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

User Menu

Google Search

Custom Search

Author Topic: Rosemary Ainslie circuit demonstration on Saturday March 12th 2011  (Read 685973 times)

Offline Rosemary Ainslie

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 3968
Re: Rosemary Ainslie circuit demonstration on Saturday March 12th 2011
« Reply #1050 on: May 02, 2011, 05:34:49 PM »
And here is my own ham fisted attempt at explaining that MOSFET positioning.  Until I draw this for Groundloop - it's the best I can do.

The standard NFET is designed to trigger a positive current by applying a positive charge at the gate.  I don't know anything about PFET's.  But I believe it, conversely, is designed to trigger a negative current by applying a negative charge at the gate.  I am open to correction but PROVIDED that this is the case, by which I mean, provided that a PFET works in antipolarity to the NFET - then that's what we've done.  We've effectively transposed the Gate that it reads the NEGATIVE charge as required to allow the NEGATIVE CURRENT FLOW from the source and from the collapsing fields during the 'off' period of the duty cycle.

I'm reasonably sure this is correct because what we've done is applied the positive of the lead from the functions generator to Q1 and the ground from that same lead - directly to the gate of Q2.  In effect - while the source and ground of Q1 and Q2 are connected - they're also operating as if they were separate. 

What is surprising is this.  There is precisely as much energy or current flow that is enabled to flow anticlockwise through the circuit as there is energy or current flow that is enabled to flow 'clockwise'.  And this is where the early 'thinking' kicks in.  The whole reason for this circuit configuration is to somehow expose the 'hidden' energy supply source that was available in the circuit materials.  Therefore - if there is this excess, then perhaps that is where it comes from.  And that hidden supply is now given the required 'path' that it can actually do some work.

Then it also means that we need to 'enable' that energy.  I know that most of you configure your circuits that they're made of rather thin wire.  I have found that thick copper wire DEFINITELY enhances the effect.  In other words - I think it's best to design your circuit with a liberal use of this.  And I can't say that it's actually 'enhanced' as much as it seems to give results a better repeatability.  I remember that when we used the 555 switch - results were haphazard - albeit beneficial.  But with this rather robust apparatus that we're experimenting with at the moment - results are certainly repeatable and that's heartening.

Then.  It's still early stages but the indications are that it's possibly preferred to increase the frequencies.  At that last setting - from memory - we were switching at a frequency of 8.1 Hertz.  Perhaps someone here can work out the actual frequency from that last screen download.  That's not really that fast and certainly doable.  But the actual frequency of the oscillation itself obviously is greater than this.  But that finds it's own pace, so to speak, from the circuit itself.

About the load that you use.  We all - earlier - assumed that the greater the inductance the better.  This is wrong.  It seems that it is FAR preferable to reduce the inductance rather than increase it.  For some reason this seems to increase the efficiency of that heat that is generated across the load.  The size of the load will depend on the size of the batteries that you use.  If you're looking to use small batteries then I think it may be preferred to 'reduce' the amount of material in the resistor.  I only say this because I know we're using some hefty capacity.  That means it's potentially storing an equally hefty amount of energy.  But we're also able to induce a returned energy that is equal to whatever is supplied.  The idea is that this easily induces the potential difference over the circuit.  I wonder if it's possible that with too little energy from the supply against too much material from the circuit - that there could be a switch in balance of that transfer that then results in a loss rather than a benefit to the supply.  I don't know.  I'm just voicing something that you may want to look into.

Finally I know that there is more than enough interest here to get replications up.  I actively dissuaded this earlier because I did not want to make those oscillations public.  But right now, as this information is 'out' then it's preferable that this is actively explored.  I'm reasonably certain that you'll all find your own preferred frequencies as each circuit will find it's own preferred oscillation.  It's intimately related to the quantities of material related to the circuit components - and, as mentioned, possibly also to the supply.

