Language: 
To browser these website, it's necessary to store cookies on your computer.
The cookies contain no personal information, they are required for program control.
  the storage of cookies while browsing this website, on Login and Register.

GDPR and DSGVO law

Storing Cookies (See : http://ec.europa.eu/ipg/basics/legal/cookies/index_en.htm ) help us to bring you our services at overunity.com . If you use this website and our services you declare yourself okay with using cookies .More Infos here:
https://overunity.com/5553/privacy-policy/
If you do not agree with storing cookies, please LEAVE this website now. From the 25th of May 2018, every existing user has to accept the GDPR agreement at first login. If a user is unwilling to accept the GDPR, he should email us and request to erase his account. Many thanks for your understanding.
Amazon Warehouse Deals ! Now even more Deep Discounts ! Check out these great prices on slightly used or just opened once only items.I always buy my gadgets via these great Warehouse deals ! Highly recommended ! Many thanks for supporting OverUnity.com this way.

User Menu

Donations

Please Donate for the Forum.
Many thanks.
Regards, Stefan.(Admin)

A-Ads

Powerbox

Smartbox

3D Solar

3D Solar Panels

DC2DC converter

Micro JouleThief

FireMatch

FireMatch

CCKnife

CCKnife

CCTool

CCTool

Magpi Magazine

Magpi Magazine Free Rasberry Pi Magazine

Battery Recondition

Battery Recondition

Arduino

Ultracaps

YT Subscribe

Gravity Machines

Tesla-Ebook

Magnet Secrets

Lindemann Video

Navigation

Products

Products

WaterMotor kit

Statistics


  • *Total Posts: 515770
  • *Total Topics: 15377
  • *Online Today: 44
  • *Most Online: 103
(December 19, 2006, 11:27:19 PM)
  • *Users: 6
  • *Guests: 10
  • *Total: 16

Author Topic: Claimed OU circuit of Rosemary Ainslie  (Read 474952 times)

Offline TinselKoala

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 13968
Re: Claimed OU circuit of Rosemary Ainslie
« Reply #120 on: July 04, 2009, 03:12:35 AM »
I like that, it's not how you feel it's how you look. That's a good saying.
Fortunately nobody can see me...
 :D

But you are right--I even sort of feel like this might be some kind of deliberate trap to get me to commit to a position that is designed-in to be wrong. That's why I really really want somebody else to build the circuit, from the Quantum diagram or Groundloop's cleaned up version, to confirm or reject what I (believe I) have found. I find it really strange that the believers haven't come out and put me down by showing my build is incorrect. Unless, of course...they have built it and know I'm right.

But research continues:
Today I got hold of two each 12 volt 20 Amp-hour batteries, Ritar RT 12200, brand new and fully charged to 12.8 volts no-load. They do make a difference in the Ainslie circuit. The input current (voltage drop across the 0.25 ohm resistor, point B in the diagram) looks pretty much the same, but the load voltage (point A) doesn't sag nearly as much as it did with my old worn out 2 A-h batteries (duh...) and there's a lot more power in the inductive spikes--both of which makes it harder to notice the inverted duty cycle. In fact, if you are just looking at the inductive ringdown spike at high time magnification, you don't even notice the difference between the FG 3.7 percent duty cycle and the 555 96.3 percent duty cycle. But the load sure notices--when the unit is running on the true 3.7 percent from the FG, the load does not heat up noticeably over the time period tested. But when it's switched to the 555 , the nearly 100 percent ON mosfet causes the load to heat up fast.

Again, with the stronger batteries, the inverted duty cycle is harder to detect on the oscilloscopes, but it still has full effect wrt heating the load. No heating of load at short (FG) duty cycles, ample heating of load in line with Ainslie's reported heating with long (555, Ainslie circuit) duty cycles.

I still don't detect resonant phenomena or non-periodic waveforms, at any gain or duty cycle settings, in the frequency range available from the 555 timer. But I can certainly make the Fluke 199 ScopeMeter go psychotic and report all kinds of things that aren't really happening.

The inductive spikes and the nice ringdown at the trailing edge (going off edge) do not depend at all on duty cycle. I can vary the FG cycle from zero on to zero off, full range, and one doesn't even see it affecting this portion of the waveform. And within the frequency range of the 555 timer, freq doesn't affect it either. This is because this spike doesn't have anything to do with the freq or duty cycle!!! It is a result of the rapid switching off of the load, allowing the stored energy to slosh back and forth between inductances and capacitances until it's lost to Joule heating. As long as the edges of the gate drive pulse are reasonably square, it doesn't matter the freq or duty cycle, the mosfet will switch more or less cleanly and the inductive spike and ringdown will occur.

