COP 17 Heater | Rosemary Ainslie

[Peter Lindemann]

Big Problems

@all
hi, i am not a technical person at all. i was just wondering if Rosemary Ainslie circuit can be a looped system.
what i mean to ask is that can we get a loop system using Rosemary Ainslie circuit using the system described below.
1. we get a electric boiler and fill it with steam using electricity from the grid.
2. we use that steam generated to generate electricity, now using this circuit produce steam from the electricity generated in 1st step.
this steam should be 15 - 20 times more,since Rosemary Ainslie circuit is 15- 20 times more efficient.
3.now again using the steam generated in pt 2 (15-20 times more than in pt 1) we produce electricity using a steam generator.
now if the electricity produced at pt 3 stage is more we can loop the sys.

eg .(this is a totally hypothetical figures i am taking ).

1. we use 10 kWh (from grid) to produce lets say 10 kg of steam (1 kWh =1 kg of steam) .

2. 10kg of steam produces 8 kwh of power.(80 % efficient)

3. 8 kWh produces 136 kg of steam (8 * 1 * 17) using Rosemary Ainslie circuit.

4. 136 kg of steam produces 108.8 kWh

now we use 100.8 kWh as excess power and use the remaining 8 kwh back to produce 136 kg of steam and so on.

kindly comment on the calculations.

if any tecnical person reads this feel free to give the exact conversion numbers for electric to steam conversion and stem to electric conversion.

since we already have the rest of the things( boiler , steam generator) easily available all we need is Rosemary Ainslie circuit to work and all our energy problems could be solved very easily.
since i am not a technical person i do not have the ability to contribute in testing of this circuit, but i would be grateful if more and more people test and develop this circuit and give laymen like the easy to follow instructions to make this circuit work.
thanks
jasbir

Dear Jasbir,

Your speculations and math are not useful. The biggest problem is there is no technology to convert heat to electricity at 80% efficiency, as you suggest. Even large, multi-step steam turbines, like the ones in commercial power plants, are still only about 35% efficient.

The purpose of this thread is NOT to jump out to the idea of a "closed loop" but to LEARN THE SCIENCE of the system. The most important idea presented here is that HEAT can be produced by the "circulation" of electricity, and NOT just by its "dissipation". First, run the experiment and learn the science. All of the possible applications will come in due time.

Peter

[Michael John Nunnerley]

@jas
To make a loop in ANY system is not easy, and what you have written is so full of holes that I will not go into all the detail.
@Dr. Stiffler & all
I agree totally, the first is the claim as it was found EXACTLY in the experiment of hers but with a better control of how the data is collected, outside these perameters is not a replication. This said I will not be doing this as I have moved on to experiment with a near resistive only load but with a resonant drive circuit, I found that I could not get a perminent resonance in her set up, and trying to track the changing resonance was proving too difficult. I feel that the most important part, and probably the only part to all possible energy plus systems be it electronic/electrical or mechanical or electro magnetic or only magnetic is the point of harmony (RESONANCE), at this point is when something changes, and this can not be explained, at the moment, by anybody, not only my view and found by experiment, but a view of many scientists whom have been laught at and discarded in the scientific scene.
I will post my findings when I have concluded my tests.
@Dr. Stiffler
I think that the mosfet that she was using is working in a similar form to your semi conductor used in your circuit, I think self resonating in some form or other! change the mosfet for one similar and it does not have the same results (in her circuit).

Good safe experimenting to all
Mike

[Michael John Nunnerley]

Peter you have done it again

@Peter
I am fated, always when I am writing a post I find that you have posted before me without me knowing

Agree totally

Mike

[DrStiffler]

@Peter
I am fated, always when I am writing a post I find that you have posted before me without me knowing

Agree totally

Mike

@Michael John Nunnerley @All
I'm going to stop posting to this thread because it is not fair to the original intent that I explain a system that does appear to work and it involves my SEC Exciters and domain flipping in a toroid.

So unless I have something that honestly applies here I shall remain silent. I will start posting to my thread the system, and please this is not to steal from this thread, its to enhance it I hope, the more we can look into the better.

