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 641731 times)

Offline i_ron

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 1160
Re: Rosemary Ainslie circuit demonstration on Saturday March 12th 2011
« Reply #1065 on: May 03, 2011, 05:14:40 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


.99,

I don't see it as a problem, this function generator thing, any FG I have seen has some form of a high current output buffer and as such is a SOURCE, not a SINK. The circuit topology precludes any reverse flow other than the amount designed into the buffer.

BUT, what you guys are missing here is a major major bomb shell. Forget about Rshunt, the circuit is a circle and Rshunt can go anywhere in the circle as long as you use isolated ground measuring techniques.

What everybody has missed is the schematic calls out 6 batteries and only 5 are used in the vid!!! Get it??? 6 on the drawing and only 5 used, wow

And to top it off... nearly dead flat batteries, gosh!  5 fully charged batteries would read 63,5 volts and just look at the voltage in the video.

The duplicity of this must rank up there with the second (or third) killing of osama or at the very least obama's fake birth certificate!!

Geez,  someone needs to start a forum for this!

Ron (tongue in cheek, mostly cheek...)


Offline Groundloop

  • TPU-Elite
  • Hero Member
  • *******
  • Posts: 1736
Re: Rosemary Ainslie circuit demonstration on Saturday March 12th 2011
« Reply #1066 on: May 03, 2011, 05:53:59 PM »
Here is a little circuit I did draw just now. It can be used as a half bridge
switch if one choose to use a double power supply (+V to COM to -V) or
just use the top part as a single switch. In that case the load should be
in series with the plus rail. Analog opto couplers can be ready bought or
home made by using one Light Depended Resistor (LDR) together with
a Ultra Bright Light Emitting Diode (UBLED) inside a light insulated box.

GL.

Offline poynt99

  • TPU-Elite
  • Hero Member
  • *******
  • Posts: 3582
Re: Rosemary Ainslie circuit demonstration on Saturday March 12th 2011
« Reply #1067 on: May 03, 2011, 06:55:14 PM »
I don't see it as a problem, this function generator thing, any FG I have seen has some form of a high current output buffer and as such is a SOURCE, not a SINK. The circuit topology precludes any reverse flow other than the amount designed into the buffer.
Actually, any FG with an output that is capable of swinging both positive and negative is both a SOURCE AND SINK respectively. We know that the FG Rose was/is using is capable of a negative swing. In fact, it is only when the FG output is negative that the oscillation occurs, so we can conclude from this that the FG is providing a path to its internal negative supply rail, most likely through the PNP transistor of a complementary push-pull output stage, or similar.

Quote
BUT, what you guys are missing here is a major major bomb shell. Forget about Rshunt, the circuit is a circle and Rshunt can go anywhere in the circle as long as you use isolated ground measuring techniques.
I am aware of where the CSR can go and how to measure across it. However, the problem is that the CSR was not in the proper location to measure battery current, and Rose recently admitted to this fact. Did you not read that?

Quote
What everybody has missed is the schematic calls out 6 batteries and only 5 are used in the vid!!! Get it??? 6 on the drawing and only 5 used, wow
Is there a significance to this? I was aware of the differeing battery voltages btw. They actually have used 5 AND 6 batteries in two slightly different tests. Did you watch the demonstration video?

Quote
And to top it off... nearly dead flat batteries, gosh!  5 fully charged batteries would read 63,5 volts and just look at the voltage in the video.
60V, indeed. That would equate to about 12V each battery. It would be premature to assume that these batteries are "nearly dead flat" without knowing the particulars of these batteries.

Quote
Ron (tongue in cheek, mostly cheek...)
Careful with that cheek; you'll probably still need it for a while. ;)

.99

Offline i_ron

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 1160
Re: Rosemary Ainslie circuit demonstration on Saturday March 12th 2011
« Reply #1068 on: May 03, 2011, 07:21:02 PM »
Is there a significance to this?
.99

Yes, it is called humor. It points out some of the "how many fairies can dance on the head of a pin" arguments in these threads, but of course one needs a sense of humor to begin with.

Ron

Offline i_ron

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 1160
Re: Rosemary Ainslie circuit demonstration on Saturday March 12th 2011
« Reply #1069 on: May 03, 2011, 07:30:57 PM »
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


Just a report on the first two links...