Some really interesting spikes can be observed on the output (load, point A) when the main 24 volt batterypack is Disconnected Completely and the circuit is allowed to run just on the FG or 555 timer input. To me, these are more interesting than the powered spikes. But of course these do not heat the load, they represent only milliwatts of power leaking past the mosfet.

Now, it would help me immensely if I could access the report on the Ainslie tests from the ABB laboratory in North Carolina. Has this information been made available, and where can I see it?

Thanks, friends.
--TK

Free Energy | searching for free energy and discussing free energy

Re: Claimed OU circuit of Rosemary Ainslie
« Reply #120 on: July 04, 2009, 03:12:35 AM »

Offline ramset

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 6826
Re: Claimed OU circuit of Rosemary Ainslie
« Reply #121 on: July 04, 2009, 03:40:00 AM »
Tk
Thats a very good question ,If Rosemary payed for the tests she owns them
Chet

Offline ramset

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 6826
Re: Claimed OU circuit of Rosemary Ainslie
« Reply #122 on: July 04, 2009, 03:22:23 PM »
Rosemary didn't pay

Hello RAMSET - I was never given the results of any of the tests conducted by those accreditors. It was not from want of trying. But I was given their permission to use their names as accreditors in the Quantum article. The reason we simply used that precise experiment for the paper submitted to the IET was to reference their names. I do have the report for BP because we had to conduct those experiments on battey duration. But the context of that report is just on the effect as it relates to battery delivery - and it has got to be the single most boring exercise in all of history. It's object impeccable - but the testing exhausting.

I think the truth is that these companies allocate a certain amount of funding to research. And having found their answers they do not make it public. Presumbaly having paid for their own lab time they rightly regard the results as being their property - or their company's property. We did try and get the results - but failed - miserably.

Free Energy | searching for free energy and discussing free energy

Re: Claimed OU circuit of Rosemary Ainslie
« Reply #122 on: July 04, 2009, 03:22:23 PM »
Sponsored links:




Offline TinselKoala

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 13968
Re: Claimed OU circuit of Rosemary Ainslie
« Reply #123 on: July 04, 2009, 04:04:05 PM »
OK, I have more data.
I have for the moment stopped using the 555 timer circuit, giving Ainslie the benefit of the doubt, as they say, and so I'm just trying to examine the behaviour of the circuit at a true 3.7 percent ON gate drive cycle.
(This is not to say that the 555 issue is unimportant or that it is resolved--I still see a big problem here.)

I've been testing using the new batteries I obtained, the 12V20Ah ones, and I can report that I have finally gotten substantial heating in the load, but still not of the magnitude Rosemary has reported.

This set of data is very much "pilot experiment" stuff--the numbers are rough estimates from my reading of my analog oscilloscopes. (I have the Fluke 199 here and will be comparing its numbers later.)

Running from the FG at 3.7 percent ON and 2.4 kHz, 12 ohm load.
Looking at the input scope trace and calling the top of the flat part of the pulse the instantaneous voltage drop across the 0.25 ohm shunt, ignoring the spikes and whatnot, and figuring in the duty cycle, I get around 1.1 watt average input power. That's around 0.3 volts drop across 0.25 ohms for 3.7 percent of the time at 25 volts battery supply.

This produced heating in the load that went from 28 degrees at 0 minutes, up to 37 degrees at 37 minutes, and remained at 37 degrees until 60 minutes when the power was disconnected and the system allowed to cool down. Load temp returned to 26 degrees at 24 minutes after shutdown.

I was surprised to see this much heating from a measly 1.1 watts input. It's not the 50 degrees above ambient that Ainslie saw but it's not negligible.

Now, the control experiment. I found Ainslie's control experiment to be kind of backwards. She used an adjustable power supply to achieve the same temperature in the load, and then used the voltage and current settings of the supply to calculate the instantaneous power (and for DC that's the same as average power) needed to maintain the load at that temperature, and then looked at a long time period.

I'll do it that way too, but for now, I think the more appropriate measure is to supply the same DC power to the load, as the circuit does in the experiment, and see how warm the load gets. I think the rate of temperature rise is more important than the eventual stable temperature, but that's just my impression at this point.

So I used a regulated, current-limited supply -- unfortunately not quite powerful enough to give the necessary 3.6 volts, 0.3 A in the load to make the full 1.1 watts -- my supply maxxed out at 0.25 A at 3 volts, for an average power of 0.75 watts in the load.

