AInsley circuit replication attempt questions

[roguetechie]

Hey guys,

I am new to the electronics world (brand new). I'm a first year mechanical engineering student (not even to the good stuff yet still doing general's) and I've developed an interest in the ainsley circuit. I've downloaded the two big data packs which I'm slowly reading (and wiki'ing all the terms I don't understand).

I have a question though which I can't seem to find the answer to in the packet. What gauge and type of resistive heating wire do I need for the 10 ohm resistor? and is the 1.25" measurement the inside diameter of the coil or the outside diameter?

Also what do I need besides the basic circuit components to start building and testing this? Should I buy a multimeter or should I instead buy an oscilloscope? if so what types would you recommend for someone on a budget?

I know this is a lot of questions but you guys have done more with the ainsley circuit than any other place out there and so I figured I'd come here for my information.

Thanks in advance,

Roguetechie

[FuzzyTomCat]

Hey guys,

I am new to the electronics world (brand new). I'm a first year mechanical engineering student (not even to the good stuff yet still doing general's) and I've developed an interest in the ainsley circuit. I've downloaded the two big data packs which I'm slowly reading (and wiki'ing all the terms I don't understand).

I have a question though which I can't seem to find the answer to in the packet. What gauge and type of resistive heating wire do I need for the 10 ohm resistor? and is the 1.25" measurement the inside diameter of the coil or the outside diameter?

Also what do I need besides the basic circuit components to start building and testing this? Should I buy a multimeter or should I instead buy an oscilloscope? if so what types would you recommend for someone on a budget?

I know this is a lot of questions but you guys have done more with the ainsley circuit than any other place out there and so I figured I'd come here for my information.

Thanks in advance,

Roguetechie

Hi Roguetechie,

Welcome to the Energetic forum.

I'm afraid that this device from Rosemary Ainslie with a claim of COP>INFINITY has more that it share of problems and the inventor publisher Rosemary has had her three different threads "LOCKED" down relating to this device.

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

Rosemary Ainslie circuit demonstration on Saturday March 12th 2011

another small breakthrough on our NERD technology.

There was a YouTube video made called "Rosemary Ainslie circuit demonstration 12 March 2011" filmed at CPTU university in South Africa on this device.

Rosemary Ainslie circuit demonstration 12 March 2011 - YouTube

It was found to be fraudulent ( POST #17 - Patrick Kelly/Rosemary Anslie circuits ) showing in the video a device schematic that wasn't for the device being demonstrated in the video, it wasn't even close to what was being shown as proof of the claim of COP>INFINITY.

There also has been problems with Rosemary's mathematical results for the basis of her power measurement findings including understanding formulas for joules, watts and current.

At this time there is a thread at OverUnity.com Testing the TK Tar Baby with a discussion on trying to replicate the published data that does exist in a attempt to do a actual scientific replication of the findings of a COP>INFINITY with all the stumbling blocks that are being thrown at anyone trying to replicate the device and verify the claim. The problem being again is the collaboration and verification of only the errors in the claim and there has been nothing close to a COP>1 let alone a COP>INFINITY found or shown.

The owner and moderator of OverUnity ( Stefan) has requested multiple times that Rosemary Ainslie re-test the COP>INFINITY device in a scientific method that can be reproduced without all the measurement errors that have been found and proven in all the prior testing and evaluation done. At this point Rosemary hasn't done any re-testing because of the fact if she does and there is differences or errors in the results her attached "THESIS" to the COP>INFINITY device would be null and void, so any more testing for the most part probably will never happen. The testing and evaluation that was done for this device was also sent by Rosemary to accredited journals and magazines for possible professional peer review and publication but was withdrawn by Rosemary because of all the errors in them.

At this point Rosemary has been banned from most all alternative open source forums including this one, but it comes to a time after years of the same inadequate presentations of her personal proof of concept given on devices she claims to have invented to make something work as advertized and we are still waiting for her to comply with that request.

I also might add she was challenged by me to provide a demonstration on my free open source web site service created for inventors with their own device and/or measuring equipment to prove their work "LIVE" on a 24/7 STREAMING WEB BROADCASTING CHANNEL using their own web camera this also includes a interactive chat room for viewers FROM AROUND THE WORLD to witness the device in operation ask questions and give comments.

