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

[TinselKoala]

Are you really that intent on stealing Rosemary's research? She's obviously the original author. How about letting it go.

You have got to be kidding. Glen did much of the actual work involved in that paper submission; he is withdrawing his work because further work on his part identified a major error, unless I am gravely mistaken.

The Quantum article published "nine years ago" has many problems, including but not limited to the fact that the circuit as shown in that article produces NOT a 3 or 4 percent ON duty cycle at the mosfet, but the EXACT INVERSE, that is, a 96 or 97 percent ON cycle at the mosfet.

Using that exact circuit and that 97 percent ON duty cycle, I was able to reproduce very closely the reported heat-vs-time profiles given in that paper --- strongly suggesting that a fundamental error was made in the original experiment of Rosemary Ainslie.

Using a 3 or 4 percent duty cycle (as claimed in the Quantum paper) nobody has been able to get anything like the published heat profiles. And using the circuit published in the Quantum article nobody has been able to get a 3 or 4 percent ON duty cycle at the mosfet.

The original Quantum experiment was performed using a Fluke Scope-Meter (the model has been stated at various times to be either a 123 or a 199, IIRC)  a 20 MHz digital oscilloscope without on-board integration capability.

I have made measurements of the Ainslie circuit using both these Fluke models, as well as fast analog scopes and a 1 GHz LeCroy digital scope that can do on-board power integration.

My replications of the Ainslie circuit, using her diagrams, "corrected" circuits as published by Peter Lindemann, Aaron Murakami, and others, as well as ordinary function generators, DO show the heat profiles she published (when a long duty cycle is used), DO NOT show these heat profiles at the 3 or 4 percent duty cycles claimed, and DO show APPARENT reversed energy flows with a properly positioned flyback diode in the circuit.

However, properly performed integrations over time of the VxI power traces show no excess energy.

My tests are mostly still available on YouTube.

[Rosemary Ainslie]

Are you really that intent on stealing Rosemary's research? She's obviously the original author. How about letting it go.

referencing this posted by fuzzytomcat

    PUBLIC NOTICE

    QUOTE:  http://www.energeticforum.com/70207-post2913.html  ( can we use your data for a paper )

    witsend
    Senior Member
       
    Join Date: May 2009
    Posts: 1,063
    Guys - some more really good news.

    IEEE have informed me that I can resubmit the paper with new revised information and evidence of open source duplication of the experiment provided that they are made fully cogniscant of the data available at the replication.

    The implication is clearly that the first was not considered as having sufficient information. So Fuzzy. Would you please allow a collaboration on a new paper including your revised data - that we can submit this for peer review? We're game if you are. I see a comfortable collaboration between all parties here - provided you have no objections to us using your data.

    In fact I think that many parties could come to the table here - all from our contributors and it would be so nice if you could pm Fuzzy, me, Aaron or Harvey with suggestions or considerations. Just think of it. The first collaborative attempt of a paper submitted by open source enthusiasts. And possibly the first proof of significant energy savings OU OR COP>17. Both are amazing.

    --------------------------------------------------------------------------------


    I ..... Glen Lettenmaier, am withdrawing any use of my complete Test number "Thirteen" (13) data and image files for further usage, evaluation or publication, other than what has already been seen and posted at Energetic Forum, Panacea Bocaf and my "copyrighted" Scribd publication.


    Sincerely,
    Glen A Lettenmaier (aka FuzzyTomCat)

Hello Happy - SO NICE TO SEE YOU THERE.  And many thanks for making due record here.  I see that - like so much - Glen tried to delete this too and lose all record.  LOL.

It's a delicious medley of the kind and type of confusions that seem to abound here.  In the first instance it is IMPOSSIBLE to withdraw information after it's been made public.  It is impossible to claim copyright if it weren't first copyrighted on first public disclosure.  It is impossible to censure the 6000 odd reads and multiple downloads of the paper from my Scribd publications - which is very much a public forum.  It is impossible to withdraw documentation that was earlier ratified.  It is impossible to scrub the minds of those thousands of 'reads' from thousands of members and guests - that our experimental evidence refers to.  What Glen is trying to say here is that this is exclusively HIS information to impart as HE prefers.  Unfortunately it is NOT.  So.  He can withdraw all that he wants - and claim it all for himself - but he's actually just howling at the moon.  It was freely given - and it's impossible to retrospectively assert any kind of 'price' on that gift - regardless as to whether that price is exclusive distribution rights or exclusive claim to the 'discovery' if that's the reach.

I am entirely satisfied - and the record speaks to this - that the experiments that Glen conducted were under the direct advisement of myself through Skype and the precise duplication of the primary circuit that we first published - circuit materials and vagaries excepted.  But I'm sure that you and all our readers here will be intrigued at the need to withdraw this VITAL experimental evidence in the first instance.  It speaks to motive.  And the motive is all too clear.   I'm afraid that Glen has committed a kind of intellectual suicide in this reach.  It is sad more than anything.  He's an ace experimentalist.

But, unfortunately - in the words of the immortal Khalil Gibran - 'the moving finger writes and having writ moves on...nor all thy piety and wit can cancel half a line.'  The delusions of trying to reverse the effects of publication are closely married to an attempt to reverse time itself.  Just can't be done. 

