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

Tesla Paper

Free Energy Book

Get paid

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 Members: 84255
  • *Latest: romeos69

  • *Total Posts: 898187
  • *Total Topics: 15837
  • *Online Today: 44
  • *Most Online: 103
(December 19, 2006, 11:27:19 PM)
  • *Users: 1
  • *Guests: 22
  • *Total: 23

Author Topic: Rosemary Ainslie circuit demonstration on Saturday March 12th 2011  (Read 639269 times)

Offline Rosemary Ainslie

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 3968
Re: Rosemary Ainslie circuit demonstration on Saturday March 12th 2011
« Reply #1020 on: May 01, 2011, 05:24:17 PM »
Sorry.  I posted the wrong download for that conclusion.  Here's the right one.  Just for proof of how long it took to get the temperature stabilised.



Added.

SO.  Say the start was at 21.27 hours - concluded at 22.56 hours - gives a time of about 1.5 hours.


Free Energy | searching for free energy and discussing free energy


Offline Rosemary Ainslie

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 3968
Re: Rosemary Ainslie circuit demonstration on Saturday March 12th 2011
« Reply #1021 on: May 01, 2011, 05:35:31 PM »
Then Guys - and in conclusion - in the space of a few short minutes - with an increased frequency - it then took the temperature to boiling point - I think.  It wasn't actually boiling but it had small bubbles.  And the temperature recorded at 104 degrees C - or thereby, from memory.  No noise, surprisingly - that one associates with a kettle at boiling point.  Perhaps that's the lower wattage than our kettles put out. 

Anyway here's that final screen shot.  The battery voltage simply rose to 62 Volts (sorry I wrote degrees) and then stabilised at that value.  I didn't get that final screen shot - but that was the voltage I posted before I went to bed last night.

ADDED
NOTE that at these higher frequencies the level of oscillation across the batteries and the CSR increase.

Also.  I unfortunately did NOT take a screen shot at the conclusion of that test before I increased the frequency.  Because it barely took 10 minutes to raise the temperature of the water from plus/minus 80 degrees C to that 104 degrees C.  And the battery voltage was absolutely stable at 62 something.  I should have made another screen shot.


AND MAY I ADD, lest anyone miss the significance here - this may be the first time in recorded history that water was taken to boiling point at an evident ZERO cost of energy from a supply source.  That's got to give pause for thought.
  ;D
« Last Edit: May 01, 2011, 05:55:50 PM by Rosemary Ainslie »

Offline poynt99

  • TPU-Elite
  • Hero Member
  • *******
  • Posts: 3582
Re: Rosemary Ainslie circuit demonstration on Saturday March 12th 2011
« Reply #1022 on: May 01, 2011, 06:15:06 PM »
AND MAY I ADD, lest anyone miss the significance here - this may be the first time in recorded history that water was taken to boiling point at an evident ZERO cost of energy from a supply source.  That's got to give pause for thought.   ;D

Free Energy | searching for free energy and discussing free energy

Re: Rosemary Ainslie circuit demonstration on Saturday March 12th 2011
« Reply #1022 on: May 01, 2011, 06:15:06 PM »
Sponsored links:




Offline i_ron

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 1160
Re: Rosemary Ainslie circuit demonstration on Saturday March 12th 2011
« Reply #1023 on: May 01, 2011, 06:37:58 PM »
Then Guys - and in conclusion - in the space of a few short minutes - with an increased frequency - it then took the temperature to boiling point - I think.  It wasn't actually boiling but it had small bubbles.  And the temperature recorded at 104 degrees C - or thereby, from memory.  No noise, surprisingly - that one associates with a kettle at boiling point.  Perhaps that's the lower wattage than our kettles put out. 

Anyway here's that final screen shot.  The battery voltage simply rose to 62 Volts (sorry I wrote degrees) and then stabilised at that value.  I didn't get that final screen shot - but that was the voltage I posted before I went to bed last night.

ADDED
NOTE that at these higher frequencies the level of oscillation across the batteries and the CSR increase.