Open Source Research and Development Organization - Home Page

Rosemary Ainslie denied to show her device "LIVE" for all to see the results she claims.

My opinion at this point is for everyone to stay clear of this device until verifiable proof can be made or a "LIVE" presentation is done.

I also have my have others to challenge to a "LIVE" presentation as there is fraudulent devices everywhere in the open source community that experimentalist waste their money and time on giving free engineering to devices or products that don't work and never will.

Regards,
Fuzzy

[roguetechie]

Fuzzy,

I had thought that you were a proponent of the ainslie circuit at one time? Honestly I've been reading the material but there's just so much of it that I haven't got far between the stuff at panacea university and the various threads.

Maybe I should just go to my standby plan of trying to build a small concentrated solar array using auto parts and refrigerant instead. I am sorely disappointed that you consider the design not worth pursuing.

[FuzzyTomCat]

Fuzzy,

I had thought that you were a proponent of the ainslie circuit at one time? Honestly I've been reading the material but there's just so much of it that I haven't got far between the stuff at panacea university and the various threads.

Maybe I should just go to my standby plan of trying to build a small concentrated solar array using auto parts and refrigerant instead. I am sorely disappointed that you consider the design not worth pursuing.

Hi roguetechie,

I did more verifiable testing and evaluation on the COP>17 device than any other person in the open source community with a boat load of data available in one place for anyone to see at my SkyDrive public account

https://skydrive.live.com/redir.aspx...C40BB20460!104

The last position on the eight months of testing and evaluation I did is posted here http://www.energeticforum.com/93746-post74.html and like many other devices people get involved with opinions on the results of those tests can and sometimes do change this is one of those devices.

One has to remember the earth was at one time to believed to be flat and things do change, sometimes not as one would like but with credible and verifiable evidence of differences truth should always prevail.

Personally of all the devices out there the "Lloyd Tanner" steam boiler Friction Heater - YouTube is one of the more credible ideas to work on with real power potential and possibly being a self runner if configured properly.

Regards,
Fuzzy

[roguetechie]

Fuzzy,

Thank you for your advice I greatly appreciate it. For some reason I was under the impression that the Ainsley circuit had been replicated successfully by more than one person including you. I think this is mostly due to Rosemary's own writings that highly implied that others had replicated successfully, and also that replications were fairly easy and straight forward to do.

I am doubly grateful that you have not just saved me the potential time and heartache of a failed replication attempt, and have also provided me with a secondary avenue to pursue. Chances are I will be bugging you guys relentlessly on the subject of the friction boiler instead. This actually has the potential to fit better with my pursuit of a solar thermal based energy generation system for day time. Maybe if I am lucky I could use the parts to create a test system that runs on solar thermal during the day and the friction boiler at night.

[ashtweth]

Glen has done a lot more for the open source community that our "friend " rose will ever do.

Trust me on that

Ash

[brian,s,ahern]

Rosemary's device

I have performed measurements on a device similar to The South African device with great success. Somehow this stuff can work, but I do not know how the circuit achieves the performance.

[FuzzyTomCat]

I have performed measurements on a device similar to The South African device with great success. Somehow this stuff can work, but I do not know how the circuit achieves the performance.

Welcome to Energetic Forum,

I see you maybe have some test results that agree with a Rosemary Ainslie "South Africa" device and would be the first person in 10 years that would have accomplished this with countless people trying here and four (4) other alternative energy forums.

Pulsed DC circuits are one of the most difficult to properly measure results accurately.

Please post all your great successful data and method of measurements for the "open source community" to see.

Thank You,
Fuzzy

[brian,s,ahern]

rosemary

Welcome to Energetic Forum,

I see you maybe have some test results that agree with a Rosemary Ainslie "South Africa" device and would be the first person in 10 years that would have accomplished this with countless people trying here and four (4) other alternative energy forums.

Pulsed DC circuits are one of the most difficult to properly measure results accurately.

Please post all your great successful data and method of measurements for the "open source community" to see.

Thank You,
Fuzzy

I am not sure if I am doing this right.

I was working on Rossi-like stuff for EPRI when I ran into Arthur Manelas in Pelham NH. He has an electrical circuit not unlike Rosemary and I made many measurements of the output/input..

His circuit fits inside a shoebox and he ccauses fast rising pulses from a back EMF off a large transformer core. The core runs at a 'negative hysterisis of -3.0C.
He takes 11 watts out of a 12 volt battery and send 42 watts back into a 24 volt battery.

