Claimed OU circuit of Rosemary Ainslie

[Harvey]

Poynt,

Another note that you should consider very carefully - especially considering your posts regarding it which leads me to believe you know exactly what you are doing in this case - is your use of ad hom. If you are a monkey, and you push the data button on your scope, it does not make the data anymore accurate than if you are a donkey pushing the same button. The data stands on its own merit regardless of how inept you are. Your repeated attacks against the character and qualifications of the group involved in replicating the Ainslie effect is bad form in any country and any scientific circles. I have defended you repeatedly to the group, dismissing your behavior as an immaturity on your part which I had hoped you would recognize. I will no longer do so. Either you grow up and join the rank of adult as is necessary for the success of this endeavor or not. If you choose 'or not', then I must conclude that you have never intended to be helpful but have always intended to fail. If it is the latter, then your vacation will be welcomed. If it is the former, then keep your opinions regarding the expertise of other to yourself unless you can prove your argument has validity on the data itself.

[Rosemary Ainslie]

Poynt - I remind you that we're waiting for a retraction or a substantiation to your claim that the probes which we use are not equal to the task. All you have given us is a slew of irrelevant information - more hand waving - further aspersions on the capabilities of the contributors to this thread - reference to 'friends' in Tektronix - presumably Aethertech - who may or may nor substantiate your requirement for differential probes - some irrelevant threats that your claims will be proven - in due course - when you've jerry rigged your own uncertified differential probe - and the DEMAND that we justify your argument in this regard.

I'm looking for a retraction or a justification to the aspersions that you've cast on the data that has been and will be extrapolated for this paper.  If this is ignored then - unfortunately - I will also simply ignore your contributions here.  And I strongly advise those impartial readers and or contributors to do the same.  It is too, too tedious to try and extrapolate what is interesting and constructive in your posts from what is bigotted and poisonous.  Unlike Harvey I don't attribute this to your immaturity but to a dedicated mindset that has been cast into rigid mould.  There is little if any place for such in this endeavour - aimed as it is at stressing known paradigms to alert the public to measurable and repeatable anomalies in the performance of certain electric applications. 

I get it that you're clutching at straws.  Your objects are to discredit the claim on any grounds available - and you are now scraping the proverbial barrel. 

[ION]

A number of methods have been outlined and performed to test the so called "Ainslie" circuit.

Poynt99 has done some excellent work in this area.

Paul Lowrance has suggested an alternative test method of merit.

May I suggest that a rigorous and detailed transient testing and analysis, albeit necessary if the claimed COP was on the order of 1.01, is not required considering a claimed COP on the order of 17, and proof of COP >2  (if it exists) can be easily obtained using simple thermal analysis as suggested by Poynt99 and others.

May I also offer a "poor man's test method"?

Obtain a pair of new 12 volt batteries with proven ampere hour rating, test both using small load resistors from a fully charged to a known discharge point, say 10 volts.

At this point it should be easy to calculate the energy expended by the batteries.

Fashion a set of boxes of say one cubic foot capacity, exact size is not that important, but should be chosen such that the radiation losses are practically the same for each box, and that internal temperature stays well within the rating of the components that will be tested.

Start with batteries fully charged. In one box will be the "Ainslie" circuit with battery. In the other box will be simply a battery and adjusted load resistor.

Determine the discharge rate of battery #1 when operating the "Ainslie" circuit and adjust a load resistor on battery #2 for an equal discharge rate.

Measure the temperature rise above ambient inside and close to the top of each box using thermocouples or platinum RTD's. Use a dual pen chart recorder (or temperature data logger) to log temperatures over ambient during the span of the test.

Allow the test to run to the prior chosen discharge points. Stop the test for each box when the discharge points are met.

Since each battery will have been discharged to the same point, we can assume that the energy used will be approximately the same.

If there are any doubts, we can recharge, switch batteries, boxes, thermocouples and rerun the test.

Since all of the energy consumed, and all of the power dissipated , (including power dissipated in the internal resistance of the battery) is dissipated inside the boxes, and radiated at a comparable rate to the external ambient it should be obvious from the temperature rise above ambient if any extra energy is created in the box with the "Ainslie" circuit from the temperature profile logs. (area under the curves)

A COP of 17 should be obvious if it exists. A COP of 2 or more should be easily visible from the test results, again, if it exists.

Granted this is a simple method that does not involve complex data logging, test equipment or number crunching. It also does not address radiated EM, but can if a Faraday screen is utilized on the interior of the box. EM effects should be minimal, but will add as more internal temperature rise..

Engineers have been building power pulse circuits for decades using load resistors and topologies similar to the so called "Ainslie" circuit. Those skilled in the art know that there is nothing novel about the circuit except for the claimed COP. It is strange that no one has observed this effect before (again, if it is real).

And if it is real we should all be heating our homes for less than one cent per equivalent kilowatt hour.(cost here is about 17 cents per kWhr).

The proof of the pudding is in the (h)eating   

[Rosemary Ainslie]

ION - that proposal is gold.  But just one point.  There appears to be some requirement for a wide diameter to the chosen resistor.  This has been partially proven.  I'm on record as stating that I could never understand why the test was not immediately replicable.  For many years I assumed that people were simply pretending not to get the same results.  It now seems that the result does indeed require a specific area within the diameter of the load resistor itself.  Either this or the actual inductance value of the resistor is critical for the effect.  Not sure yet.

But the logic of the outlined test is impeccable.

For a first post that's really encouraging.  Hopefully we can use your critical input on other tests required.  Welcome to the argument. 

[Hoppy]

I think ION has brought things into perspective. The challenge is to validate the COP17 claim. Recent posts seem to drifting off into an argument about who is the brightest and most experienced EE! Ordinary scope probes are more than ample to validate an overunity claim let alone a claim for a huge COP of 17. In fact all of the suggestions about methodology so far are able to do this.

Let's stop wasting time and effort and get on with agreeing a method and procedure that anyone can use with readily available and innexpensive test equipment.

Hoppy