This, too, produced a surprising amount of heat in the load. From 27 degrees at 0 minutes, the load rose to 33 degrees at 21 minutes, and at 60 minutes was at 34 degrees.

Meanwhile ambient temp in the room dropped from 22 degrees at the start to 21 degrees at the end.

OK, to reiterate: The Ainslie circuit supplied 1.1 watts average to the load and the load stabilized at 37 degrees.
A regulated DC source supplying 0.75 watts to the load caused the load to stabilize at 33 degrees.

I'll have to graph the power vs. time curves to approximate the energy, but it sure doesn't look like I've gotten anywhere near COP>17, or even overunity, yet.

But at least I am somewhat closer to getting the Ainslie numbers. The "eyeball" method almost certainly underestimates the input power, but if conditions warrant I can pull out some "big guns" here and get much more precise input power measurements. Not with what I've got at home!!

Still seeing nothing like "aperiodic resonance".

Now if someone will only send me a couple of IRFPG50 MOSFETs...

 ;)

(There sure are a lot of 37's, aren't there? But that's what the numbers say...)

I'll also post this over there...

Offline TinselKoala

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 13968
Re: Claimed OU circuit of Rosemary Ainslie
« Reply #124 on: July 04, 2009, 04:35:17 PM »
Rosemary didn't pay

Hello RAMSET - I was never given the results of any of the tests conducted by those accreditors. It was not from want of trying. But I was given their permission to use their names as accreditors in the Quantum article. The reason we simply used that precise experiment for the paper submitted to the IET was to reference their names. I do have the report for BP because we had to conduct those experiments on battey duration. But the context of that report is just on the effect as it relates to battery delivery - and it has got to be the single most boring exercise in all of history. It's object impeccable - but the testing exhausting.

I think the truth is that these companies allocate a certain amount of funding to research. And having found their answers they do not make it public. Presumbaly having paid for their own lab time they rightly regard the results as being their property - or their company's property. We did try and get the results - but failed - miserably.

I'm afraid I don't understand this. She continues to cite the ABB test as a replication and confirmation--but now it appears that they wouldn't give a report at all??? So how can she cite them as confirmation?

Here's the citation from the EIT paper:
"ABB Electric Systems Technology Institute in North Carolina who conducted
independent tests. Here tests were confined to the evaluation of instantaneous
power delivered simultaneously by the battery supply source and dissipated in
the load. Measurements were enabled through the use of four channel
oscilloscopes."

The implication is that they verified the input and output calculations.
But now we are allowed to know that they may have "evaluated", but since no report was issued we cannot know if the Ainslie measurements were validated or not.

Free Energy | searching for free energy and discussing free energy

Re: Claimed OU circuit of Rosemary Ainslie
« Reply #124 on: July 04, 2009, 04:35:17 PM »
Sponsored links:




Offline TinselKoala

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 13968
Re: Claimed OU circuit of Rosemary Ainslie
« Reply #125 on: July 05, 2009, 06:23:22 PM »
Now I'm really getting burned up. The Queen is not even reading my posts, evidently, and is either distorting or simply lying about what she thinks she has read.

"Inverted position of my probes?" Look again, Rosemary. They are EXACTLY positioned as in the Quantum paper and the EIT paper.

"Fluke 123?" WTF? Rosemary, your published documents say you used a Fluke 199, and I have this one sitting right here and I have compared its readings to my 2 analog scopes, the Tek and the Philips.

"Armaged's challenge for me to build the 555 circuit?? " AGAIN, I seem to be the only one to actually build the circuit published by Ainslie. INCLUDING the 555 circuit, which can be seen in the video and the photograph. Where's Ainslie's video and photograph?

There is a lot of abuse directed towards me on that forum. At least you would think they could come up with something TRUE, instead of lies and distortions and assumptions.

Offline TinselKoala

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 13968
Re: Claimed OU circuit of Rosemary Ainslie
« Reply #126 on: July 05, 2009, 06:59:27 PM »
I'm reposting this here, because as things go, we all know that critical posts tend to dissappear down the memory hole...
Rosemary's comments quoted, my replies interspersed:

"I'm not sure that the question of TinselKoala can be entirely dropped. I remain deeply concerned that the representation of a 90% duty cycle is only achieved through the inverted position of his probes. "

My probes are not inverted. They are positioned exactly as in your publications.

