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 670664 times)

Offline hartiberlin

  • Administrator
  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 8012
    • free energy research OverUnity.com
Re: Rosemary Ainslie circuit demonstration on Saturday March 12th 2011
« Reply #150 on: March 20, 2011, 04:42:30 AM »
P.S: What kind of function generator was used ?

This was not specified in the report.

Thanks.

Offline Feynman

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 620
    • Feynman's Lab
Re: Rosemary Ainslie circuit demonstration on Saturday March 12th 2011
« Reply #151 on: March 20, 2011, 04:57:05 AM »
@stefan

I think Mark's criticisms in this thread  were valid , so if some of his posts were deleted while you cleaned up the flame war , I think they should be restored.

My 2c anyway.

Offline hartiberlin

  • Administrator
  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 8012
    • free energy research OverUnity.com
Re: Rosemary Ainslie circuit demonstration on Saturday March 12th 2011
« Reply #152 on: March 20, 2011, 05:00:47 AM »
I left the valid ones in there.

Regards, Stefan.

Offline hartiberlin

  • Administrator
  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 8012
    • free energy research OverUnity.com
Re: Rosemary Ainslie circuit demonstration on Saturday March 12th 2011
« Reply #153 on: March 20, 2011, 05:02:39 AM »
    Show a paper from a peer-reviewed physics or chemistry journal where COP is used at all.
    -Omnibus


Quote

    Performance of Cogeneration System Incorporating Gas Engine Driven Heat Pump

    Challenges of Power Engineering and Environment
    2007, 2, 61-63, DOI: 10.1007/978-3-540-76694-0_10
    Abstract
    Cogeneration systems have a large potential for energy saving, especially when they simultaneously produce heat, cold and power as useful energy flows. Various cogeneration systems for combined heat, cold and power production are designed mainly incorporating absorption heat pumps. But compression heat pumps always have higher coefficient of performance than that of the absorption heat pumps. Gas engine-driven heat pump is the compression heat pump driven by gas engine. Cogeneration system associated with gas engine-driven heat pump will have higher efficiency. Detail thermodynamic analyses of such cogeneration system are processed. For a specific building, result of the energy consumption shows that the primary energy ratio of such system is 1.49, which is higher than that of the conventional separated production system.
    http://www.springerlink.com/content/m8442q14646q3077/

Please stay ontopic.
This has nothing to do with this thread.
Thanks.

Offline chrisC

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 1414
Re: Rosemary Ainslie circuit demonstration on Saturday March 12th 2011
« Reply #154 on: March 20, 2011, 05:04:00 AM »
@stefan

I think Mark's criticisms in this thread  were valid , so if some of his posts were deleted while you cleaned up the flame war , I think they should be restored.

My 2c anyway.

@Stefan
I don't think MarkD was ever a troublemaker. He just spoke the honest truth and has always been a gentleman, polite in many ways. Please consider to reinstate him. Thank you.

ChrisC

Offline hartiberlin

  • Administrator
  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 8012
    • free energy research OverUnity.com
Re: Rosemary Ainslie circuit demonstration on Saturday March 12th 2011
« Reply #155 on: March 20, 2011, 05:06:45 AM »
There are now some people on moderation and
I decide, if their postings go through or are deleted.

This is due to the facts that now more and more paid
"twisters" are coming onto this forum,
who want to suppress free energy
as there are now viable solutions.


I did not delete all their postings, just the ones
being rude, offtopic or twisting the known facts.

Regards, Stefan.

Offline Rosemary Ainslie

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 3968
Re: Rosemary Ainslie circuit demonstration on Saturday March 12th 2011
« Reply #156 on: March 20, 2011, 05:55:15 AM »
Guys - it seems that we're being moderated - and none too soon.  Thank you.  It is no accident that this technology of ours has been flamed from the get go.  The worst of it is that - until this last thread - I've been obliged to deal with it more or less alone.  There is not one of you who seriously considered that the results were valid.  And why should you?  The denial was absolute.  Or the allegations against my good name were wild and comprehensive.  The one that gets me the most is Poynt's last statement that I'm some sort of Idiot Savant. 

Anyway - clearly that's all changing.  Thank you God.  And, possibly more to the point - thank you Steve.

I took time out last night to read PESwiki.  There's a thing in there where some guys from NASA are prepared to replicate motors that claim OU results.  I sent them the following email.