Quest have them for $3 each for 3, but they have a $25 dollar minimum charge. In an effort to get the order up to that I looked up some IL710's,
wow, $10 each. and "ships in five days"  Digikey have them for less than $3.
Same with the rest of the things I looked up, way over priced and long delivery times.

Next I tried ibs, $17 something for three but $25 dollar delivery (snail mail) or $61 for bandit delivery.

So ended up with an order to Digikey for the STP16NK60Z and some other supplies.

Ron




Offline i_ron

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 1160
Re: Rosemary Ainslie circuit demonstration on Saturday March 12th 2011
« Reply #1070 on: May 03, 2011, 08:24:07 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

Just out of curiosity I connected up a FET, driving a load and applied first 9.5 volts positive to the gate and then 9.5 volts negative to the gate though a DMM set on the lowest scale, 2 mA and noticed that there is no measurable current flowing into or out of the gate.

In the sketch below it matters not that the FG ground lead is connected to B or D, except for a matter of .25 ohms.

Ron

PS:"Note also that the function generator is connected to the MOSFET Gate only, not the MOSFET Source."  With statements like this can you not see the glorious humor of my 5/6 battery parody?  LOL



Offline poynt99

  • TPU-Elite
  • Hero Member
  • *******
  • Posts: 3582
Re: Rosemary Ainslie circuit demonstration on Saturday March 12th 2011
« Reply #1071 on: May 03, 2011, 08:33:15 PM »
Just out of curiosity I connected up a FET, driving a load and applied first 9.5 volts positive to the gate and then 9.5 volts negative to the gate though a DMM set on the lowest scale, 2 mA and noticed that there is no measurable current flowing into or out of the gate.
Correct.

Quote
In the sketch below it matters not that the FG ground lead is connected to B or D, except for a matter of .25 ohms.

Ron
Depends.

It can matter if the FG is at a high frequency, OR if the circuit is self-oscillating (such as the case with Rose's actual circuit) when the CSR has even a tiny bit of inductance associated with it, which of course is not shown on that particular diagram.

.99

Offline nul-points

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 995
    • Doc Ringwood's Free Energy blog
Re: Rosemary Ainslie circuit demonstration on Saturday March 12th 2011
« Reply #1072 on: May 03, 2011, 09:25:40 PM »

[...]
 noticed that there is no measurable current flowing into or out of the gate.
[...]


good on ya, Ron, for trying out some tests with actual components!

throughout the mountain of posts relating to the RA circuit(s), i don't think there's been any issue with the single MOSFET example as far as the drive conditions are concerned

the possible issue with the FG o/p, here, is down to the build 'mistake'/ 'happy accident' which meant that the gate of the 1st device (Q1) got connected to the load via the Sources of Q2-Q5 whenever there was a suitably positive voltage on the Gates of Q2-Q5

because of the original placement of Rshunt (CSR), this suitably positive voltage could occur when the FG o/p (& therefore Q1 Gate) was negative

the negative FG o/p would then be connected via its total Q1 Gate drive impedance, to the load (receiving current i/p as a result)

this 'unintended' system connectivity appears to be largely, if not completely, responsible for these particular oscillations of the MOSFETS, thus the FG o/p could be subjected to a repetitive injection of current at a frequency of several MHz

in addition to the potential issue for the FG o/p - a side-effect of this Q2-Q5 switching of current cycles from load to Q1 Gate - with the original placing of Rshunt - is that any such 'unplanned' switched current path effectively by-passes Rshunt

the data collected on Rshunt would therefore *not* represent the total current flow across the battery stack (because there is now a switched parallel path across Q1 Gate-Drain)

the original Rshunt data can not therefore be used as intended in order to calculate the total energy draw from/to the battery


i hope that i've presented a fair and accurate summation of the situation with the system - as tested on March 12th - and relating to the issue with the FG o/p using the schematic as at that test

suggestions have been made from all concerned, and are possibly being followed up, as to how to avoid the issues i've just tried to summarize


right - back in the box for me

cheers all
np


http://docsfreelunch.blogspot.com
 

[edited to remove superfluous 'from']
 
« Last Edit: May 04, 2011, 12:29:13 AM by nul-points »