"If so, then he is laughing at us from many, many different levels. "

Nobody's laughing, Rosemary. We are trying to get to the truth.

"And the fact that he shows this in conjunction with the entire depletion of two x 24 volt batteries in the space of 10 minutes from the current flow at it's max of 2 amps - simply adds to that concern. "

Clearly you haven't bothered to read my "huge chapters."

"I would also add that Oppenheimer would not allow a single sceptic on his team. "

Are you comparing yourself to Oppenheimer?

"And I would also point out that he is posting huge chapters from his previous forum. "

For the record. Which, evidently, nobody bothers to read before they begin criticizing.

"I can never work out the motives of such people. The idea of an actual conspiracy still seems a little bazaar. One would assume that he would then be richly rewarded."

This is not even worthy of comment.

" Seems that he even has difficulty getting hold of a Fluke 123."

Fluke 123? Your papers that I am addressing say you are using a Fluke 199 ScopeMeter, which I have sitting right next to my Philips and Tek analog scopes. And I also have available to me at least 12 other sophisticated oscilloscopes, as well as a lot of other instrumentation. I have barely begun my analysis of your work, Rosemary. I am prepared to put the whole circuit inside the world's most sophisticated civilian calorimeter system if I have to.

" His compensations for killing this thread should then, at its least, deserve a tektronix or somesuch. I just don't know. "

Yes, you just don't know.

"Also at issue is the fact that he never explains how he establishes, or actually measures, the energy delivered by the battery. It needs to be done with some transparent reference to the waveform across the shunt including the sum of both parts of that duty cycle."

I am using standard techniques: I compute the instantaneous power waveform using the instantaneous voltage and current signals, and then I integrate that power waveform over an appropriate time period.

" If he is using a simple current meter then it is also - quite simply - wrong. I'm afraid I really do need to address this point - over and over - as his contributions are likely to become highly counter productive. "

Straw man. Do you see a simple current meter in my experimental setup?

"I think Armagdn03's final challenge to let him build his own 555 is appropriate."

Which "him?" What "challenge?" The circuit that you published is right there in black and white. Certainly anybody can build it. When I first did, and discovered that the timer portion behaves as it does, the first thing I suspected was that I had made a mistake, so I built the circuit again, twice, and I asked others to build it--over and over I asked for others to build it. I'm still asking...
But if you would bother to read what you are criticizing, you will see that I have abandoned your published 555 circuit and am using my function generator exclusively.

Free Energy | searching for free energy and discussing free energy

Re: Claimed OU circuit of Rosemary Ainslie
« Reply #126 on: July 05, 2009, 06:59:27 PM »
Sponsored links:




Offline Cap-Z-ro

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 3545
Re: Claimed OU circuit of Rosemary Ainslie
« Reply #127 on: July 05, 2009, 07:57:35 PM »

TK...it is clear by what is written that you are being trolled...albeit from someone with a technical background.

I get the impression that you are dealing with a male...possibly oriental, judging from the word combinations and the usage and application of various phrases.

The assertions directed your way could very well be accurate if turned in the direction of origin.

Regards...

 

Offline poynt99

  • TPU-Elite
  • Hero Member
  • *******
  • Posts: 3585
Re: Claimed OU circuit of Rosemary Ainslie
« Reply #128 on: July 05, 2009, 08:32:49 PM »
TK, all.

The EIT paper and the Quantum article are at odds regarding the flyback diode. The latter does not use one.

Is it used or not?

.99

Free Energy | searching for free energy and discussing free energy

Re: Claimed OU circuit of Rosemary Ainslie
« Reply #128 on: July 05, 2009, 08:32:49 PM »
3D Solar Panels

Offline fuzzytomcat

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 676
    • Open Source Research and Development
Re: Claimed OU circuit of Rosemary Ainslie
« Reply #129 on: July 05, 2009, 08:47:40 PM »
Now I'm really getting burned up. The Queen is not even reading my posts, evidently, and is either distorting or simply lying about what she thinks she has read.

There is a lot of abuse directed towards me on that forum. At least you would think they could come up with something TRUE, instead of lies and distortions and assumptions.

Hey TK,

Saw this you must have missed .......

http://www.energeticforum.com/59039-post185.html

Quote
Tinselkoala - I have no intention of answering any further posts. In truth I'm not sure that you wrote the last post as your standard of language is different to the previous. I think Gauss answered in your name. How do you do that? Do you share computers?

Offline 0c

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 278
Re: Claimed OU circuit of Rosemary Ainslie
« Reply #130 on: July 05, 2009, 08:51:10 PM »
The EIT paper and the Quantum article are at odds regarding the flyback diode.