As a physicist with 30 years of lab experience, I know this sounds like a First Law violation. It woks nonetheless.

My working hypothesis is that his ferrite core has nanograined material in the 10 nanometer range. A new form of super-ferromagnetism was reported in Nature in 2006 by van Wayenberge. It comes in the form of a vortes and as such the asymmetric magnetism may be able to access energy from the fourth dimension, iCt.

[FuzzyTomCat]

I am not sure if I am doing this right.

I was working on Rossi-like stuff for EPRI when I ran into Arthur Manelas in Pelham NH. He has an electrical circuit not unlike Rosemary and I made many measurements of the output/input..

His circuit fits inside a shoebox and he ccauses fast rising pulses from a back EMF off a large transformer core. The core runs at a 'negative hysterisis of -3.0C.
He takes 11 watts out of a 12 volt battery and send 42 watts back into a 24 volt battery.

As a physicist with 30 years of lab experience, I know this sounds like a First Law violation. It woks nonetheless.

My working hypothesis is that his ferrite core has nanograined material in the 10 nanometer range. A new form of super-ferromagnetism was reported in Nature in 2006 by van Wayenberge. It comes in the form of a vortes and as such the asymmetric magnetism may be able to access energy from the fourth dimension, iCt.

Hi brian,s,ahern

What your indicating is interesting but as you stated having 30 years bench experience of a scientist trained in physics know that a theory or thesis is not proof of a claim of operation.

Most people here are experimentalist more interested in something you can physically see and touch. The comparison with Rossi's "ECAT" ( LENR ) device ECAT.com - The Official Website of Andrea Rossi's Energy Catalyzer, E-Cat - ECAT and Rosemary's COP>17 and COP>INFINITY devices are two totally different things not to be confused.

If you have a device circuit diagram and photographs with possibly oscilloscope screen shots and data dumps any videos .... proof of a device with said claims that's GREAT lets see them.

If you have nothing to show the "open source community" .... well ....

Thank You,
Fuzzy

[parkham]

I'm confused by all this. This thread http://www.energeticforum.com/induct...y-ainslie.html has the following quote.

TAKE NOTE: The 1N4007 diode across the load inductive resistor is OPTIONAL. It shows how to get more charge back to the front battery, etc... However, the biggest gains are WITHOUT that diode. The above
schematic does NOT show the diode.

If you use the diode, you get more battery charging on the front battery
and less heat. Without, you get greatest heat and less charging on the
front battery.

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

This thread is full of skeptical nonsense. I always welcome questions and comments but when invalid points that are completely fabricated, false, made up, fraud, etc... WILL NOT BE TOLERATED IN THIS THREAD. They will be deleted and anyone contributing to this nonsense may be removed from the forum.

Just so you know, here are a few skeptical claims made by supposed experts:
TK's (Tinsel Koala) claim the Quantum article timer is wrong (FACT - it works)
TK's claim the Quantum article circuit won't oscillate (FACT - it does)
TK's claim the oscillation is a red herring (FACT - it isn't)
Poynt99 and Poynt's claim there is NO AC in this circuit at all (FACT - there is in the load inductive resistor)
All claims the diode can't help charge input battery (FACT - it does)
All claims the spikes will damage the mosfet and that the ringing should be stopped (FACT - this mosfet IRFPG50 is designed EXACTLY for this kind of application)
All claims that the spike would be too small to be significant (FACT - on a decent circuit the voltage is 4 times the input voltage, it charges batteries or caps - it is VERY significant)
All claims that when the mosfet is off, the battery cannot conduct and therefore won't receive a charge (FACT - the diode in the mosfet allows just this exact current conduction as it is designed to do this!)
All claims that the spike will disappear with improved circuit connections, etc... (FACT - it only makes the spike bigger)
All claims that the inductive resistor will change resistance as it heats up will throw off all the numbers (FACT - these resistors are made to be VERY ACCURATE at these operating temperatures. That is the whole point. They can be within 5% across a WIDE range of temperatures but the most discrepancy will be when they are extremely cold (way below ambient - or way too hot - this demonstrates the skeptics knowledge of this kind of resistor is completely lacking)
Skeptics claim that a battery capacitance analyzer is an accurate way to determine battery capacitance for load testing and this supposedly makes the actual draw down tests unnecessary. (FACT - they are good only for sorting through batteries to see which ones need replacing or not. They are in NO WAY AT ALL - an accurate way to see what a battery will deliver.)
When skeptics analyzed my waveform of the shunt - it was determined all the ringing was above the 0 line in the positive including the bottom half of the ringing. (FACT - The middle of the positive and amplitude of the ringing after the negative spike is in fact the zero line - and by not knowing this, they admit they don't understand how to read a waveform.)
The skeptics claimed that the ringing cancels out any charging effect the negative spike will give. (FACT - The negative spike reduces what the battery delivers in net - the ringing down itself cancels itself out as far as battery charging ability but provides extra heat to the coil.)
TK claimed the Quantum article schematic (posted above) will not cause the mosfet to oscillate or do anything useful for the circuit. (FACT - with the EXACT circuit from the article, I can get the mosfet to oscillate - and I have shown pics and videos)
All of these "skeptical" points have been conclusively proven wrong.

