Rosemary Ainslie COP>17 Circuit / A First Application on a Hot Water Cylinder

[Rosemary Ainslie]

By "over-riding" frequency and/or duty cycle, my impression was that this was the desired mode of operation and a goal to achieving the desired results. This was a constant theme throughout the threads from the beginning, and is mentioned in the Quantum paper I believe.

Yes.  The object is to get the coil tuned to an optimum frequency where the coil and the supply seem to move into what we called a 'preferred oscillation mode'.  All it means is a self-regulated, self-induced resonance.  The 555 allowed us to explore that required frequency.  You will recall that I made frequent reference to the fact that the oscillation mode was not 'frequency' dependent.  In other words that preferred oscillation mode could be seen at a variety of frequencies and at a variety of duty cycles.  It seemed to happen when it happened.  What we need to do is to determine a relationship between it happening - the materials used to enable it to happen - the duty cycles and the frequencies - in order to establish some kind of pattern.  These things can only be established empirically - because at this stage there's no blue print.  And if we're to take full advantage of the skills and expertise afforded us by this institution then - it's best to get an oscillator that offers the widest range possible of frequency and duty cycle to get this.  If it pans out that the preferred mode of oscillation actually depends on the properties of the 555 or somesuch transistor - then we need to establish exactly what properties.  If it's exploitable then it also needs to be fully understood.  For this we need to make multiple comparative measurements.  I'm reasonably sure that the information will be boringly and tediously dry.  But it should all advance our understanding.   

This quasi-stable mode of operation likely won't occur without a driven load. Without the inductive kickback there will be very little interference back to the 555 to destabilize it.

We know this.  But the fact is that the circuit designed and used by Glen seems to be unstable without a load.  Our concern here is that this is possibly why his numbers were never as good as our own.  We have copied that circuit twice.  It remains unstable.  Whatever we do we will need a better 555 circuit than that shown in the paper's schematics.  It appears to be inherently FAULTY.

If your team's goal is to completely avoid this quasi-stable mode of operation (i.e. the varying duty cycle and/or frequency mode), then disregard what I've said.

I've answered this - I think.

Poynty.  The thing is this.  I know your declared intention to 'debunk' as you've stated.  You've also advised me that it is your opinion that our results are based on measurement errors.  You have NEVER shown where or why - and yet you reserve your rights to this opinion in the face of measurements that are empically evident and have been extrapolated from machinery that heaven itself would give a badge of honour.  I am sixty two years old and frankly I'm sick to death of defending my corner.   It's hard enough as it is to dedicate one's free time to advancing these much needed technologies.  Really a thankless task.  But I've run out of patience in tolerating unreasonable objections and I'm simply not going to tolerate any such here.  So.  Please feel free to comment and debunk on another thread - another forum - or both.  But not here.  This intention of yours hangs over my head like the sword of Damocles.  I've long given up expecting such qualities as friendship and loyalty from forum members.  That's a rare event.  But as you are neither a friend nor an objective impartial poster - then that's more than I can manage. 

Regards,
Rosemary

[Rosemary Ainslie]

By the way, the original thread topic....  What page/post is the actual "Circuit" on.  I haven't read from the beginning, and it's long enough that I may never get to doing that.  I'd be interested in what it actually does/is.  Replication of a basic 555 ckt is a 5 minute process on a breadboard, which I have a few, and I have plenty of experience with the older style.  I don't use the CMOS versions much, but could, if required.  Just curious, as I always am.

Sorry Loner.  I missed this question.  Here's a link to the paper which we're referring to.  What we're now doing is to get this technology onto a 'higher' output mode - hopefully retain the advantage of less input - and see if we can get something 'usable'.  Our needs in Africa more than justify the development of this on a 'smallish' hot water cylinder.  I see it, potentially, as being supplemented with solar panels - but the required number will be reduced.  The panel is still much more expensive than a battery.  And cost here is of an essence.

Kindest regards,
Rosemary

Edited.  LOL  Completely forgot to add the link. 

http://www.scribd.com/doc/26240411/PROVING-OVER-UNITY-THE-HARD-WORK-OF-MANY-DEDICATED-OPEN-SOURCE-MEMBERS

[poynt99]

Poynty. 

Please feel free to comment and debunk on another thread - another forum - or both.  But not here.  This intention of yours hangs over my head like the sword of Damocles.

Regards,
Rosemary

I've offered only help towards achieving the elusive quasi-stable mode of operation. No such notions of "debunking" nor "intentions" here in my last several posts. 

But as you wish.

.99

[Rosemary Ainslie]

I've offered only help towards achieving the elusive quasi-stable mode of operation. No such notions of "debunking" nor "intentions" here in my last several posts. 

But as you wish.

.99

Poynty - on a personal note.  I never actually know if I'm talking to Poynty the Brat, Poynty the bigot, Poynty the soul of reason and tact, Poynty the gentleman,  There are so many of you.  Right now I'm feeling guilty - but I had the unhappy experience of seeing your declared intentions which was then followed by your input here.  My concerns may very well be unjustified.  I grant you that your comments were innocuous on the face of it.  But all that emphasis on the 'unstable' condition of the 555 made me start wondering if this was going to be your area of 'attack'.  If I'm super sensitive - then allow, at least, that I've had just cause to be so.  Of course you're free to comment and engage.  I'm very aware of how constructive your advice can be.  But then - you'll also need to retract that 'debunk' intention.  It hovers.  Right up front and personal.  And I can't seem to let it go.

Regards,
Rosemary

BTW - I draw a very real distinction between an analysis intended to disclose any incorrect assumptions - and a 'debunk'.  One debunks 'frauds' and 'tricksters'.  Mylow springs to mind.  So.  I find it a rather 'heavy' burden to feel that you need to 'debunk' when it would have been so much more appropriate to say - 'explore' or 'investigate' or even, 'find out the truth for myself in a replication'.  It's that unhappy association which immediately puts you in league with those insensitive horrors who monopolised my time for the better part of 6 months.  I've shared way too much time with them.  I need to share time and this thread with those who are not already predisposed to dismiss these results - however they pan out.

[poynt99]

Having some real bench time is going to be a treat, as I quite enjoyed it when I was testing/debunking the RA circuit...

I agree, "verifying" would have been a better choice of word than "debunking". Consider it retracted, bye.

.99