Which is the EIT paper? Link please.

Free Energy | searching for free energy and discussing free energy

Re: Claimed OU circuit of Rosemary Ainslie
« Reply #130 on: July 05, 2009, 08:51:10 PM »
3D Solar Panels

Offline TinselKoala

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 13968
Re: Claimed OU circuit of Rosemary Ainslie
« Reply #131 on: July 05, 2009, 09:05:13 PM »
Which is the EIT paper? Link please.

Hmmm---this is the Quantum article:
http://www.feelthevibe.com/free_energy/rosemary_ainslie/transient_energy.pdf
And this is the EIT paper:
http://dc147.4shared.com/download/110716349/15cc31e0/EIT_paper.pdf

Is it possible that there are two versions of the Quantum article circuit diagram? I see the inconsistency for sure, now that it's pointed out to me. I wonder if I have stuck my foot in my mouth bigtime??
I'm going to have to cancel my evening plans and go back to the breadboard, it seems.

I used the EIT paper at first, building for the FG input as shown, then I built the 555 circuit from the GroundLoop diagram and simply inserted it into the EIT circuit in place of the FG, using a separate battery supply for the 555 portion. Now I can see that this might not be equivalent to the Quantum circuit in the link.

So it appears that I have been testing a hybrid, of sorts, of the EIT and the Quantum circuits. Although lately I have not been using the 555 at all, just the FG.
I will have to do some exploration and experimentation to see if it makes a difference.

So there is still a question: The EIT paper and the Quantum article appear to  be reporting the exact same experiment. So I'd still like to know what the correct circuit was, that was used in the experiment.

Meanwhile, thank you so much for poynting this out, poynt99. It might mean that my rep is about to be totally shot down...
 ???

Offline TinselKoala

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 13968
Re: Claimed OU circuit of Rosemary Ainslie
« Reply #132 on: July 05, 2009, 09:17:54 PM »
All right, I've looked carefully at the Quantum article diagram, yet again.

It seems that the flyback diode is simply left out, or not mentioned, or something.

In the parts list the 1n4007 appears, and it's shown in the EIT paper across the load, and it's mentioned in that paper...in the Quantum diagram there's no diode across the load, and there's an unlabelled diode in the 555 Vcc line--in Groundloop's cleaned up version this is listed as 1n4148 like the other two, so that's what I used here...

I don't think this re-inverts the duty cycle like I was afraid of, but it's easy enough to check.

The only difference is the presence or absence of the flyback diode. I've already tested several in this position, but DUH, I didn't think to test "no diode" here.

And the beat goes on...

Offline poynt99

  • TPU-Elite
  • Hero Member
  • *******
  • Posts: 3585
Re: Claimed OU circuit of Rosemary Ainslie
« Reply #133 on: July 05, 2009, 09:44:40 PM »
I don't think the flyback diode is going to change the duty cycle, and as you can see I have verified that Ainslie and her crew have indeed inverted their calculations.

Next is to see if I can get the FET to oscillate, but will check out the wave form with a flyback as well.

.99

Offline poynt99

  • TPU-Elite
  • Hero Member
  • *******
  • Posts: 3585
Re: Claimed OU circuit of Rosemary Ainslie
« Reply #134 on: July 06, 2009, 02:43:23 AM »
I wasn't able to get the MOSFET to oscillate (no surprise eh TK?  ;) ).

I tired the full range of the 100 Ohm Gate resistor and even added some stray inductance in the Gate and Source, still no oscillation. With the MOSFET in saturation 96% of the time it's probably no wonder it won't oscillate. So for fun I drove the MOSFET separately from a square wave with 3.7% duty cycle and still could not elicit any oscillation.

The effect of the flyback diode really just cleans up the pulses a bit, for either case, 3.7% or 96%. There is no substantial flyback present below 0V as Ainslie mentions. Apparently this is where her circuit gains come from, but in my case there is very little and only without the diode in place.

I think at this point it would be necessary to see a picture of the actual built circuit used for their testing. Poor circuit construction can play a large part in how circuits behave, particularly with high current pulsing type circuits. Was a cheap breadboard used perhaps, long wires, etc?

Also, after reading Ainslie's posts at energeticforum, I'm beginning to get the feeling that she doesn't possess the technical prowess to really defend against TK's points, and this by her own admission. Why then is she lashing out at anyone that questions the accuracy of her reports ???  Human nature.

.99

 

OneLink