There is enough resolution so that anybody interested can actually even CONFIRM that my 555 is constructed EXACTLY per the Quantum article's diagram, and you can see clearly that my probes are just as Ainslie specified.
Plus, the Quantum circuit is easily available.
So why are "experts" trying to say that this video is some kind of "hoax" or incorrect demonstration?
PROVE ME WRONG by building the circuit and showing different results with respect to the duty cycle.
Good show, Halfway through the explanation, I thought, I wonder if his duty cycle is accidentally reversed, then you solved your own problem. Nice setup.
Thank you very much for your job! One thing remains unclear: the battery in Ainslie experiment show ~24V over all (16 hours) test period, while your battery voltage droped down to ~11V (as it is expected under havy load).
First, Ainslie used, IIRC, 2 each 12 volt 20 Amp-Hour batteries--or so the claim is in the paper. And of course her batteries were presumably initially fully charged.
Then--the batteries I am using are rated 12 volts 2 amp-hours. And they were already depleted when I started this vid. (rehearsals--you know.) They were only indicating 22 volts (no load, series connected) when I started, hence the drop to 11 during the high draw.
Also, this circuit does put the inductive spikes back into the battery, and we know that these batteries, under those conditions--pulse charging with short relatively HV pulses-- will show higher than normal no-load voltage, even when their energy store has been depleted.
Here I have to agree with both janne and pupsbobik. Janne is right, certainly, and bobik is right because, to the extent that Ainslie _has_ put forth any kind of well-specified hypothesis, it has been falsified, or at least called into serious question, by my demonstration. In fact at this point, it is a serious question as to whether the experiment, as described in Ainslie's publications, was even performed as described at all.
Good demo. I thought when you switched to using the 555 input it was at ~95% duty cycle, mosfet on 95% of the time
BDDFOUR 2 years ago
Hi TinselKoala is it possible to use one 12v battery only using an inverter to the 24v side?
Thanks
guruji243 2 years ago
There is enough resolution so that anybody interested can actually even CONFIRM that my 555 is constructed EXACTLY per the Quantum article's diagram, and you can see clearly that my probes are just as Ainslie specified.
Plus, the Quantum circuit is easily available.
So why are "experts" trying to say that this video is some kind of "hoax" or incorrect demonstration?
PROVE ME WRONG by building the circuit and showing different results with respect to the duty cycle.
OR--quit making accusations.
TinselKoala 2 years ago
Comment removed
crippled82 2 years ago
So another mismeasurement huh. It's easy to stumble on this sort of thing, especially with all this 'free energy' open-loop stuff.
janne808 2 years ago
Good show, Halfway through the explanation, I thought, I wonder if his duty cycle is accidentally reversed, then you solved your own problem. Nice setup.
tortuga0303 2 years ago
Thank you very much for your job! One thing remains unclear: the battery in Ainslie experiment show ~24V over all (16 hours) test period, while your battery voltage droped down to ~11V (as it is expected under havy load).
pupsbobik 2 years ago
First, Ainslie used, IIRC, 2 each 12 volt 20 Amp-Hour batteries--or so the claim is in the paper. And of course her batteries were presumably initially fully charged.
Then--the batteries I am using are rated 12 volts 2 amp-hours. And they were already depleted when I started this vid. (rehearsals--you know.) They were only indicating 22 volts (no load, series connected) when I started, hence the drop to 11 during the high draw.
Plus they are surplus pulls from old UPS units.
TinselKoala 2 years ago
Also, this circuit does put the inductive spikes back into the battery, and we know that these batteries, under those conditions--pulse charging with short relatively HV pulses-- will show higher than normal no-load voltage, even when their energy store has been depleted.
TinselKoala 2 years ago
In this case it is sad to say, but scientific reputation Ainslie and her recently published "the unifying field model" are seriously damaged.
pupsbobik 2 years ago
Why is that? Putting forth testable hypotheses is what it's all about.
janne808 2 years ago
Here I have to agree with both janne and pupsbobik. Janne is right, certainly, and bobik is right because, to the extent that Ainslie _has_ put forth any kind of well-specified hypothesis, it has been falsified, or at least called into serious question, by my demonstration. In fact at this point, it is a serious question as to whether the experiment, as described in Ainslie's publications, was even performed as described at all.
TinselKoala 2 years ago