Dear Michael,

It's not a motor - but we'd be glad of some replication of the attached test - by Ken and/or Mike.  Let me know if you need more information.

Regards

From the team
Rosemary Ainslie


I attached our pdf and look forward to some reply.  I'll also post this challenge on my blog lest it be overlooked.

Meanwhile I'll get back to those posts here that still need answers.

Kindest and many, many thanks to those who spoke out in support.  Much needed. 

Rosie

Offline Magluvin

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 5886
Re: Rosemary Ainslie circuit demonstration on Saturday March 12th 2011
« Reply #157 on: March 20, 2011, 06:22:37 AM »
Sorry for my outburst earlier Rose.  Just felt the need. And just got done watching Death Wish II.  ;] 

Do you have a link from peswiki?  =]

Hope things go better for you here now. ;]

Mags

Offline Rosemary Ainslie

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 3968
Re: Rosemary Ainslie circuit demonstration on Saturday March 12th 2011
« Reply #158 on: March 20, 2011, 07:01:36 AM »
The issues I see are missing notes:
1. Rosemary
was the ciurcuit  also run without connecting the scope and just connecting the function generator?

I earlier pointed out that ground loop currents of the scopes and the function generator can add up and extract some power via the grounding of the different devices.

As the circuit goes into selfrunning oscillation at around 1.5 Mhz due to the parasitric LC components of the circuits, it could be that it also extracts power via the groundloop currents, if these exist there simular to the Kapanadze devices.

So please disconnect the scopes and also disconnect the ground connector from your function generator and see, if you still have this high 40 Watts heat output in the load resistor.
Only one such test.  It was set at the zero discharge - low wattage dissipation number.  I started the test at 11.30 am and came back that night - or early morning rather -  at 1.30.  The same level of heat was still measured over the resistor - but no data logger - so can't tell you what happened in the interim.  You must please understand this Steven.  That gate setting is 'brittle'.  It has a tendancy to 'slip' higher - and I'm forever in a panic that all will go up in flames.  So.  With any unsupervised testing I'm rather untenably anxious.  We disconnected the scopes only because it won't tolerate those high voltages when and if it defaults into heavy duty mode.  So the short answer is - NO - we have not tested higher wattages without the scope.  Nor dare we.  That gate voltage is a really critical reference at high wattages.  And yes we've tested this at lower wattages.

Of interest is that over that 14 hour test or thereby - there was a measurable 0.01 volt drop.  Not inconsiderable considering the HUGE capacities of those batteries.  But not that atypical either.  Because the DMM used as a reference - does not show the same voltages that the scope reads - and when we linked the scope it showed an increase.  Frankly I dont think those battery voltages are relevant during the testing.  They climb and fall continuously.  It's only relevant at the end of the tests when the test apparatus is disconnected.  Then they show their 'kick off' levels.  This has never varied.

I was categorically assured by our advisors that there was NO problem related to grounding.  Not sure of the argument but will ask them to elaborate.  What I do know is that the DSO's are two pinned and therefore - it's not an issue.  The functions generator - three pinned.  BTW you asked for the make.  It's an ISOTECH GFG - 8216a - 50 Ohms at the output.  Our plug outputs are all at 220 volts AC.  In any event.  I'll ask about the grounding issue - on Monday and get back here.  I should have gone into this more thoroughly before.

2. The circuit just oscillates when it has a negative bias at the gates, so it would be easy just to use a battery with a voltge divider pot to control the necessary voltage for it. Then you would not need anymore the function generator and can see, if it will also oscillate with the right negative bias voltage at the gates and have this high 40 Watts heat output at the load heating resistor.
Indeed.  There is also another variation of the circuit which is theoretically evident.  I'll try and get a sketch of this posted here.  There are many ways of skinning this cat.  Neptune's already mentioned this.  And the more that are put on offer here in this forum - the better.  Think Open Source guys.  There's all kinds of competing interests.  And I think we need make everything as public as is possible.

3.Rosemary, please post a PDF File or at least higher Res screen shots of the scope shots,otherwise we cannot analyze the waveforms.
Indeed.  Never realised this was a problem.  When I've finished here I'll give it a go.  If I can't there are those on the team who can.

