Claimed OU circuit of Rosemary Ainslie

[Hoppy]

Thanks Paul. Do you have a link to your research?

Hoppy

[powercat]

I think this makes a fitting tribute song for this circuit.
"Hot'n'cold" Ukrainian Polka band
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=e_TIOfUEudo
cat 

[Hoppy]

deleted.

Hoppy

[allcanadian]

@Oc
Quote:
"I think you've got MileHigh all wrong. He wouldn't be spending this much time and effort if he wasn't intrigued with the idea. I don't think his goal is to "debunk" the circuit. He's merely doing the best he can to analyze and understand things using accepted knowledge and techniques. So far he's done a pretty good job and he's been willing to share his thoughts with the world. I give him a lot of credit."

I must be getting cranky in my old age or maybe senile, probably both:) I get really tired of this nonsense going on here, they throw components together without understanding or intuition -- without question. Then they test and declare they must be correct because they have followed all the rules they have been taught from a textbook. Did you know Albert Einstein once stated " As punishment for my contempt for authority, Fate has made me an authority myself", the people who succeed have never followed the rules, they create them.
Concerning MH and others the only point I would make it that testing any circuit within the narrow confines of one operating state proves little. It proves the circuit may not produce the desired results under those exact conditions, if anything changes so will the results. It should be obvious that an intimate understanding of every component, it's properties and qualities and how everything relates to one another in every detail is needed. We cannot test every operating state, it is impossible thus the task is nearly impossible. Knowledge, understanding and intuition are required to succeed, the only question I would ask is "why does it work" if in fact it works as claimed, if you do not believe it can work then why bother building or testing--you have tainted the results before you have started.
In any case I fail to see the point of all this testing and speculation without a solid premise to work from, the circuit must embody the premise in every detail.

Regards
AC

http://home.att.net/~quotations/alberteinstein.html

[MileHigh]

AC:

I'll repeat it again I am just here for some fun.  In the truest sense, there is nothing to debunk, the only issue is to let the truth percolate up to the top all by itself.  There is merit in challenging people though, all part of a spirited debate.  Once I read a poster on this site that loudly proclaimed that all wind instruments by definition were over unity devices.  There is nothing wrong with setting the record straight from time to time.  In this thread the equivalent is when people say that there are "better gains" with a certain trimpot setting because the recorded spike is higher in amplitude.  That's a false statement without any evidence to back it up.  Or the "even more gains with oscillation" argument is another example.  Now if somebody could produce some numbers that bear close scrutiny - but that would have to overcome the truth percolating up to the top.

For me there is a touch of mysticism in how you discuss this type of research.  I am not comfortable with that train of thought.  A broad statement that covers all of what is going on here is that we are looking at a "filter" and trying to discern all of its properties.

.99:

You are right about the two resistors in series, even if the windings are opposite, the magnetic coupling cancellation effect would be limited.  Mah brain was not quite in gear.  An integral resistor with opposite windings would fit the bill for most applications I assume.  I am wondering what these big resistors are used for in the real world.  In radio transmitters?  Some sort of high power application that needs a big dumb resistor is all I know!  lol  Good luck with your differential measurements.

All energy philosophers:

I still have faith in this nifty fact:  The total solar power striking the Earth is 1.75 x 10^17 watts.  That's a lotta juice.  It is fair to say that the percentage of the energy we use that's derived from solar power will slowly increase year over year so that 20 or 40 years from now it will really start to make a difference.   There is no reason that a moderately sized city could not get the vast majority of its power from solar collectors and giant flywheels in the surrounding countryside.  I do not call this "free energy" and I hate when people try to broaden the definition of the term to include solar energy.  It's actually nuclear fusion energy.  The bottom line is that the glass is more than half full.

MileHigh