[Aaron]

replication and parts

I think it would be fair to post any project here using an inductive resistor that is along the lines of what Rosemary Ainslie has done. Charge inductive resistor, take away power and recycle the spike to produce more heat.

Preferably, it would be a straight replication attempt to spec but I don't think it has to be.

I find it hard to even get the Mosfet that is specified without having to order a minimum of 300+ from Mouser for example. I found it on Ebay and they have 10...one is about $5 and about $5 shipping so $10 for one. If anyone else has a simple source please post it.

Also, I have not found a resistor that matches what Rosemary used. It sounds like she wound her own. In the Quantum article it says:

"The load resistor was wound to deliberately yield an inductance. The inductance measures 8.64 uH and generates high voltage spikes during the 'off' period of each switching cycle."

* 10 Ohm ceramic, hollow core, wire wound resistor. Length is 150mm. Diameter 32mm. 48 turns of resistive wire spaced 1mm.

But maybe saying "wound to deliberately yield an inductance" is a reference to the fact that these resistors are already wound to deliberately yield an inductance.

Anyway, if anyone knows of a source of a resistor that exactly matches these details, please post.

[Michael John Nunnerley]

@Aaron
I think that even if you obtain the correct mosfet you will have may be a 50:50 chance that you will get anywhere near to the results. I and it is my opinion, take it or leave it, the mosfet is the key, but not all, like Dr. Stiffler's transistor, not all work as required, something happened in the fabrication which normally would not matter, but in this case it does matter and I think that I am not the only one whom has come to this conclusion.

Mike

[Michael John Nunnerley]

P:S:

Sorry Aaron can not help you, I am using an inductive resistive element which has a resistance of 63 ohms it is rated normally at 240v and 900watts and I have driven this with a square wave 14.8v at different frequencies and have found that I can obtain some strange results at certain frequencies and an amp draw of only 250ma which under normal conditions would be 3.7watts going in but I am getting near 9watts into the test fluid I have also found that different frequencies have different power outputs and occure at or close to the harmonic frequencies of the original that I started at. Still testing on my set up and when I have all the data that I require I will post the results.

Mike

[sigzidfit]

2 coils? resist and induce?

What if the resistive heating element passed through an induction coil?

High Frequency Induction Heating

PJ

[RAMSET]

More progress
part 2 YouTube - ainslie 2

Rosemary ,Your input would be greatly appreciated
Chet

[SkyWatcher]

Hi folks, time will tell what the truth is with Ainslie's circuit results, however I notice some are alluding to but not stating the simple fact of what this circuit is showing us, just as Peter L. is showing us in his attraction videos. And that is that we can charge a coil, make a magnetic field and use the field in a
non-impeding manner such as an attraction motor or other setup and then we can reuse most of the field when it collapses. I think this simple fact is what is most relevant. Thing is, other than attracting iron, what other way is there to utilize the initial magnetic field that is non-impeding. I thought about a solid state hysteresis heater or something but there must be some other ways to utilize the primary magnetic field without diminishing it. Any thoughts.
peace love light

[Peter Lindemann]

5 Gold Stars

Hi folks, time will tell what the truth is with Ainslie's circuit results, however I notice some are alluding to but not stating the simple fact of what this circuit is showing us, just as Peter L. is showing us in his attraction videos. And that is that we can charge a coil, make a magnetic field and use the field in a non-impeding manner such as an attraction motor or other setup and then we can reuse most of the field when it collapses. I think this simple fact is what is most relevant. Thing is, other than attracting iron, what other way is there to utilize the initial magnetic field that is non-impeding. I thought about a solid state hysteresis heater or something but there must be some other ways to utilize the primary magnetic field without diminishing it. Any thoughts.
peace love light

Skywatcher,



Peter

[Inquorate]

All the pennies drop

Now to see if I can make sense out of it..

Impedance and Reactance

But the frequency aspect of karl palsness's circuit determining zero impedance for the body is also beginning to make sense..

N M F P W...

Aah, and zero impedance = higher frequency because at high frequency of longitudinal compression waves, the electrons have no time to move.

Ie no current.