4. A simulation is just wasted time as it would not include anomalous effects, so just forget it.
At last.  Someone speaking sense.  Donny did his own replication with a faithful inclusion of all components and he included the measured inductances - even on the wires.  There is nothing in classical protocols that can manage these results so WHY does anyone assume it can be simulated?  Has anyone picked up yet that there's more inductance on our wire than on the resistor element?  That's a lot of wire.  But clearly it adds to the effect.

5.  Battery operated could be the only way it could work, cause battery chemistry behaves totally different than normal power supplies as is also seen in Bedini devices, where the OU energy seems
to come inside the batteries as the ions just move so slow...
I entirely agree but possibly for different reasons. 

6. Was the scope set to DC or AC in the input as you scoped the voltage  on the batteries ?

This is pretty important.
Of course it's important.  And yes.  Across the shunt and batteries then the scope was set at DC ALWAYS.  Golly.  It seems that you guys have absolutely no confidence in our expertise.  Mine you're well advised to doubt.  But that's where it should end. 

This circuit is similar to a Newman coil circuit running just at higher frequencies and at lower inductances.  The MOSFETs with their included zener diodes can just feed the BackEMF spikes back to the battery.
That has been the intention from our very earliest tests.  This has never varied.  I don't know about the Newman coil but if that's what it does then there's got to be an advantage.

Now and the difference between 6 and 40 Watts heat should be easily measureable just by using
heated water calorimetrically.
It can also be measured in air.  The advantage to using water is that it can give the total output more reliably.  But we didn't need this to be too accurate.  We were - evidently - discharging nothing from the batteries.  What we did do - unfortunately - was buckle that plastic - and it is IMPOSSIBLE to even touch the resistor at 100 degrees, let alone the 200 degrees and upwards that we've measured.  As have some of the team learned to their cost.  LOL

Thanks again,
Regards,
Rosemary
« Last Edit: March 20, 2011, 07:34:16 AM by Rosemary Ainslie »

Offline cHeeseburger

  • Newbie
  • *
  • Posts: 46
Re: Rosemary Ainslie circuit demonstration on Saturday March 12th 2011
« Reply #159 on: March 20, 2011, 08:08:00 AM »
It is clear that Stefan has the right and the might to heavily moderate this forum and I respect that.  Whether I think his judgements are fair or not is not important and I appreciate that he left intact seven of my fifteen posts.  I assume that was because they were on-subject, without insult and quoted in other posts anyway.  Thank you Stefan for leaving at least some of my comments and suggestions.

Apparently, at least Mark Dansie and I are on "heavy moderation" at this time and Stefan has suggested that someone (I assume he means me) is a paid detractor sent by big oil or the MIB to destroy Rosemary's progress.  That is simply not true, I can assure you.  However, each of us has a right to hold and express our opinion; especially Stefan, as it is his blood sweat and finances that have built this forum.

That said, I will not be posting here again because I do not feel that my comments are welcome, despite their often acute and timely relevance.  As my final post here, I would ask and hope that Stefan have the sense of fairness and good sportsmanship to clear this for posting.

For anyone who is interested, I have tonight published a very revealing set of simulations under the Rosemary Ainslie thread at OUR forum.  I have discovered a couple of things that may be of interest even to those of you who put no faith in simulations.

First, the Ainslie circuit with five MOSFETs models quite easily and shows exactly the same waveforms and performance that Rosemary shows in her lengthy series of 'scope shots on her blogs when all of the various wiring inductances are included.  This indicates strongly that all circuit behaviors she has pointed out and shown are entirely explainable using only classical circuit models.

Second, I have shown that one single input step-function pulse of 1 microsecond duration will set the circuit into continuous oscillation.  Simply setting a tuned DC bias at the gate may or may not set the circuit into oscillation, but a single sharp transition past the threshold definitely does when the gate is subsequently held at zero or negative DC.

There are no ground currents involved.  The circuit oscillates continuously at between 1 and 1.4 MHz, depending on specific MOSFET types and inductance values in the range consistent with the wire lengths and load inductances as stated by Rosemary.

I think these facts and the ability in the simulation to probe inside the RL lumped components (the shunt, the load and the battery stack) to look at the waveforms as they exist across just the battery, just the resitive parts of the load and just the resistive part of the shunt to see the true current and voltages there are useful to anyone planning to replicate and or simulate the circuit for further study.