And for those of you who may have functions generators.  This is a really easy way to show this benefit.  But I have a friend who is trying out a circuit without this.  And as soon as I have that circuit design, certainly by not later than the weekend - then I'll post it - or I'll ask him to post it.

Kindest regards,
Rosemary 

Offline i_ron

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 1160
Re: Rosemary Ainslie circuit demonstration on Saturday March 12th 2011
« Reply #1051 on: May 02, 2011, 06:04:24 PM »

    IRFPG50 Mosfets can be bought on Ebay from Hong Kong .



But can they be trusted?

"We have previously talked about the issue of fake IC’s.  The problem continues to get worse, and is making more and more press.  Almost 10,000 incidents of fake ICs were recorded by the commerce department in the US in 2008 (the most recent stats available). Each ‘incident’ is usually several thousand IC’s.  Over 2 million fake IC’s are seized per years, on average one shipment per hour of fake IC’s is caught and seized.  How many slip through is anyones guess, and likely much higher."

http://www.cpushack.com/2010/09/13/the-increasing-threat-of-fake-ics/

Ron

Offline Laurel

  • Newbie
  • *
  • Posts: 4
Re: Rosemary Ainslie circuit demonstration on Saturday March 12th 2011
« Reply #1052 on: May 02, 2011, 06:33:23 PM »
Guys - I need to share something with you all - at the risk of boring you all to tears.  I have, once before, actively assisted in bringing a replication to full on view and proof here on these forums.  What happened was I was persuaded that all parties involved were, indeed, active in their promotion of any new and challenging scientific truths.  What I did, deliberately, was allow them to take over the commentry - and I did this, thinking that they would then use their skills to promote this.

To my horror - what actually happened, and that with relative ease, was at the conclusion of that 'replication' I was attacked as if I were some kind of harbinger from hell.  There was a brutal attempt made to separate me from this work.  Not a bad thing, in and of itself.  Indeed, I'd welcome it.  But this was then coupled with a DENIAL of any benefits in this technology and the systematic removal of the results from public view.  You will remember - perhaps - how Ashtweth advised all and sundry - in terms that were utterly degrading - if somewhat inarticulate - that I was NOT TO BE TRUSTED.  And this was followed by Fuzzy's absurdly colourful links and rather immoderate statements - painted loud and in colour - also followed by terse commentary that was certainly as inarticulate as Ashtweth's.  Both showed a certain need for a more liberal use of a spell check and a basic schooling in simple grammer.  But the truth is that any thinking person would be well able to discern those excesses.  And certainly their arguments were based on entirely unsubstantiated allegation. 

BUT IT WORKED.  NOTWITHSTANDING.  That's the point.  Threads were no sooner opened than they were locked. Fuzzy rifled my photobucket - found out which institution was opening their labs to a review of these results - and then wrote to the parties concerned to advise them that I was stealing his technology and that I had no rights to refer to any paper at all.  Can you, for a minute, just picture the damage this did?  Fortunately those people who were approached - did their own review of the facts and those communications were dismissed - in their entirety.  But that delayed things as our own project was replaced with others during that interval where they considered things.  And I was left for the most part of that year without the supervision that would otherwise have been relegated.  Then.  As if that wasn't enough Laurel and Harvey systematically approached and still do approach - each and every member who shows/showed interest in this technology - on their private messaging system to advise them that I was/am a liar and that this technology was/is a hoax. 

Eventually the only voice I still had was on Poynty's forum.  But there were no threads unlocked - for my easy access - to discuss any developments at all.  I was now on campus - full time -and had much to share.  But my hints were ignored.  And now I was now hounded by MileHigh, Pickle and anyone who chose to to say exactly what they wanted.  There was no attempt to moderate and when I appealed to Poynty to do something was told that I should just 'cope'.  Eventually I deregistered and - then - they went through that fiasco of abusing their knowledge of my internet address to lock me out of view of their threads while they discussed me at leisure.  I then wrote Poynty to advise him that this was certainly immoral if not illegal and that I would take action.  Whereupon he wrote me the most scathing of some many scathing emails that I've been in receipt of - to advise me that I am 'a fool' and that I am 'not a scientist'. 