Also.  I unfortunately did NOT take a screen shot at the conclusion of that test before I increased the frequency.  Because it barely took 10 minutes to raise the temperature of the water from plus/minus 80 degrees C to that 104 degrees C.  And the battery voltage was absolutely stable at 62 something.  I should have made another screen shot.


AND MAY I ADD, lest anyone miss the significance here - this may be the first time in recorded history that water was taken to boiling point at an evident ZERO cost of energy from a supply source.  That's got to give pause for thought.
  ;D

Good stuff!!!  Rosemary that is food for thought, for sure. I am not clear what you are calling higher frequencies? But no problem for me to wait until  the people away on holiday are back and can draw a representative circuit.

Take care

Ron

 

Offline Rosemary Ainslie

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 3968
Re: Rosemary Ainslie circuit demonstration on Saturday March 12th 2011
« Reply #1024 on: May 01, 2011, 07:21:46 PM »
Lol.  Thanks Ron.  Now guys.  About that circuit.  I have no idea how the circuit should be configured.  But these are the points that are critical.  The CSR is positioned in series with the negative terminal - else the measurements there could be contended.  That's why I went this route of experiments.  I need to put paid to any implication that the voltage across the CSR is NOT representative of the current flow to and from the battery. 

Then.  What needs to be shown in any schematic is that confusing arrangement of MOSFETs.  But when you actually physically move the ground of the Signal to the Gate of Q2 - it surely is clearer?  In other words there is an applied negative signal directly to the gate of Q2.  I'm aware that there's a link between the source and gate of both Q1 and Q2.  But in my mind's eye I see them operating independently.  Which is why I, probably erroneously, asked that the rails be entirely separated. 

But having said that - I really need one of you to come up with the actual design.  The Source and Gate of Q2 are transposed in relation to Q1.  And there is no change to the Drain of either of them.  If I get my computer up and running tomorrow I'll try and draw this all as I actually see it.  otherwise, as Ron has mentioned - I'll need to wait for a friend of mine who's away at the moment.  And failing that - that I'll need to ask someone on the team. 

Groundloop - this all means that your schematic needs a minor modification.  Sorry about that guys.  But it's the best I can do.

Then about the voltage across the battery.  Just ask yourselves if this is representative?  If those voltages are simply a figment of the imagination or if they're actually indicative of the voltages measured there?  If they are not then we've done something that is absolutely inexplicable.  We've measured a voltage change - evident on both the source and the drain rail of a circuit supply - that we're being asked to believe has nothing to do with those actual battery voltages.  Patently that's a whole lot of cobblers - or the standard method of measuring battery voltage is just FLAWED.

Then one must ask oneself if the current flow that measured through the shunt is also just a figment of the imagination - or if that is representative.  Again.  Unless we absolutely defy standard protocols for measuring current flow - then that too, is a spurious argument.  It is indeed required to factor in for frequencies that vary the shunt's impedence.  But that's calculable.  But even then - it's hardly significant.  Whether the voltages must be factored higher or lower makes NO DIFFERENCE to the direction of that flow.  And more appears to be returned to the source than to come from the source.  Which puts the sum of that current squarely in negative territory.

And finally one must ask oneself about the correctness in measuring the wattage dissipated at the load as a consequence of this applied voltage and applied current.  As this dissipates some significant and measurable temperatures - then one can assume that at least some wattage is being dissipated.  But no wattage is being measured to have been lost from the supply in generating all that work.

It's all good news guys.  But I grant you.  I need to resolve that MOSFET to make this clearer to you.

I'll get back here tomorrow.

Kindest again,
Rosemary

Free Energy | searching for free energy and discussing free energy

Re: Rosemary Ainslie circuit demonstration on Saturday March 12th 2011
« Reply #1024 on: May 01, 2011, 07:21:46 PM »
Sponsored links:




Offline poynt99

  • TPU-Elite
  • Hero Member
  • *******
  • Posts: 3582
Re: Rosemary Ainslie circuit demonstration on Saturday March 12th 2011
« Reply #1025 on: May 01, 2011, 07:51:52 PM »
@ All readers,

So it would seem that Rose has now indirectly answered the question regarding her own published circuit diagram; it is apparently not representative of the apparatus shown in the video demonstration, even though the underside view of the board is verifiable proof that it in fact IS.