I will be doing some more sims to include actual measurements of the load heating power and the battery input power in the near future.  If these tests show anything like or close to overunity, I will proceed to an actual hardware replication to verify the results.  This work will be shown at OUR exclusively unless Stefan invites me to also show it here.

Thank you for your consideration of these sincere efforts to gain a fuller understanding of this circuit and its performance.  So far, the model tracks and agrees very well with all of what Rosemary has reported based on her waveform analysis.

Of final and very significant interest is the fact that the waveforms representing the shunt voltage change dramatically when measured to include or exclude the omnipresent inductance of the physical shunt. 

Yes, as Rose has reported. it appears that the current waveform has nearly identical areas above and below zero when the shunt inductance is allowed in the measurement and that the apparent current levels are many times higher than those measured across the purely resistive portion of the shunt impedance. 

However, when we look only across the true resistive portion of the shunt (leaving the inductance in the circuit so that operation is unaffected), it becomes clear that the real area under the current waveform is quite a bit larger above zero (coming out of the battery) than the current being returned.

cHeeseburger



« Last Edit: March 20, 2011, 08:33:39 AM by cHeeseburger »

Offline Rosemary Ainslie

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 3968
Re: Rosemary Ainslie circuit demonstration on Saturday March 12th 2011
« Reply #160 on: March 20, 2011, 08:45:31 AM »
Guys a quick word here.  I challenge anyone to do a simulation where the phase angles are at precisely 180 degrees.  If they are not precise then, as day follows night - they'll ring and cancel out at zero.  At 180 degrees they'll reinforce each other.

What intrigues me is this.  I've been called delinquent - ignorant - presumptuous - pretentious - deluded - self-serving - deceptive - optimistic - fanciful - manipulative.  Name it.  It's there.  In fact I've also been called an IDIOT SAVANT.  Poynty?  I have a really functional intelligence quotient.  Surely that much is evident?  And right now Hamburger is throwing a hissy fit with MileHigh as his praise singer.  So what?  What if I am all of those things?  What has it got to do with the issue at hand?  We are only showing results.  And those results are hugely promising.  But they unquestionably need research.  We're all, on our team - ONLY anxious that this get researched.  If any out there need to take the credit - FEEL FREE.  Just DON'T try and patent it.  I'll contest that to my dying breath and with my last cent.

Kindest as ever,
Rosemary

Offline Feynman

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 620
    • Feynman's Lab
Re: Rosemary Ainslie circuit demonstration on Saturday March 12th 2011
« Reply #161 on: March 20, 2011, 09:05:00 AM »
The possibility that the heating element is being powered exclusively by the battery needs to be excluded.  Measuring the input energy via  the four scope traces will establish some degree of confidence in this, so I look forward to a higher resolution of the scope traces to calculate AUC.

Another point:
Quote
When this is applied to each sample from a spreadsheet analysis across the 500 000 to 1 million samples supplied by the digital storage oscilloscopes, then the product of this and the battery voltage represents the instantaneous wattage. The sum of these values, divided by the number of samples, represents the average wattage delivered over the entire sample range.
-Section 3.2, report on the tests for the demo held today

Quote
...This is confirmed by detailed analysis of data downloads to spreadsheets...
-Section 4.6, report on the tests for the demo held today


These spreadsheets are important. In the interest of replication and characterization of what you are observing, it would be helpful if all the relavent source data (including raw spreadsheet data) were to be published.  The process of 'peer review' in an open-source community manner requires full disclosure, including source spreadsheets of observations. 

Quote
At these slowest switching speeds, at 6.172 mHz, and during that burst oscillation mode period where the frequency is measured at close to 1.5 MHz, the battery supply source is seen to recharge.
-Section 4.4


The claim of the battery recharging needs to have the support of experimental observations, results of repeated trials, raw data etc.  Spreadsheets, experimental notes, and/or Video would help. 

I remember you have mentioned you don't want to bother with battery tests and load tests etc.  I understand this can be time-consuming , but this part is critical.   The batteries are still connected.   They are a possible source of the power to the heating element.  They must be excluded as the power source in order to confirm an anomaly.