Offline i_ron

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 1160
Re: Rosemary Ainslie circuit demonstration on Saturday March 12th 2011
« Reply #1073 on: May 03, 2011, 10:16:22 PM »
good on ya, Ron, for trying out some tests with actual components!

snip
i hope that i've presented a fair and accurate summation of the situation with the system - as tested on March 12th - and relating to the issue with the FG o/p using the schematic as at that test

suggestions have been made from from all concerned, and are possibly being followed up, as to how to avoid the issues i've just tried to summarize


right - back in the box for me

cheers all
np


http://docsfreelunch.blogspot.com

NP,

Yes, I agree to a certain point but no real numbers have come out of this.

But as .99 chose this particular sketch to illustrate his argument, I was more or less confining my rebuttal to this sketch... meaning that the FG as source  or sink hypothesis is not applicable here, likewise the placement of Rshunt.

Ron

Offline Rosemary Ainslie

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 3968
Re: Rosemary Ainslie circuit demonstration on Saturday March 12th 2011
« Reply #1074 on: May 03, 2011, 11:23:33 PM »
Golly. I think I'm in.  Slow register though.  And I still can't see any pictures.  And no 'reply' quote buttons But there's a reply at the top of the page that I can use. 

Guys - not sure if this is going to 'take' but I see that Poynty is still going on and on about that schematic.  Here's what I think.  I think that you should try whatever you want.  And it is ABSOLUTE nonsense that there's any significant current going into the FG.  I will give you proof of this when I get easier access to my computers.

I saw your comments there Bill.  I'll try it out.  But I can't get this done before Thursday. Please ask Harti to answer my email.  I need to know who's removing my posts.  I think it may just be my own view though.  Is that even possible?

Groundloop I can't see the schematics that I assume you've added.  I wonder if I can impose on you to email this to me.  My other computer is absolutely OFF LIMITS.  I don't think I would be able to stand having that one corrupted.  It holds my email.  But I can also be reached on rosemaryainslie@gmail.com - which is here on this 'corrupted' version.  So.  Groundloop - if it's not too much of an imposition I'd be very glad to have a look.  Sorry I didn't get around to that sketch.  I've been up to my ears all day.  I solemnly promise to do this tomorrow.  Not that it'll help - but I'm sure you'll see where I'm going.

Kindest regards
Rosie

Offline Rosemary Ainslie

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 3968
Re: Rosemary Ainslie circuit demonstration on Saturday March 12th 2011
« Reply #1075 on: May 03, 2011, 11:50:48 PM »
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.

This quote from Laurel is rather amusing.  It requires a really adventurous definition of 'many moons' ago.  LOL.  I think those many moons was as recently as 24th of this month - which only goes to show that time is relative.  She really needs to remove a whole slew of her rather public comments and she needs to stop PM'ing our members about me.  It constitutes ABUSE. Then indeed - she can pretend to all that absurd self-righteous indignation.  What idiocy.  But at least I've had another good laugh.

Regards guys - and delighted to find a voice.  Just can't see those schematics.  I'd love to see Groundloop's.  I'll only get the computers cleaned on Thursday.  So, until then I'll struggle on here.  VERY SLOW.  But it's getting through.  I think the 'corruption' has been via my password.  I've changed it now.  But the previous internet link is still impassable.  It gets into a kind of 'freeze mode'.  And I can't get into my blog AT ALL.  I think I'll need to re-register. 

Rosie 

Offline powercat

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 1091
Re: Rosemary Ainslie circuit demonstration on Saturday March 12th 2011
« Reply #1076 on: May 04, 2011, 12:05:37 AM »
You did see Groundloops last version of your circuit and this was your comment  ??? :o
since then he has only posted a circuit to protect a function generator.

Not quite Groundloop. But I've thought of something.  I could sketch what's needed - scan it and then send it to you.  Then you could make sense of it better.

Many thanks for your efforts nonetheless.

Kindest as ever,
Rosie

added I should be able to do this during the morning.  I still have your email address.  I'll get back to you here.

Sorry - another problem  It seems everyone is still on holiday.  Labour day in SA - I'll need to get this to you tomorrow.