Anyway, enjoy and make sure to look at my notes above and take that schematic and build it.
A builder's group will be posted soon...


----------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Below is a post from Peter - he brought this technology to my awareness. His circuit
below is something to be tested thoroughly after Rosemary's circuit is replicated.

Aaron,

Thanks for re-invigorating this older thread. I was about to start a new thread about Rosemary's work. I have also posted her major contributions to a new page on my site at: Free Energy | Rosemary Ainslie On this page, I have collected her papers and put them all in simple, downloadable PDF files, for ease of handling.

This material clearly shows how to build an electric heating device that produces 17 times more heat than the "equivalent" amount of electricity. It accomplishes this by using a resistive heating element that also has inductive properties, and by "recycling" the energy of the inductive collapse.

I've just discovered this and have been reading for a few hours. Does the original circuit shown in the Quantum Magazine article work at all, or has it all been just a big waste of time?

Thanks, and sorry if I am missing something obvious.

[FuzzyTomCat]

I'm confused by all this. This thread http://www.energeticforum.com/induct...y-ainslie.html has the following quote.

I've just discovered this and have been reading for a few hours. Does the original circuit shown in the Quantum Magazine article work at all, or has it all been just a big waste of time?

Thanks, and sorry if I am missing something obvious.

Howdy parkham,

This is a extremely long subject matter with many twists and turns ..... the short of it is that the Quantum article circuit with a COP 17 does "NOT" work as advertised and never stood up to the scientific method of testing and evaluation. It has been modified numerous times by many other knowledgeable experimentalists here and at other alternative energy forums.

I'm listing some early quotes from Rosemary Ainslie and her endless endeavor.

http://www.energeticforum.com/59001-post169.html

I'm not sure if you are aware of it - but I'm a rank amateur. I really need to own up to this because you'll be expecting a level of technical expertise that I simply do not have. Circuit switches need to be built by others. The only aspect of testing that I'm confident with is the actual power measurements and then only as they relate to this modest little circuit. But - if I have a contribution - it's in that model, which is the thesis in support of that gain. In any event I wont bore you with the details. But if and where I state the obvious - it's only because I hardly know enough to see whether it's obvious or not. So. Please bear with me.

http://www.energeticforum.com/59030-post179.html

I've tested the circuit over a 4 year period.

http://www.energeticforum.com/59119-post205.html

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.

http://www.energeticforum.com/59369-post262.html 07-06-2009, 01:25 PM

TinselKoala - THE ONLY APPROPRIATE CIRCUIT DIAGRAM that I can assure you is correct is the diagram in the paper. And the flyback diode is a critical part of the system.

The circuit diagram in the Quantum article was prepared by Brian Buckley. I cannot comment on whether it is right or not as I simply cannot read it. I am hoping that Donovan will be able to comment in due course. I don't think he has even seen that article - as published.

But it is definitely required as without it we cannot 're-route' the collapsing fields back to the battery to recharge it.

http://www.energeticforum.com/60279-post511.html 07-13-2009, 07:52 AM

Joit - is your waveform proving TinselKoala's point? Is that 555 switch wrongly presented? To me it looks like it is. In which case, I must apologise to all concerned. Clearly the Quantum article was wrong.

