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 670005 times)

Offline Rosemary Ainslie

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 3968
Re: Rosemary Ainslie circuit demonstration on Saturday March 12th 2011
« Reply #1500 on: June 19, 2011, 05:46:53 PM »
Yes, I have done this in the simulation, a long time ago when I reduced the circuit down to just Q2. I may not have posted a scope shot, but I believe the oscillation frequency increased slightly, and the wave forms became more symmetrical.

.99

Poynty - We all REALLY need that waveform.  It gets to the heart of the argument.  May I impose on you to give us a picture of this? 

By the way.  To the second part of the question.  Can do you explain this?   

Rosemary

Also - What do you mean by 'MORE SYMMETRICAL'.  Flatter waveforms?  Or cleaner?  Or just no 'cut off' at the positive peaks?  You see why we need a picture.

Offline poynt99

  • TPU-Elite
  • Hero Member
  • *******
  • Posts: 3582
Re: Rosemary Ainslie circuit demonstration on Saturday March 12th 2011
« Reply #1501 on: June 19, 2011, 06:54:00 PM »
OK, I have used a diagram that is slightly different than the previous I posted, although they are essentially equivalent.

The main difference being, and I would recommend anyone building this, change the position of D1 from Drain to Ground (shown in my previous post), to Drain to Gate as shown in these schematics here. The "effect" (i.e. higher oscillating "Vbat" voltage) D1 has is increased when connected Drain-to-Gate.

The "Vbat" wave form is almost double the peak-to-peak amplitude with the Q1 body diode in place, as shown.

What I mean by "symmetry", is the wave shape for the top and bottom excursions of the wave form. Without the body diode, the wave form is more sinusoidal and symmetrical. The oscillating frequency is also slightly higher in this case.

From briefly looking at this "effect", it appears the addition of the Drain-to-Gate (D-G) diode forces the Q2 MOSFET to turn OFF more completely during that part of the cycle, and this allows the Drain, and hence "Vbat" voltage to oscillate at a higher amplitude.

.99

Offline MrMag

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 754
Re: Rosemary Ainslie circuit demonstration on Saturday March 12th 2011
« Reply #1502 on: June 19, 2011, 08:49:35 PM »
No Cat - I'm NOT making excuses.  I'm simply NOT interested in doing those tests.  Feel free.  Do it yourselves.  I'm only interested in getting this to an academic forum.  And they DON'T accept any draw down battery tests as evidence.  Good gracious.  If they did I'd have done the tests - GLADLY.  And I absolutely have NO INTEREST in 'encouraging' as you you put it - people to get involved in our circuit.  Frankly I prefer it that they don't.  My previous exposure to this was an outright attempt by a replicator to CLAIM it as his independent and personal 'DISCOVERY'.  Why should I want anyone to replicate? 

So, do this test ourselves but you would rather that we didn't. Is it true that you have been working on this for 10 years or more and have never done the test we are asking? Why is that? I would think that if anyone wanted to prove the device, this would be one of the first tests to accomplish. If it worked, then I would worry about scope shots to see exactly what was happening so that it could be explained. Also, my recommendation was to only place the batteries, circuit and IP camera inside the enclosure. If you want to open the door and take readings once in a while it would be fine but you don't need to connect a scope to it. You are to busy trying to think of reasons not to do the test then just reading what was posted.

My ONLY interest is in the thesis and the implications of the waveform - because that's where the magic is.  I don't think there's any RULE against my sharing what I think is happening. And if you or anyone don't want to read here - so what?  I'm not holding a gun to your heads. The general reach on these forums is to demand the evidence - in any way you want.  I'm under NO obligation to cater to that demand.  Frankly if I were to run around and do what everyone wanted as I used to - then I'd be considerably poorer and have progressed no further.  What really gets me down is that one academic has actually proposed that we do that 'black box' test.  That's the test that we designed for the public demonstration.  You may remember.  Not A SINGLE EXPERT ATTENDED.  What a joke.  The academics won't look at the evidence - and the rest of you can't understand the measurements - nor their implications. And I can assure you that not one of you will believe the evidence when I've completed that test.  There'll be new criteria.  So it goes.  It's not so much extraordinary claims needing extraordinary proof - it's that an extraordinary claim will never be accepted regardless of the proof.  That's the killer.

The rest of us can't understand the measurements? Many of us here have 20 or more years of experience in the electronics field and you think WE don't know how to take measurements. I think it may be the other way around.