Now.  This is and was really the point where there was a serious breach in our relationship.  But I am only interested in the technology.  I really don't care what part I play in this.  And until these last interventions - I sincerely supposed that Poynt was looking to find the 'truth'.  We all know he's talented.  We also know that he's very interested.  And he certainly, at it's least, also acknowledged those results on his simulator.  So.  There was hope.  BUT.  With these interventions into my computer - with these ridiculous attempts to separate me from my posts - with these endless references to entirely irrelvant schematics - with a fence straddling that should be doing him some serious physical damage - with this dialogue that presumes the RIGHT to question everything and SAY nothing - with the tolerance of some seriously questionable posts on his forum - with the laughable denial of my own answers - THEN WHAT?  It would be reckless IN THE EXTREME to allow him license to take over this thread.  And that's what I'm needing.  I DO NOT HAVE THE TIME TO SPEND HERE.  I don't have the skills that you guys are looking for.  I need someone and - right now I don't know where to turn. 

If I felt for one minute that there could be someone who could take over here then I could fade out.  I have NEVER wanted 'fame' - certainly I don't want any more notoriety.  It's no fun seeing the kind of extreme venom that results from all this polarised opinion.  And more to the point.  I'm just not that well.  I don't have the energy levels needed to protect this technology.  And again.  What I'm seriously frightened for is that this fragile 'early' knowledge is then appropriated by anyone at all who then tries to 'make it their own' - as was attempted in that earlier replication. 

So.  My earnest request to you all is this.  PLEASE.  Ignore Poynt's posts.  They are made in the sincere effort to flaunt a disrespect for me that they can then appropriate the technology AS REQUIRED.  Just bear in mind that I do no-one any harm.  I have unfolded some knowledge that has been hidden from convention because of certain 'mind sets' related to energy transfer.  And my abilities at logic are really good.  Nor does one need training for this.  Just common sense.  I am deserving of considerably more respect than either he or Pickle allow and considerably more than the poisonous slurs that they indulge in on their forum.  But this appeal to discount his endless commentaries is not made on this basis.  It's made on the basis that I sincerely doubt that he intends progressing anything at all.  I suspect he has a mandate.  And I'm sure he will champion that in favour of any genuine admission.  And I see an entirely immoral and opportunistic use of whatever he needs to - to reach that object.  And then - as happened before - he'll position himself to deny everything. I don't think this technology will survive another such attack.

Kindest regards,
Rosemary

ADDED



Dear Rosemary,
                   What is it going to take for you to leave Harvey and Laurel's names OUT OF YOUR COMMENTS on and off the forums? We are not having anything to do with you or your technology. I have sent YOU private e-mails asking you to LEAVE US ALONE! I guess our request now needs to be put out in the open for all to see that we have been requesting this from you for a long time now.
                 So Stefan, will you PLEASE let OUR REQUEST be made known to the readers of your forum in this thread that we just want Rosemary to LEAVE US ALONE. We have tried to be tactful in requesting this of Rosemary on a private level but it is not working.

Laurel

Offline Magluvin

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 5886
Re: Rosemary Ainslie circuit demonstration on Saturday March 12th 2011
« Reply #1053 on: May 02, 2011, 06:40:58 PM »
They have them at Newark..  I get stuff from them all the time.
http://www.newark.com/jsp/search/productdetail.jsp?id=06F7972


Mags

Offline poynt99

  • TPU-Elite
  • Hero Member
  • *******
  • Posts: 3582
Re: Rosemary Ainslie circuit demonstration on Saturday March 12th 2011
« Reply #1054 on: May 02, 2011, 08:44:09 PM »
4 potential candidates as an alternative to the IRFPG50.