The voltage data of the battery and the temperature of the heating element over repeated experimental trials that forms the basis in claim 4.4 need to be published if this effect is to be analyzed and/or replicated.     This include not just a single scope trace, but multiple experimental trials and results  (starting voltage, voltage as a function of time, and ending voltage for all anomalous experimental trials) as compared to the behaviour of the heating element..

For example, as mentioned previously, someone pointed out that there is a chart for the 'control' results, but there is no such chart for the 'experimental/anomalous' results  (besides scope traces which are too low a resolution).  A chart measuring input voltage, input current, ambient air temp, and temp at load needs to be published for 'anomalous' operation.

Further photographs and/or video of the setup would be helpful.

 I believe overunity exists, is possible, and there are working configurations (for example , HHO can power a generator in closed-loop operation).

I would be pleased if this circuit is overunity, but we need more information to proceed. In the absense of self-running operation (closed loop) there is a higher standard of proof, and we must meet the requirements for open-sourcing of all data  in order to have a viable , replicable free-energy system.

This open-sourcing of all available experimental data (including raw data , spreadsheets, photographs, video, and lab notes) should apply to all potential methods and results. I look forward to the open-sourcing of more experimental details.

Best Wishes,
Feynman

Offline Rosemary Ainslie

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 3968
Re: Rosemary Ainslie circuit demonstration on Saturday March 12th 2011
« Reply #162 on: March 20, 2011, 09:14:05 AM »
Feynman - I'm trying to get those scope resolutions posted.  It takes me forever.  Bear with me.  And then, indeed, I'll attend to your every comment.  It's just so nice to deal with ISSUES related to the test.  I assure you you'll have my undivided attention and where possible, co-operation.

Thanks for your inputs.  Just so nice to deal with this level of criticism.  I'll get back here during the day.  But right now I'm plodding through the files to get the right pictures so that you can reference them.  I'm absolutely not quite the quickest on the block.  I think I'm going to have to bug some of the team to sort this out for me.  But I'll first try it myself. 

Are you in SA?  Can you please email me.  I'll see what we can do to download those spreadsheets.  They're HUGE.  I know I can't sent them by email.  I've tried.  There must be some alternative.  My email address is ainslie@mweb.co.za

Thanks Feynman.  LOVE THE NAME.  He's the first guy who learned how to explain particle interactions diagrammatically.  What a genius.

Kindest regards
Rosemary

Offline powercat

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 1091
Re: Rosemary Ainslie circuit demonstration on Saturday March 12th 2011
« Reply #163 on: March 20, 2011, 01:22:13 PM »

I took time out last night to read PESwiki.  There's a thing in there where some guys from NASA are prepared to replicate motors that claim OU results.  I sent them the following email.

Dear Michael,

It's not a motor - but we'd be glad of some replication of the attached test - by Ken and/or Mike.  Let me know if you need more information.

Regards

From the team
Rosemary Ainslie



Hi Rosie
The only place I can think where he got the motor idea is TK's video.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4x0wQJrc9To

Congratulations it's been a week since the demonstration and you have virtually 10,000 readers on your thread,that's a lot of people looking every day ;D
looking forward to the video on Monday.
All the very best.
cat

« Last Edit: March 20, 2011, 01:57:06 PM by powercat »

Offline evolvingape

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 478
Re: Rosemary Ainslie circuit demonstration on Saturday March 12th 2011
« Reply #164 on: March 20, 2011, 03:13:31 PM »
@evolvinggape
"Erm... no, the replacement of Batteries with Caps is not irrelevant at all. Batteries have a stored potential, Caps have an applied potential. Caps would very quickly show whether your circuit is running down or not and consuming power. 6 car Batteries would hide this extremely well even over lengthy testing periods."

So well put. This has been the failing of many experiments. I have even seen others even fool themselves when using a power supply. That's why many people I know prefer to use caps.
Mark

Yes, but sometimes these things just only work when using lead acid or NiMh batteries
as is the case with pulsed battery boosters like Bedini or Newman or Joule Thief style circuits.

Caps just don´t work here cause they don´t have the right electrons-ions in them...

Regards, Stefan.

Hi Stefan,

A simple substitution of Caps for Batteries will conclusively show whether the anomaly is reliant on the chemical properties of the Battery Cells. We cannot know this until it has been evaluated, we can only assume that Caps will not work. I believe this would be an important simple test to confirm the anomaly is present only in chemical cells.

RM :)