Here's the trade off Cat.  Find some experts who will guarantee accreditation of any results that show excess energy dissipated to the rated battery capacity - ANY AT ALL - then I'll do those tests GLADLY.  I think a consensus of 5 should cut it.  See what you can do.  Me I have found precisely 1 and I very much doubt that there will be others.  And we've asked not less than 45 experts to attend a demo that shows JUST THIS.

I guess it depends on what you classify as an expert. I would think that there are probably 5 or more here on this forum who could be classified as experts. I could probably pop over to OUR and dig up a few more if need be.

What I don't understand is why you do not want to do this simple test. There are a lot of people here that would like to see it done. There are ways to make it safe so that the batteries don't catch fire and you know this so stop using it as an excuse. If you have nothing to hide just do the test.

Offline Rosemary Ainslie

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 3968
Re: Rosemary Ainslie circuit demonstration on Saturday March 12th 2011
« Reply #1503 on: June 19, 2011, 09:08:43 PM »
Listen up Mags.  Our very first paper PUBLISHED in Quantum was a test that was run in conjunction with battery controls.  The test period determined when the control batteries voltages each dropped BELOW 10 Volts.  At the end of, from memory I think it was, a 17 hour test - the controls were at 10 when the test battery had NOT LOST EVEN A QUARTER VOLT.  Then we recharged BOTH sets of batteries.  And then we swapped them and applied the control to the test and vice versa to obviate any claims of battery vagaries.  Then we ran that test again.  The results were the same.  And then we were dealing with COP 17 NOT COP INFINITY.

NOW.  PAY ATTENTION.  We were instructed to TAKE THAT INFORMATION OUT OF THE PAPER AS ANY REFERENCE TO BATTERY PERFORMANCE WAS LIKELY TO BE UNRELIABLE DUE BATTERY VAGARIES.  That was the explanation given us by the editor.  The reviewer - who simply edits things for Quantum magazine - as it is NOT a reviewed journal - WAS A PROFESSOR JANDRELL AT WITS UNIVERSITY.  If you are that interested - then write to him and ask him for an explanation.  And here's the thing.  THE EXPERT IS NOT IN THE LEAST BIT INTERESTED IN BATTERY PERFORMANCE.  THAT'S IT. 

So.  DON'T GIVE ME THAT OVERWORKED COMPLAINT THAT IN 10 YEARS I HAVE NEVER TRIED TO DO THAT BATTERY COMPARISON TEST.  WE'VE DONE IT TO DEATH.  ALL OUR TESTS WERE DONE ON THAT BASIS IT MEANT NOTHING - RESULTED IN NOTHING.

Now you want us to repeat that test - but this time it is likely to last considerably longer as our control will need to include 6 batteries.  I'll do it.  GLADLY.  Just find me not less than 5 experts who will guarantee us FULL RECOGNITION OF THOSE RESULTS AT THE END OF THE TEST PERIOD.  And their names must be citable as expert accreditors.  ELSE WE'RE WASTING OUR TIME.

And as for your forlorn hope that there's the required expertise on Poynty's forum - disabuse yourself.  They're all trying to follow Poynt's examples of Pin and Pout measurements which are UTTERLY meaningless - as they are certainly NOT the required protocols in mainstream science. AND they're certainly NOT citable as they all shelter their reputations behind aliases - LIKE YOU.  And notwithstanding this protection they afford their own reputations - they actively work to try and destry mine.

I'm absolutely NOT prepared to answer any more of your posts.  They're a waste of my time.  Just do your own tests.  There's nothing stopping you.

Rosemary 

Added.  And while I'm at it -  may I also add that I find NOTHING quite as despicable and contemptible and cowardly as the extraordinary freedoms you all indulge in your opinion of my hard work - when you all shelter behind those 'screen names' as Fuzzy rather pathetically refers to it.  If you're going to show the courage of your convictions then post under your own name.  Else there's the very real danger that not only will you be considered a big mouthed bully - but that you're a self-serving hypocritcal coward to boot. JUST LEVEL THOSE PLAYING FIELDS. It's easy playing fast and loose with other people's reputations.  Put your own on the line and be counted.
« Last Edit: June 19, 2011, 09:40:42 PM by Rosemary Ainslie »

Offline Rosemary Ainslie

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 3968
Re: Rosemary Ainslie circuit demonstration on Saturday March 12th 2011
« Reply #1504 on: June 19, 2011, 10:01:53 PM »
Thanks Poynt.  Now all we need is the shunt and battery voltages per your math trace.  Can you oblige?