These are available from Digikey:

1) STP16NK60Z (Digikey P/N: 497-4372-5)
2) STP10NK60Z (Digikey P/N: 497-4117-5)
3) NDFO8N60GZ (digikey P/N: NDFO8N60ZG05)
4) IPW60R190C6 (digikey P/N: IPW60R190C6)

These are all 600V parts with varying current and voltage limits. I tried to find some with a relatively high Gate charge required and high Ciss. The ON resistance is a challenge in that most are relatively low compared to the IRFPG50, but this may not be an issue. I suspect that many if not all alternatives may oscillate at a much higher frequency due to their lower capacitance specs, so that may be a problem.

Will have to try a few as Ron mentioned, and see what works best.

.99

Offline Rosemary Ainslie

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 3968
Re: Rosemary Ainslie circuit demonstration on Saturday March 12th 2011
« Reply #1055 on: May 02, 2011, 09:28:57 PM »
The quantity of the water that I cooked last night is exactly 0.7 of a litre by the way.  I've just measured it.  The plastic inside lining is buckled somewhat but no leakage.  I think that vacuum lining is still in tact.

Also for those who are looking for the information - the resistor element is an INCOLOY alloy heating rod element threaded with nichrome resistive wire.  Resistance is 11.11 Ohm.  L = 2.23micro Henries.  200 watts.  But don't get married to these specs.  Frankly - if I had my 'druthers' I'd have chosen one of those pancake type elements that one gets from electric stoves.  There's something about that shape that I think may help things along.  Anyway.  Small is good.  And I'd be very interested to see what happens on smaller batteries.

Regards,
Rosemary

Offline poynt99

  • TPU-Elite
  • Hero Member
  • *******
  • Posts: 3582
Re: Rosemary Ainslie circuit demonstration on Saturday March 12th 2011
« Reply #1056 on: May 02, 2011, 10:16:44 PM »
A Sincere WARNING!

I would advise anyone wanting to replicate this oscillator, you do so without the use of an expensive, prized or valuable (to you) function generator. With the generator connected to a MOSFET Source pin, there is the real potential for high currents to pass through it, and these may cause permanent damage to the function generator. (I think we have already seen the results of this potential issue with the previous function generator used.)

There is a much better way to use this circuit without the potential danger for damage to your function generator, and I have shown that method in a previous post. Please ask if you want more information on this.

Regards,
.99

Offline i_ron

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 1160
Re: Rosemary Ainslie circuit demonstration on Saturday March 12th 2011
« Reply #1057 on: May 02, 2011, 11:42:38 PM »
They have them at Newark..  I get stuff from them all the time.
http://www.newark.com/jsp/search/productdetail.jsp?id=06F7972


Mags


"Availability
Availability: N/A
No Longer Available
Price For: 1 Each
Minimum Order Quantity: 500
Order Multiple Quantity: 500
Price: N/A"

Ron


Offline i_ron

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 1160
Re: Rosemary Ainslie circuit demonstration on Saturday March 12th 2011
« Reply #1059 on: May 03, 2011, 05:02:23 AM »
Possible sources for purchasing the IRFPG50:

http://www.questcomp.com/QuestDetailsAll.aspx?pn=IRFPG50&pnid=91660&stock=YesOnly

http://www.ibselectronics.com/search_r.asp?mfgpn=IRFPG50

http://export.farnell.com/_/dp/1704010

.99

.99

Good find!

On the heating element issue, I see there was quite a discussion on the other forum... did anyone consider that it was a DC motor home or live stock
water heater? At 11 ohms and 200 watts that works out nicely to being a 48 volt element. Just a thought.

Ron

Offline Rosemary Ainslie

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 3968
Re: Rosemary Ainslie circuit demonstration on Saturday March 12th 2011
« Reply #1060 on: May 03, 2011, 05:38:57 AM »


Dear Rosemary,
                   What is it going to take for you to leave Harvey and Laurel's names OUT OF YOUR COMMENTS on and off the forums? We are not having anything to do with you or your technology. I have sent YOU private e-mails asking you to LEAVE US ALONE! I guess our request now needs to be put out in the open for all to see that we have been requesting this from you for a long time now.
                 So Stefan, will you PLEASE let OUR REQUEST be made known to the readers of your forum in this thread that we just want Rosemary to LEAVE US ALONE. We have tried to be tactful in requesting this of Rosemary on a private level but it is not working.