Rose is claiming that the CSR (Rshunt) is in series with the battery, when everyone can see in plain view that it is not. I would be interested to hear from ANYONE, their argument (with evidence) proving that the CSR (as seen in the video demonstration) is connected as per Rose's description, as opposed to how it is depicted in the last circuit diagram I posted, i.e. her own edited diagram "Protoboard_schema_added3.png".

In fact, I will pledge another $500 to this forum's overunity prize fund if anyone can successfully prove it.

.99

Offline neptune

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 1127
Re: Rosemary Ainslie circuit demonstration on Saturday March 12th 2011
« Reply #1026 on: May 01, 2011, 08:23:38 PM »
I have never been afraid to stick my neck out and risk making myself look foolish and this occasion is no exception . I may be missing something , but this is my take . If we compare the picture of the underside of the board with the diagram protoboard_scema_added etc , we notice one thing . In both cases all current entering or leaving the battery has to flow through the shunt [CSR]. The only possible exception would be if any current could flow through the function generator .  So what did I miss?

Free Energy | searching for free energy and discussing free energy

Re: Rosemary Ainslie circuit demonstration on Saturday March 12th 2011
« Reply #1026 on: May 01, 2011, 08:23:38 PM »
Sponsored links:




Offline poynt99

  • TPU-Elite
  • Hero Member
  • *******
  • Posts: 3582
Re: Rosemary Ainslie circuit demonstration on Saturday March 12th 2011
« Reply #1027 on: May 01, 2011, 08:41:04 PM »
The only possible exception would be if any current could flow through the function generator .
;)

.99

Offline poynt99

  • TPU-Elite
  • Hero Member
  • *******
  • Posts: 3582
Re: Rosemary Ainslie circuit demonstration on Saturday March 12th 2011
« Reply #1028 on: May 01, 2011, 08:52:10 PM »
To minimize any confusion about what is being disputed, here is a diagram showing the CSR in two very different positions, and they are referenced accordingly.

Based on Rose's edit of one of my diagrams and her descriptions, I believe the top diagram illustrates where she is claiming the CSR is connected. Rose can correct me if I am wrong.

ETA: I might add that the bottom depiction of where the CSR is located and how it is connected, is per this diagram when it was originally published on Rose's blog and in the demonstration video. In fact I took this graphic directly off the demonstration video myself. Edits were made to add Q2-Q5, a few node "dots", and most recently the FG ground.

.99
« Last Edit: May 01, 2011, 09:20:40 PM by poynt99 »

Free Energy | searching for free energy and discussing free energy

Re: Rosemary Ainslie circuit demonstration on Saturday March 12th 2011
« Reply #1028 on: May 01, 2011, 08:52:10 PM »
3D Solar Panels

Offline Rosemary Ainslie

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 3968
Re: Rosemary Ainslie circuit demonstration on Saturday March 12th 2011
« Reply #1029 on: May 02, 2011, 01:17:25 AM »
Guys - this is STRANGE.  I posted the following - post 964 - for those who would care to go back and check.  In it, among other things I stated the following

"Poynty - It does not make a blind bit of difference to the waveform or the results whether the ground from the signal generator is directly on the shared negative rail or if it's in series with the shunt.  The fact that it was set up that way at the demo was happenstance.  The fact is that it's more conventient to keep the ground in the shared rail becaause we were running two osciloscopes and 4 channels - concurrently.  That made the the junction at D rather crowded.  In point of fact it is normally at the pin marked at D on the video.  But that's because I usually only ever use the LeCroy.  I've just checked the video and the board.  Rght now and for those shots I took to argue your 'undersampling' quibble - it is and usually is positioned at D - in series with the shunt.  I wonder what difference it would make to your waveforms if you placed it at the negative rail.  I'd be interested to see.   I suspect very little.  But in any event it's wrong. It is properly in series with the CSR."