Ta muchly,
Rosie

Offline MrMag

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 754
Re: Rosemary Ainslie circuit demonstration on Saturday March 12th 2011
« Reply #1505 on: June 20, 2011, 02:59:29 AM »
Rose, your kidding me right? We are not talking about a 17 hour test here are we. Do you even bother to read the post from us asking to do a draw down test or are you just thinking of finding ways to attack us. I am not asking about battery performance, I am asking to run a continuous test to see if your circuit can keep the batteries charged. If you don't understand this simple request I can try to put it in a simpler manner for you. ( I typed the above two sentences very slowly for your convenience).

Correct - A battery comparison test probably doesn't mean anything.

Running your circuit continuously for a duration of the battery watt/hour rating will prove something. It will prove if your device performs like you say it will or not. It's that simple.

In the last 10 years have you ran your circuit continuous for the above time period? If not, Why?

I am not sure what you have against screen names. Is this all you have left to attack us with? Does it really matter what I use as a name on here? If we ask relevant questions and ask for relevant test does it really matter what I call myself? Maybe, just maybe, a lot of us use screen names so that we are not personally attacked by deranged people. I don't necessarily mean you but there are some out there.

If you really want people to take you serious, you should start talking a little more professionally. No wonder you can't get any "Experts" to review your work. Your present attitude towards people who have made a simple request of you is very disturbing. What do you think the "Experts" would think of this.

"Added.  And while I'm at it -  may I also add that I find NOTHING quite as despicable and contemptible and cowardly as the extraordinary freedoms you all indulge in your opinion of my hard work - when you all shelter behind those 'screen names' as Fuzzy rather pathetically refers to it.  If you're going to show the courage of your convictions then post under your own name.  Else there's the very real danger that not only will you be considered a big mouthed bully - but that you're a self-serving hypocritcal coward to boot. JUST LEVEL THOSE PLAYING FIELDS. It's easy playing fast and loose with other people's reputations.  Put your own on the line and be counted. "

I don't know about that Rosey, All I asked is for you to do a continuous test of your circuit. You are the one coming across as the big mouth bully. All the name calling when you don't even know us or our background. Even if I told you my real name, would you know my background or qualifications. I'll tell you what, find 5 experts and have them request my real name and then I'll do it. And, as far as ruining your reputation, your doing a pretty good job of that yourself. I don't think you need help from me or anyone else.

I started out here giving you the benefit of the doubt. All you have done is attack me. I honestly think that you have something to hide by just making up excuse not to perform the test we have asked you to do. I am starting to think that all those comments in that blog about you are true.
I really think you need to get some psychiatric help.

Offline poynt99

  • TPU-Elite
  • Hero Member
  • *******
  • Posts: 3582
Re: Rosemary Ainslie circuit demonstration on Saturday March 12th 2011
« Reply #1506 on: June 20, 2011, 03:13:38 AM »
MrMag et al,

A draw down test against the amp-hour rating of the battery is only doable if you have an accurate and reliable measurement of the power consumption, or more specifically, the net average ampere usage.

Unless a DMM is placed across the CSR, or if the scope is set to compute MEAN of the CSR trace, we would not know what the net average ampere usage is. And this is a volatile subject all on its own because of the misunderstanding regarding probe orientation.

The best test as I mentioned long ago, is a battery state of charge (SOC) measurement over time. The beauty of this method is that it does not require weeks or months of testing. At most all that would be required is about a week. Take a SOC reading every 12 hours, plot the readings out vs. time, and look for a trend.

.99

PS. Measuring a battery's SOC:
http://www.diy-nos.freeserve.co.uk/testing-battery.htm

Offline poynt99

  • TPU-Elite
  • Hero Member
  • *******
  • Posts: 3582
Re: Rosemary Ainslie circuit demonstration on Saturday March 12th 2011
« Reply #1507 on: June 20, 2011, 03:34:31 AM »
Or possibly, with this meter sufficient testing would be done in less than an hour.

A DC amp-hour meter. $60 ;)

http://www.rc-electronics-usa.com/ammeters/dc-amp-meter.html?wmrd
http://www.rc-electronics-usa.com/ammeters/amp-meter-specs.html

I'm not sure how well it works with pulsed currents though.

.99

Offline MrMag

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 754
Re: Rosemary Ainslie circuit demonstration on Saturday March 12th 2011
« Reply #1508 on: June 20, 2011, 04:30:30 AM »
Thanx poynt, but isn't she running with a heater connected to boil water? If this is the case, wouldn't the continuous monitoring be irrelevant. Over time the batteries would slowly discharge. Or does the circuit in question not have the heating element in place.

Offline poynt99

  • TPU-Elite
  • Hero Member
  • *******
  • Posts: 3582
Re: Rosemary Ainslie circuit demonstration on Saturday March 12th 2011
« Reply #1509 on: June 20, 2011, 04:42:39 AM »
Indeed Rose has used the element to boil water before.