Laurel

Guys, for the record Laurel is also CatLady and CatLady is Harvey's wife.  Harvey's relevance to this technology is as written.  I have not done a total reveal of his duplicity but that is in the 'offing'.  Meanwhile under the name CatLady or Laurel - on either Energetic Forum or on Poynty's forum - if you care to check this - you will be able to see the level of gratuitous remark that at it's least - constitutes hate speech.  But, like Fuzzy and Ashtweth - their level of articulation is somewhat constrained by a poor grasp of language skills.  And in CatLady's case - this is compounded by an even poorer grasp of what constitutes good poetry.  LOL.  Hate speech rendered in really bad verse.  A new dimension absurditities.

I'm hoping that my constant reference to these posts will encourage Poynty to do some much needed 'scrubbing' of his forum content - if he hasn't done so already.  I noticed - with some amusement that my view was 'blocked' again last night.  It seems they 'conferred' behind closed doors.  Thankfully it's back up again.  I like to dip in there now and then to check out the level of their alarm.  Shock and awe.  It seems to have left them speechless.  The dogs are no longer barking.  I trust it will stay that way.

 ;D

Kindest regards
Rosemary

And Laurel, BTW. If you want to know what it will take to stop my public references.  Here's the task.  Get rid of all those poisonous public statements and get your husband to retract whole tomes of commentary that mitigate against this technology.  It's that simple.  It will then remove 90 percent if not more of all your own internet posts.  Which makes me think that your internet presence is simply advanced to frustrate all this good news - within the absurdly trivial context of your absurdly trivial protests

corrected the spelling of the word commentary.   :)
« Last Edit: May 03, 2011, 08:16:50 AM by Rosemary Ainslie »

Offline Laurel

  • Newbie
  • *
  • Posts: 4
Re: Rosemary Ainslie circuit demonstration on Saturday March 12th 2011
« Reply #1061 on: May 03, 2011, 06:44:07 AM »
Guys, for the record Laurel is also CatLady and CatLady is Harvey's wife.  Harvey's relevance to this technology is as written.  I have not done a total reveal of his duplicity but that is in the 'offing'.  Meanwhile under the name CatLady or Laurel - on either Energetic Forum or on Poynty's forum - if you care to check this - you will be able to see the level of gratuitous remark that at it's least - constitutes hate speech.  But, like Fuzzy and Ashtweth - their level of articulation is somewhat constrained by a poor grasp of language skills.  And in CatLady's case - this is compounded by an even poorer grasp of what constitutes good poetry.  LOL.  Hate speech rendered in really bad verse.  A new dimension absurditities.

I'm hoping that my constant reference to these posts will encourage Poynty to do some much needed 'scrubbing' of his forum content - if he hasn't done so already.  I noticed - with some amusement that my view was 'blocked' again last night.  It seems they 'conferred' behind closed doors.  Thankfully it's back up again.  I like to dip in there now and then to check out the level of their alarm.  Shock and awe.  It seems to have left them speechless.  The dogs are no longer barking.  I trust it will stay that way.

 ;D

Kindest regards
Rosemary

And Laurel, BTW. If you want to know what it will take to stop my public references.  Here's the task.  Get rid of all those poisonous public statements and get your husband to retract whole tomes of commentry that mitigate against this technology.  It's that simple.  It will then remove 90 percent if not more of all your own internet posts.  Which makes me think that your internet presence is simply advanced to frustrate all this good news - within the absurdly trivial context of your absurdly trivial protests

Dear Stefan,
                It was my great mistake for making the question of " What is it going to take " a rhetorical question for Rosemary. I just ain't got them proper words in my's vocabulary to speak what I means to such a high learned woman likes she is.