I am absolutely not able to explain that.  I need to reboot here.  But there is no question that someone disabled that post in order to prevent me from referencing it.  I see that there are two posts of mine missing.  I'll see if this even shows up when I post it and will then get back here.

It appears that this post is definitely on public view.  A friend of mine emailed it to me so that I could copy it over here.  I'm not sure that this is clear.  What has happened here is to two of my posts have been taken out of my own view and there are precisely 2 less posts in this thread than are available on on the public forum.  Can anyone advise me?  According to my own access here are only 974 posts.  And available to the public are 976 (this one excepted). 

Moving on.  Poynty - I am entirely satisfied that you do not represent the 'readers' and you certainly do not represent the readers' interests.  From where I sit you have only EVER become actively engaged when you've set out to disprove a claim.  I won't go into the 'thinness' of your arguments used against me - and I certainly won't comment on where you've worked elsewhere - but there's one thing I'm curious about.  How did you get that oscillation if you indeed did a copy of our circuit.  Just that.  How did you manage that early oscillation 'first off' as you put it?

Rosemary

Guys - Please read this post carefully.

I really need to STRESS this.  My post 964 was REMOVED from my own view.  Still is.  I believe YOU can all still see this.  I CAN'T.  Perhaps someone out there can check.  Where I could access view of this on a second backup computer - this has now been doctored with a virus that I can't open up anything at all.  In other words I can't see that post.  If I could I would shove it under Poynt's nose as continually and as often - as he shoves that INCORRECT schematic under ours.   I've answered this at length.  He or Harti have removed my access to that answer.  Can I make it any clearer.

Cat seems to think that I'm delusional in referencing these things.  I wish I were - because its a delusion that both my computers share.  And it's precisely the same delusion that sundry team members suffer from because they alerted me to the number sequence difference in the first instance.  Then the delusion is also shared with that technician who doctors that virus.  And - lo and behold - then my bank balance ALSO suffers from that same delusion. Because I have to make a withdrawal in the region of R400 to that technician.  And finally my camera sees the same delusion.  So. Here we have it.  Delusion by contagion.   ::) That's a new one for the books.

Now.  What I've done is photographed the screen to show you my post numbers.  I hope it's going to be clear enough.  I know that I've used the high definition mode - so it should be.  It will show you the DATE.  And it will show you the number sequence of my posts.  I have also photographed the number sequences here.  I'll post that too.  Then I will impose on you all to compare it to your own.  You will see that I can no longer access my own post.  It is not available to me when I 'log in' as a member to overunity .com. 

BUT.  I keep my software for the photo downloads on my OTHER COMPUTER.  They've 'fried' that computer.  So it'll take a day or two before I can post up that picture - assuming always that I'm not booted off here before then.  I hope - by now - you're beginning to understand the sophistication and the 'orchestration' of this attack.  All is achieved by INNUENDO and PROPOGANDA.  I'm walking a very tight and very high wire.  RIGHT NOW Poynty's 'bastion of final defense' is to keep posting that schematic.  He has run out of all other argument.  That's precisely  why he needed to remove me from accessing that post of mine. 

I've said this before.  If I am suffering from some kind of paranoid delusion - then by the same token I'm deluded by an awful lot of evidence.  So.  Let me FINALLY state the relevance of that shematic.  If it turns up again, and again AFTER THIS - then I will simply copy this post in reply.  And this time I've taken the precaution of copying this post into my word documents.  So.  If this is also removed - then I can more easily access it to repost it as required. 

Now.  As he shows that circuit - THAT IS INDEED HOW WE CONFIGURED IT -  BUT ONLY FOR THE TEST DEMONSTRATION - Poynty's inclusion of the Q2's excepted.  THAT IS ALSO HOW WE DEMONSTRATED IT.  But it is NOT how we have configured it in all other tests.  Correctly and properly the ground of the functions generator is attached DIRECTLY to the Gate at Q2 - MARK D on the video.  And correctly - the shunt or CSR - is DIRECTLY IN SERIES WITH THE NEGATIVE RAIL OF THE BATTERY SUPPLY SOURCE.  We were running 2 oscilloscopes for the demo.  That rail at 'D' was too crowded.  THEREFORE did we put in directly to the 'shared' node.  It makes NOT THE SLIGHTEST DIFFERENCE TO OUR RESULTS.  But it most certainly CAN be argued that the shunt is then not representative of current drawn from the battery - which is where they are trying to go with this argument.