So, to all concerned - to everyone who built the circuit as presented in that article, and if, indeed, it is wrong, my abject apologies. I had a shrewd idea it may have been wrong because, thinking back, a university professor kindly edited the quantum paper prior to presenting it to the IET. And his first recommendation was that we omitted a detailed circuit of the 555 switch as being irrelevant to the claim. Which is why I was reluctant to endorse the Quantum article as being a correct presentation. I just wish, in retrospect, that he had pointed out the error if he had seen such. In any event, it seems that I have been entirely at fault. My own objection to it was due to the lack of the feedback diode - which was the entire subject of the exercise. I knew it was in the apparatus. It certainly was not in diagram.

I would point out though, that my reluctance to admit this prior to ascertaining the fact was due to the person who presented that diagram and assisted me in that first article. He is a good friend and he, like all of us, was 'giving' his time. I was not keen therefore to expose the problem unless I also knew it was a problem. So, if you're reading this, don't even worry. In any event, the blame was not his. I should, at least, have had the circuit vetted - considering my own inability to read such.

So. Many apologies, even to TinselKoala and anyone in the entire world who duplicated that circuit. It is wrongly presented. I am sincerely sorry that I have wasted so much of your time. And Joit - you've put the question to bed. I would be very glad to refund you for your time and trouble - if required - and if I can get the money to you with our exchange control. Just send me an account on the PM system. You've done a very good thing here.

What I do assure you all is this. The switch may have been wrongly drawn. Our own duty cycle application is NOT. I have the experimental apparatus available and it has been checked by EE's even at universities. We have also, over the years, built many different 555 switches and by different people. And there are replicated experiments by others using nothing but a functions generator. And all this prior to publication. More to the point is that the battery duration is consistent with measurements based on the duty cycle. But, in point of fact, after publication I never experimented again for a period of 7 years and I certainly never even looked at the article again. The only reason I could scan a copy for the blog when I eventually did this, was because my children kept a copy of the original publication. I was just so dejected at the entire lack of interest it seemed to generate. I had no idea that the test would really ever be duplicated.

Therefore, please take this admission as a sincere apology to all those who have tried to build the switch according to the quantum article. I see that the Quantum article was the primary reference point as the IET paper was only posted to the blog after July. It seems that Ramset and TinselKoala started their thread on OU.COM in mid June. Unfortunate. But there you are. Sorry guys - It's all I can say.

Well we can do this for days, months ..... no years. It is a excellent circuit to keep ones interest up depending on whom you converse with and not her nameless unsubstantiated imaginary experts.

Best,
Fuzzy

[parkham]

Thanks for taking the time to reply. Would you recommend anyone to experiment with it at this point?

[Aaron]

Rosemary Ainslie Circuit

I'm confused by all this. This thread http://www.energeticforum.com/induct...y-ainslie.html has the following quote.



I've just discovered this and have been reading for a few hours. Does the original circuit shown in the Quantum Magazine article work at all, or has it all been just a big waste of time?

Thanks, and sorry if I am missing something obvious.

I saw what you quoted me saying - it is true the circuit "works" as the diagram shows - meaning it oscillates the inductor, produces heat and sends a recharging pulse back to the battery.

However, I was never able to verify a COP of 17.0. The most I seemed to have achieved was about 2.0, but that isn't too surprising. Problem is, batteries don't like to get charged and discharged in an alternating fashion. The voltage will go up on the battery depends on how the circuit is tuned, but the capacity is not going up with the voltage. That means the impedance of the battery is increasing and is forcing the voltage to increase when the spike hits it - not because it's charging but because there is a reduction in the sulfuric acid in the solution of the battery - more is being plated so the impedance goes up.

The most interesting thing I did was make the resistor drop a max of up to 5C below ambient. I remember Harvey chalked it up as being "RF cooling", but I'm not sure how rf is supposed to cool an inductive resistor down. I was also able to use the circuit to wirelessly turn off or turn on all three levels of light on a 3 way touch dimable lamp from across the room by hitting certain frequencies.

Anyway, it doesn't do as claimed and it is a waste of time if that is what you want to achieve. But if you want to experiment with a fun little circuit that does demonstrate the ability to recover some energy from a coil that the common belief says should not be possible, then go for it. It does demonstrate a lot of the same principles as the SG and other circuits that recover the inductive spikes.

[parkham]

If one can get COP 2 then I say it's well worth experimenting with. Thanks for the responses.