Interesting to see that he's signed it with full public disclosure of his identity.  I rather thought he was averse to letting the public trace this.  Certainly he wrote to Stefan to enjoin him to remove his surname from any future reference lest we discover his actual identity.  Strange developments afoot.

Regards,
Rosemary

[Rosemary Ainslie]

TK - NICE POST.  It's not often that you deal with specifics.  At least I've got something here that I can get my teeth into. 

You have got to be kidding. Glen did much of the actual work involved in that paper submission; he is withdrawing his work because further work on his part identified a major error, unless I am gravely mistaken.

Golly TK.  One CANNOT refute the evidence unless you discount the value of the Tektronix TDS3054C that he used.  LOL.  What he DID do - which was sadly transparent in its motives - was use a second more sophisticated machine - he then adjusted the 'preferred oscillation' to show a loss which is REALLY easy to do - and then claimed that his earlier experiments where thereby DISPROVED.  Actually.  Let me correct that.  He did the tests - Harvey did the analysis.  LOL.  What a joke.

The Quantum article published "nine years ago" has many problems, including but not limited to the fact that the circuit as shown in that article produces NOT a 3 or 4 percent ON duty cycle at the mosfet, but the EXACT INVERSE, that is, a 96 or 97 percent ON cycle at the mosfet.

LOL  The ONLY person who found this error is YOU.  It was entirely refuted by Bob Potchen amongst others.  And had it produced a 96 or 97 percent ON cycle then it would have shown a commensurate waveform on the shunt that would have supported this.  The shunt values were earlier taken off our FLUKE.  Nowhere near as sophisticated an instrument the Tektronix that I solicited to assist us in Glen's tests.  But it was more than sufficient at the frequencies measured.  So.  With respect.  You did something there that ONLY YOU seemed to find.  But it's interesting that you, nonetheless, go on and on about this.  The measurements - the primary data - is extrapolated without any reference WHATSOEVER to the required duty cycle.  It just takes what's given to it and then shows the appropriate numbers.  I really don't give a damn - in any event - if there was an error in the publication of that 555 circuitry.  It is irrelevant.  It's the data that we measured.  And that does NOT lie.

Using that exact circuit and that 97 percent ON duty cycle, I was able to reproduce very closely the reported heat-vs-time profiles given in that paper --- strongly suggesting that a fundamental error was made in the original experiment of Rosemary Ainslie.

TK?  REALLY?  I unfortunately NEVER saw evidence of a preferred oscillation mode - with respect.

Using a 3 or 4 percent duty cycle (as claimed in the Quantum paper) nobody has been able to get anything like the published heat profiles. And using the circuit published in the Quantum article nobody has been able to get a 3 or 4 percent ON duty cycle at the mosfet.

This is true.  Glen only got COP>7.  But frankly - that only speaks to the requirement of more tess.  What Glen PROVED is that there are those choice moments in that resonance where the gain EXCEEDS the energy supplied from the battery.  We also saw this.  What we're hoping to do is find a way of keeping it at precisely this level - if it's possible.  But with or without these optimised moments - the gains are unequivocal. 

The original Quantum experiment was performed using a Fluke Scope-Meter (the model has been stated at various times to be either a 123 or a 199, IIRC)  a 20 MHz digital oscilloscope without on-board integration capability.

I have made measurements of the Ainslie circuit using both these Fluke models, as well as fast analog scopes and a 1 GHz LeCroy digital scope that can do on-board power integration.

My replications of the Ainslie circuit, using her diagrams, "corrected" circuits as published by Peter Lindemann, Aaron Murakami, and others, as well as ordinary function generators, DO show the heat profiles she published (when a long duty cycle is used), DO NOT show these heat profiles at the 3 or 4 percent duty cycles claimed, and DO show APPARENT reversed energy flows with a properly positioned flyback diode in the circuit.

However, properly performed integrations over time of the VxI power traces show no excess energy.

My tests are mostly still available on YouTube.

This kind of reminds me of the following analogy that I used.  Everyone can scale 1 meter in a high jump.  Then someone scales 2 meters.  Everyone says that's impossible.  So others try.  Then someone scales the 2 meter jump and films that effort.  Then others continue to try and they still deny it's possibility.  You see this?  It just proves that you actually never managed that high jump.  Not that the high jump is unscaleable. 

Regards,
Rosemary
edited

[Rosemary Ainslie]

TK - Actually I'm probably NOT being clear.  The analysis of our waveforms was NEVER deduced from the applied duty cycle.  If you look at the text of the original paper it stated words to the effect that 'the applied duty cycle is overridden'.  What happens is that in the 'preferred oscillation mode' which I think is the term that Harvey applied here - induces what is much much closer to a square wave - where the energy returned to the battery pretty nearly equals the energy first supplied.  The net value is zero.  So.  Far from there being any evident applied duty cycle - the system finds it's own. 

You never, to the best of my knowledge, even managed that oscillation.  Or if you did - then it was certainly not the REQUIRED oscillation. 

Regards
Rosemary

[Rosemary Ainslie]

Good luck Rose  Pete

Pete.  I missed this entirely.  Thanks.  Thank you very much.  I cannot tell you how it heartens me when other's speak up.  Otherwise this strange eccentric 'life on a forum' would be entirely unhappy. 

the very kindest and the very best of my regards,
Rosemary