Please understand this.  His final argument rests on a 'quibble'.  And he's attempting to confuse the hell out of you all.  Just know this.  The shunt or CSR is NOT where he keeps showing it.  It is directly in series with the negative rail of the battery supply source.  If it were not there the the voltages COULD be contended.  The confusions of those MOSFET positionings I PROMISE YOU will be cleared up - hopefully earlier rather than later in the coming week.

Kindest regards,
Rosemary

Offline vonwolf

  • Full Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 144
Re: Rosemary Ainslie circuit demonstration on Saturday March 12th 2011
« Reply #1030 on: May 02, 2011, 01:27:37 AM »
  Hi Rose post #964 is a post by Poynt for me?
  Pete

poynt99
TPU-Elite
Hero Member

Posts: 1489
It's not as complicated as it may seem...

Re: Rosemary Ainslie circuit demonstration on Saturday March 12th 2011
« Reply #964 on: April 29, 2011, 11:49:54 AM »QuoteNow that the "as-built" circuit connections have been firmly re-established (reference diagram depicted in Simplification01_schema01.png), would anyone like to try and predict what changes might occur in the circuit operation if Q1 is completely removed from the circuit, and no capacitor or diode connected in its place?

.99

Free Energy | searching for free energy and discussing free energy

Re: Rosemary Ainslie circuit demonstration on Saturday March 12th 2011
« Reply #1030 on: May 02, 2011, 01:27:37 AM »
3D Solar Panels

Offline Rosemary Ainslie

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 3968
Re: Rosemary Ainslie circuit demonstration on Saturday March 12th 2011
« Reply #1031 on: May 02, 2011, 01:31:33 AM »
  Hi Rose post #964 is a post by Poynt for me?
  Pete

Ok.  That means they've now deleted that entire post.  I'll give you the photos of this when I get that computer up.  Just to assure you all that we are NOT deluded.  LOL.  Meanwhile just read the explanation of why that schematic is WRONG. 

 ;D

Take care Pete,
Kindest regards,
Rosie

Offline Rosemary Ainslie

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 3968
Re: Rosemary Ainslie circuit demonstration on Saturday March 12th 2011
« Reply #1032 on: May 02, 2011, 01:37:32 AM »
I have never been afraid to stick my neck out and risk making myself look foolish and this occasion is no exception . I may be missing something , but this is my take . If we compare the picture of the underside of the board with the diagram protoboard_scema_added etc , we notice one thing . In both cases all current entering or leaving the battery has to flow through the shunt [CSR]. The only possible exception would be if any current could flow through the function generator .  So what did I miss?

Hi Neptune.  You're BANG ON.  That's exactly right.  And if you recall - Poynty's simulations show about 14 Watts COMING FROM the functions generator.  Which is absolute nonsense.  ALSO.  It is now impossible to argue this because we are DISSIPATING IN EXCESS OF 100 WATTS.  Where then did all that energy come from?

LOL.

Take care and thank you.
Rosie

Offline Rosemary Ainslie

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 3968
Re: Rosemary Ainslie circuit demonstration on Saturday March 12th 2011
« Reply #1033 on: May 02, 2011, 01:40:29 AM »
Pete - if you're still there.  Does this post now read 1032 on your computer?

Rosie

Offline poynt99

  • TPU-Elite
  • Hero Member
  • *******
  • Posts: 3582
Re: Rosemary Ainslie circuit demonstration on Saturday March 12th 2011
« Reply #1034 on: May 02, 2011, 01:46:00 AM »
Hi Pete, Rose.

I've previously pointed out that there is a discrepancy in # of replies when comparing the total as you are logged on, and as you are logged off.

I have no idea why the difference, but that is the difference. Ask Stefan to check into it.

I would not worry too much about it.

.99

 

OneLink