Working backwards from a boiling quantity of water (the output) to determine the net average input current would require a bit of mathematical acrobatics I think.

IMHO, it would be easier to monitor the batteries' SOC over time, OR accurately measure the net average current through the CSR.

.99

Offline MrMag

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 754
Re: Rosemary Ainslie circuit demonstration on Saturday March 12th 2011
« Reply #1510 on: June 20, 2011, 06:02:26 AM »
OK, I see where your heading with this and yes, I think you are right about it. It is so much easier to discuss things with a true professional. When things are presented in a clear manner, it is a lot easier to understand. What you have posted makes a lot more sense to me then the following statements:

No Mr Mag.  I am absolutely NOT interested in convincing you or, indeed, ANY members on the overunity forums.  I only post here because I can depend on those adverse and usually absurd objections and arguments to strengthen our own.  If I write for anyone at all it's for those silent and noncontributing readers. It's like all democracies.  We only ever hear from the noisy minority.   I would have to be delusional indeed to think that there's an ounce of courtesy, loyalty or integrity in the most of the members here - let alone the forum owners.  They, like you, are fickle and self-serving and pretend to authority that is absolutely not yours or theirs to own.   ......

And DO NOT TELL ME TO DO THAT BATTERY TEST UNLESS YOU CAN ALSO TELL ME WHAT THE ADVANTAGES ARE.  Convincing you is certainly of NO advantage to me.  You'll endorse it today and then deny it tomorrow.  THAT'S how the members here work.

But it would be nice if you didn't also try and engage our members here with your own muddles.  It seems that those such as HAPPY and MR MAG are as ignorant as you are.

You would not see a benefit if it stood up to introduce itself.  And you certainly won't recognise it even when it eventually reaches out to bite you - where it hurts most - which is somewhere in the region of your intellects - which are evidently unable to ask questions - let alone answer them.

And as for your forlorn hope that there's the required expertise on Poynty's forum - disabuse yourself.  They're all trying to follow Poynt's examples of Pin and Pout measurements which are UTTERLY meaningless - as they are certainly NOT the required protocols in mainstream science. AND they're certainly NOT citable as they all shelter their reputations behind aliases - LIKE YOU.  And notwithstanding this protection they afford their own reputations - they actively work to try and destry mine.

I'm absolutely NOT prepared to answer any more of your posts.  They're a waste of my time.  Just do your own tests.  There's nothing stopping you.

Added.  And while I'm at it -  may I also add that I find NOTHING quite as despicable and contemptible and cowardly as the extraordinary freedoms you all indulge in your opinion of my hard work - when you all shelter behind those 'screen names' as Fuzzy rather pathetically refers to it.  If you're going to show the courage of your convictions then post under your own name.  Else there's the very real danger that not only will you be considered a big mouthed bully - but that you're a self-serving hypocritcal coward to boot. JUST LEVEL THOSE PLAYING FIELDS. It's easy playing fast and loose with other people's reputations.  Put your own on the line and be counted.

Poor, poor Rose. The biggest problem with Rose is that she is saying 1+1=3. No matter who or how many people try to explain to her that 1+1=2 she will never accept it. If she would only try to listen instead of being so defensive.

Offline Rosemary Ainslie

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 3968
Re: Rosemary Ainslie circuit demonstration on Saturday March 12th 2011
« Reply #1511 on: June 20, 2011, 06:28:50 AM »
Thanks Poynt.  Now all we need is the shunt and battery voltages per your math trace.  Can you oblige?

Ta muchly,
Rosie

POYNT - I'm reposting this to remind you.  We all need to see that number and, ideally, the waveform across the shunt.

R

Offline Rosemary Ainslie

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 3968
Re: Rosemary Ainslie circuit demonstration on Saturday March 12th 2011
« Reply #1512 on: June 20, 2011, 06:57:22 AM »
I deleted an earlier post.  I got sucked in - AGAIN - into answering yet more irrelevant absurdities.  I need to stay focused.  So.  Poynty Point.  Please share the math numbers from that latest sim posting. I'm trying to find out where that v1 -5 value comes from.  Is it the voltage across the shunt?

And by the way - are there any setting on the sim that can take the battery voltage below zero at any stage of that oscillation? 