Offline Rosemary Ainslie

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 3968
Re: Rosemary Ainslie circuit demonstration on Saturday March 12th 2011
« Reply #1077 on: May 04, 2011, 12:45:59 AM »
Cat?  I can't see the schematic.  I assumed there was a variation.  If it's the same circuit then there's a problem.  I'm not sure how often I must say this but I'll download a photo of this when I can get up and running there.  FIRST OFF -   The ground of the FG is directly on the shared ground which is also directly in series with the gate of the MOSFET on Q2.  THEN.  ALL THIS IS IN SERIES WITH THE CSR which - in turn - is in SERIES WITH THE NEGATIVE RAIL OF THE BATTERY.

IT MAKES NO DIFFERENCE TO THE RESULTS WHETHER THE GROUND OF THE FUNCTIONS GENERATOR IS at the  'Position marked 'D' in the video - or if it's in position marked 'B' in the video.  The results are the same.  But Poynty et al will use that positioning at 'D' to argue that the results are WRONG.  Therefore have I gone to some considerable trouble to show this in that test where we took water to boiling point.

And again - because clearly Poynty either cannot read or he depends on the rather slim hope that no-one else can read - here is it again.  THE ONLY REASON THAT WE POSITIONED THE PROBE AT B DURING THE DEMO VIDEO WAS BECAUSE WE RAN OUT OF SPACE AT PIN D.  We were running two scopes. 

Golly.  I wonder if all this 'antagonism' is somewhat inappropriate.  I am only doing my best to advise you all that you're being hoodwinked by Poynty into considering these results as immaterial, irrelevant and incorrect.  Right now he's the only one who's 'shaping' opinion here.  Which is a DISASTER.  They are NOT incorrect.  They have been CAREFULLY CONSIDERED by authorities well in excess of Poynty's 'EX SPURT'ise - and they absolutely DEFY classical prediction.  And it's not bad news.  It's really good news.  And why - in God's name - should I bother to keep answering these absurd objections?  You'd think I was trying to capitalise on this.  Or that I was trying to claim it as my own discovery. 

The fact is that  I'm hoping against hope that you'll either try it out - to prove it yourselves - or just sit back and wait for it.  We've got some accreditation due.  You guys are something else.  I'm trying to advance a much needed solution to global warming.  From the reception here you'd think I was out to con you all out of your hard earned savings.  I am just way too old to spend my time on something that isn't appropriate and significant.  Dear God.  These results have not ONLY BE SEEN BY ME.  What is wrong with you all?  If it were a con - then I'd be after your money.  If it were some sort of bid for fame I'd first need to claim all this as a discovery.  If I were anxious to hide the benefits then - indeed - you'd have cause for complain.  I'm trying very hard to make them as freely available as is humanly possible.  Give me a break.

Rosemary 


Offline poynt99

  • TPU-Elite
  • Hero Member
  • *******
  • Posts: 3582
Re: Rosemary Ainslie circuit demonstration on Saturday March 12th 2011
« Reply #1078 on: May 04, 2011, 01:02:00 AM »
NP,

Yes, I agree to a certain point but no real numbers have come out of this.
We certainly agree on that.

Quote
But as .99 chose this particular sketch to illustrate his argument, I was more or less confining my rebuttal to this sketch... meaning that the FG as source  or sink hypothesis is not applicable here, likewise the placement of Rshunt.

Ron
My 'argument', which included this rhetorical question:
Quote
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.
was to illustrate that this is the correct manner in which the shunt can be positioned, AND the correct manner in which the Gate should be driven.

As such, the FG output should not be tied to the Source lead of any MOSFET whatsoever, and if the shunt is not connected either in series with the battery or in the Source leg of the current-carrying device, i.e. Q2, then the results indicated from the shunt will be inaccurate.

Make sense Ron?

.99

Offline poynt99

  • TPU-Elite
  • Hero Member
  • *******
  • Posts: 3582
Re: Rosemary Ainslie circuit demonstration on Saturday March 12th 2011
« Reply #1079 on: May 04, 2011, 01:10:22 AM »
After reading reply #1077, I am simply at a loss now as to how any part of the circuit is connected.

For example:

1) were the CSR connections changed or not?
2) where is the FG ground lead connected?
3) how is Q2 connected?

Can anyone here elucidate on the above?

.99