Dear Rosemary,
                 You are bringing up posts and/or conversations from Many Many Moons ago. We have been "done" with you a long time ago and we have asked that you no longer reference us in your comments on or off the Forums. Its that simple. We know you are pushing for a legal battle and frankly you are just not worth our efforts. We asked you in private e-mails to leave us alone and now in a public arena to leave us alone. From yesterday forward we should not see you referring to us on or off the forums. Very plain and very simple.

Thank you Stefan for letting us post this public request.

Laurel
CatLady
Harvey's wife

Offline Rosemary Ainslie

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 3968
Re: Rosemary Ainslie circuit demonstration on Saturday March 12th 2011
« Reply #1062 on: May 03, 2011, 12:07:21 PM »
A Sincere WARNING!

I would advise anyone wanting to replicate this oscillator, you do so without the use of an expensive, prized or valuable (to you) function generator. With the generator connected to a MOSFET Source pin, there is the real potential for high currents to pass through it, and these may cause permanent damage to the function generator. (I think we have already seen the results of this potential issue with the previous function generator used.)

There is a much better way to use this circuit without the potential danger for damage to your function generator, and I have shown that method in a previous post. Please ask if you want more information on this.

Regards,
.99

And as for this piece of nonsense.  I would have referenced this earlier but it seems that my Apple has finally been infected with those delusions that Cat tells me to stop mentioning.  Right now I'm using yet another back up and I just hope i can finish here without infecting this one too.  It seems that the name Rosemary Ainslie does not exist and when I do log in I reach some kind of internet link that I've never heard of before.  It's a fascinating place this.  LaLa land - where all is possible.  It seems urgently required that these rather incontrovertible claims of ours - be associated with all kinds of madness.  Golly. 

In any event, to continue.  If there were any dangers at all to the use of your functions generator then I can only advise you that those that I have, and have used in the past, are on Institutional Loan.  They would not have been allowed - if there was ANY KIND OF DANGER AT ALL.  So.  Please be advised.  I think Poynt is poynting you all away from what he also knows will work.  And - whatever circuit he recommends.  Take it with a pinch of salt and try your own.  He's not an EX - SPURT as it's referred to here.

Anyway guys.  I'm off to see if I can get these delusions out of these computers of mine.  Golly.  So busy these days.  I wonder if that 'shock and awe' is now turning into a less hidden insurgency campaign.  Nice when I get to see the tactics better.  I'm growing weary - but much, much wiser.

Take care all.  And BEWARE THOSE FORUMS LURKERS.

Kindest as ever,
Rosie

 ;D


Offline Pirate88179

  • elite_member
  • Hero Member
  • ******
  • Posts: 8366
Re: Rosemary Ainslie circuit demonstration on Saturday March 12th 2011
« Reply #1063 on: May 03, 2011, 01:37:21 PM »
Rose:

Google and get the free program "Malwarebytes".  It will find just about anything that is on your system/s.  Also, use Firefox as your browser unless you are already, not as easy to be attacked.  Plus, you can block all of the adds and the pages load lightning fast.  Just a few suggestions in an effort to help.

Bill

Offline poynt99

  • TPU-Elite
  • Hero Member
  • *******
  • Posts: 3582
Re: Rosemary Ainslie circuit demonstration on Saturday March 12th 2011
« Reply #1064 on: May 03, 2011, 02:20:08 PM »
Actually,

Rose's haphazard use of her loaned function generators is immaterial to the facts.

It is common sense that we should not be driving a high current output INTO our function generators. Perhaps there are those not familiar with how MOSFETs or transistor circuits work in general, and they do not see the MOSFET Source as a high current output, but I assure you, it can be, and in this case it is.

Why is the original circuit (see below) shown with the CSR (current-sensing resistor) located in the MOSFET Source leg? Note also that the function generator is connected to the MOSFET Gate only, not the MOSFET Source.

.99
« Last Edit: May 03, 2011, 02:40:19 PM by poynt99 »