Regards,
Rosemary

Offline Rosemary Ainslie

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 3968
Re: Rosemary Ainslie circuit demonstration on Saturday March 12th 2011
« Reply #1513 on: June 20, 2011, 07:33:39 AM »
Rose, your kidding me right? We are not talking about a 17 hour test here are we. Do you even bother to read the post from us asking to do a draw down test or are you just thinking of finding ways to attack us. I am not asking about battery performance, I am asking to run a continuous test to see if your circuit can keep the batteries charged. If you don't understand this simple request I can try to put it in a simpler manner for you. ( I typed the above two sentences very slowly for your convenience).

Correct - A battery comparison test probably doesn't mean anything.

Running your circuit continuously for a duration of the battery watt/hour rating will prove something. It will prove if your device performs like you say it will or not. It's that simple.

In the last 10 years have you ran your circuit continuous for the above time period? If not, Why?
Actually I REALLY need to answer this escalating piece of absurdity.  It just gets under the skin. 

The idea in determining the performance of a battery can ONLY BE MEASURED AGAINST ITS WATT HOUR RATING.  IF a battery's watt hour rating is 10 ampere hours - then it means that the battery can deliver 10 amps x 12 volts x 60 seconds x 60 minutes x 1 hour giving a maximum POTENTIAL output of 430 000 JOULES.  This value can be marginally INCREASED OR DECREASED depending on the rate of current discharge. 

THEREFORE to CORRECTLY DETERMINE OUR NUMBERS ALL THAT IS REQUIRED IS TO RUN A CONTROL IN CONJUCTION WITH THE TEST BATTERIES.  Provided that they are dissipating the same amount of heat then one must expect them to discharge at the same rate.  IF THE BATTERIES on the CONTROL discharge BEFORE the batteries on the test - then there is a proof of the TEST BATTERIES are producing the SAME AMOUNT OF WORK at the cost of less energy from that supply.  Therefore there is proof of an OUT PERFORMANCE of the test batteries as determined by their watt hour rating.

There is ABSOLUTELY NO OTHER APPROPRIATE TEST AND THAT TEST ONLY DETERMINES THE CIRCUIT PERFORMANCE AS IT RELATES TO A BATTERY SUPPLY.  There is nothing in our findings that precludes these advantages being shown from any supply source at all - be it a utility supply, or solar or wind generators.

And if you think for one moment that there are any professionals anywhere in the world who care two hoots if your name is Mr Mags or Dr Dolittle - or Professor Poseur - THEN DISABUSE YOURSELF.  No-one cares.  Evidently.  Not even you.

Rosemary


Offline TinselKoala

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 13968
Re: Rosemary Ainslie circuit demonstration on Saturday March 12th 2011
« Reply #1514 on: June 20, 2011, 07:36:07 AM »
MrMag et al,

A draw down test against the amp-hour rating of the battery is only doable if you have an accurate and reliable measurement of the power consumption, or more specifically, the net average ampere usage.

Unless a DMM is placed across the CSR, or if the scope is set to compute MEAN of the CSR trace, we would not know what the net average ampere usage is. And this is a volatile subject all on its own because of the misunderstanding regarding probe orientation.

The best test as I mentioned long ago, is a battery state of charge (SOC) measurement over time. The beauty of this method is that it does not require weeks or months of testing. At most all that would be required is about a week. Take a SOC reading every 12 hours, plot the readings out vs. time, and look for a trend.

.99

PS. Measuring a battery's SOC:
http://www.diy-nos.freeserve.co.uk/testing-battery.htm

Hi .99
Isn't the claim now that the batteries do not discharge.... that the circuit, in operation, keeps the batteries charged?
And the competing claim is that the energy to boil the water, or heat the load, is supplied by the battery and so the battery will discharge at a particular rate... that is, its amp-hour capacity is a published figure and should indicate how long the system should run if nothing unusual were occurring.

So the test proposed by MrMag is simple and good, and doesn't need any sophisticated analysis at all. The energy required to boil a known quantity of water is known, or to heat a load to a certain equilibrium temperature is known (or can be, by calibrating with DC). Hence, all that is necessary to PROVE that Rosemary is right is to show that the circuit will continue to run. If the COP is infinite then the batteries should not discharge at all and the circuit will only stop when a component fails.
On the other hand.... should the circuit only run as long as the battery's A-H capacity would predict..... that would prove something else entirely.

No apparatus beyond the Ainslie circuit and a watch... or calendar.... is needed for this test. You don't even need a control experiment. Just hook the thing up and let it run... and run.... and run...... until the batteries either discharge, or we die of old age.

My predictions are these:
First, Rosemary won't do the simple test.
Second, when the test IS done, the batteries will run down in a normal amount of time.

Don't forget.... who was the FIRST one to boil water using the Ainslie circuit?
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=C7zQdplnCA8