't seen that "predicted by..." post that your fearless leader can't seem to produce have you? you know, that one he needs to reconcile his bald faced lies about his predictions re: fet performance...