So, only the radiant is used in the business end of the circuit.. The electrons lose nothing of their energetic state (in the ideal system) and we can stick them back in storage to use in the next pulse (disruptive discharge)

THAT must be why tesla was chasing ever higher voltages and ever higher frequencies..

WOW

[RAMSET]

Gentlemen,and ladies
User Tinsel Koala from OU is attempting to join this Forum to better understand
Rosemary's findings
He has put a great expedient effort into this and is openly sharing his findings
here
YouTube - Electric OU 1: Preliminary Tests of the Rosemary Ainslie Claimed OU circuit
and here
YouTube - ainslie 2
He is having some trouble getting the ability to post
Can any one please expedite
Thank you
Chet

[Guest]

Looks like this is just a measurement error of true input duty cycle which is not very surprising given the background info....

Claimed OU circuit of Rosemary Ainslie

IŽd put any replication efforts on hold and start focusing on ie the Stan Meyer steam resonator. Maybe you could achieve COP 5 with his resonator.

[TinselKoala]

Hello all, and thanks to the moderators for allowing me to post. Don't worry, I won't clutter your projects with "evil skeptic" posts!


I do want to give a brief report of my work with the Ainslie circuit. I can't speak to the other circuits discussed on this thread other than in general terms, so I won't.

I built the circuit described in the pdf, which does not include the timer portion, so I used my function generator to provide the 3.7 percent ON duty cycle pulse to drive the MOSFET. I used identical component values except for the MOSFET. I used the 2sk1548 which is slightly underrated compared to the irfpg50. Under these conditions I could not detect any heating in the load or transistor, nor could I induce the "random" or chaotic oscillations described by Ainslie in the paper. However, at high gate drive voltages and low source-drain voltages I was able to induce "false triggering" in the oscilloscopes, which can appear as random oscillations. Parasitic oscillations were evident at high drives but these are regular and easily resolved on the scopes.

BUT---none of that is really relevant to what I found.

Ainlsie's COP>17 numbers depend, as far as I can tell, on estimates of output energy obtained semi-calorimetrically, compared to input energy (from batteries) computed on the basis of scope measurements of current (that is, voltage drop across a current-viewing shunt resistor) and battery voltage, with the numbers crunched in a spreadsheet.

Obviously, the input duty cycle is important in this calculation.

I was expecting, along with others it seems, that the problem would arise in the output energy determination. As it turns out, Ainslie did a pretty good job here; using the "control" experiment she reported, her output energy figures seem OK, at least "ballpark" like they say on Seinfeld.

The problem, in my replication of the Ainslie circuit, lies in the input power.

When I finally got hold of the complete circuit as published in the "Quantum" article, using the 555 timer as the pulse generator, I immediately built and tested the circuit so I could compare the 555 with the FG to see if that made any difference in heating, etc.

And it did--a huge difference.
What gives? The generated pulses look very similar...at first.

It turns out that the 555 circuit as published in the Quantum article generates a 3.7 percent OFF duty cycle, not 3.7 percent ON as claimed.
So the MOSFET is, correspondingly, ON for 96.3 percent of the time. No wonder it heats up!!

Running the numbers (I won't bore you with the details, we are just talking "ballpark" here, remember) on my unit, and plugging them into the long run from which she got her COP>17 number, I get an input energy of around 3 MegaJoules, not the measly 60 or so kiloJoules she cites--and compared to the output heating, that gives a COP<1/2 or so. Ballpark.

Certainly not OU, not even very efficient as far as heaters go. (The mosfet also gets quite warm, there is also EM being radiated, and YES, some of the energy goes back into the battery)

Now, I have already built another copy of the 555 circuit, just in case I made an error or got a weird chip, and the second copy behaves just the same. Plus other researchers have also confirmed this timer circuit.

So, at this point, the important issue is this: Did Rosemary Ainslie actually use a MOSFET duty cycle of 3.7 percent ON as claimed, or did she make an error and use the 3.7 percent OFF duty cycle that her published circuit actually generates?

Because if the latter is the case, it's pretty clear that that has rather profound implications for her theory.

The two videos where I describe my adventures with this circuit have already been linked above.

(great selection of "smileys" btw)

--TK