Language: 
To browser these website, it's necessary to store cookies on your computer.
The cookies contain no personal information, they are required for program control.
  the storage of cookies while browsing this website, on Login and Register.

GDPR and DSGVO law

Storing Cookies (See : http://ec.europa.eu/ipg/basics/legal/cookies/index_en.htm ) help us to bring you our services at overunity.com . If you use this website and our services you declare yourself okay with using cookies .More Infos here:
https://overunity.com/5553/privacy-policy/
If you do not agree with storing cookies, please LEAVE this website now. From the 25th of May 2018, every existing user has to accept the GDPR agreement at first login. If a user is unwilling to accept the GDPR, he should email us and request to erase his account. Many thanks for your understanding.
Amazon Warehouse Deals ! Now even more Deep Discounts ! Check out these great prices on slightly used or just opened once only items.I always buy my gadgets via these great Warehouse deals ! Highly recommended ! Many thanks for supporting OverUnity.com this way.

User Menu

Tesla Paper

Free Energy Book

Get paid

Donations

Please Donate for the Forum.
Many thanks.
Regards, Stefan.(Admin)

A-Ads

Powerbox

Smartbox

3D Solar

3D Solar Panels

DC2DC converter

Micro JouleThief

FireMatch

FireMatch

CCKnife

CCKnife

CCTool

CCTool

Magpi Magazine

Magpi Magazine Free Rasberry Pi Magazine

Battery Recondition

Battery Recondition

Arduino

Ultracaps

YT Subscribe

Gravity Machines

Tesla-Ebook

Magnet Secrets

Lindemann Video

Navigation

Products

Products

WaterMotor kit

Statistics

  • *Total Members: 84219
  • *Latest: ab

  • *Total Posts: 897423
  • *Total Topics: 15816
  • *Online Today: 44
  • *Most Online: 103
(December 19, 2006, 11:27:19 PM)
  • *Users: 0
  • *Guests: 30
  • *Total: 30

Author Topic: Rosemary Ainslie circuit demonstration on Saturday March 12th 2011  (Read 635492 times)

Offline Rosemary Ainslie

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 3968
Re: Rosemary Ainslie circuit demonstration on Saturday March 12th 2011
« Reply #270 on: March 24, 2011, 05:12:40 AM »
Hi Mags.

I see you've been really busy.  Very well done for showing that gain.  It seems that this is supported all over the place. 

I'm still hoping against hope that your proof is definitive.  But I want to speak to the guys at CPUT.  They're only back next week.  Another holiday - this time to celebrate Freedom day - which is a tribute to the sacrifices at Sharpville. 

And I trust you've caught up on some of that sleep.  I wish I could say the same. 

Take good care,
Kindest regards
Rosie

Free Energy | searching for free energy and discussing free energy


Offline Rosemary Ainslie

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 3968
Re: Rosemary Ainslie circuit demonstration on Saturday March 12th 2011
« Reply #271 on: March 24, 2011, 05:16:51 AM »
and Woopy - Golly.  Many thanks indeed for that update.  You're the experimentalist here and Mags our thoretician.  Nice combo.

Kindest regards,
Rosemary

Offline poynt99

  • TPU-Elite
  • Hero Member
  • *******
  • Posts: 3582
Re: Rosemary Ainslie circuit demonstration on Saturday March 12th 2011
« Reply #272 on: March 24, 2011, 05:19:13 AM »
The problem being overlooked by many here, is that the battery scope measurement is meaningless unless taken directly across the battery terminals.

Clearly you have not done this Rose, evidenced by the large magnitude of ringing, and the fact that the scope probes in your video are placed on the proto-board somewhere, NOT on the battery terminals.

This really is important, and Stefan you ought to be asking for that imo. All the numbers will come out quite different if this is done.

You would be wise Rose, to make an input power measurement using the two DMM/RC filter method. I think you may be surprised. You are already half way there by using the DMM to measure the voltage of 60V (shown in your video).

.99

Free Energy | searching for free energy and discussing free energy

Re: Rosemary Ainslie circuit demonstration on Saturday March 12th 2011
« Reply #272 on: March 24, 2011, 05:19:13 AM »
Sponsored links:




Offline poynt99

  • TPU-Elite
  • Hero Member
  • *******
  • Posts: 3582
Re: Rosemary Ainslie circuit demonstration on Saturday March 12th 2011
« Reply #273 on: March 24, 2011, 05:20:05 AM »
Yes Neptune, you are correct about what I was trying to get at regarding the voltage divider. ;)

.99

Offline Rosemary Ainslie

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 3968
Re: Rosemary Ainslie circuit demonstration on Saturday March 12th 2011
« Reply #274 on: March 24, 2011, 05:25:56 AM »
The problem being overlooked by many here, is that the battery scope measurement is meaningless unless taken directly across the battery terminals.

Clearly you have not done this Rose, evidenced by the large magnitude of ringing, and the fact that the scope probes in your video are placed on the proto-board somewhere, NOT on the battery terminals.

This really is important, and Stefan you ought to be asking for that imo. All the numbers will come out quite different if this is done.

.99

Poynty.  What you actually mean is that you HOPE all the numbers will come out differently.  Unfortunately - the scope probes cost a FORTUNE and they simply do NOT physcially - SPAN those batteries.  Nor can it be arranged that they do - UNLESS OF COURSE ONE ADDS WIRES?   ::)

Quite apart from which, Poynty Point - if they are WRONG then explain the voltage on the DRAIN.  Is that also a 'spurious' effect?  Whatever the battery is doing - the fact is that the energy is CLEARLY going through them in both directions.  Isn't that the point?  Poynty?

Rosemary

Free Energy | searching for free energy and discussing free energy

Re: Rosemary Ainslie circuit demonstration on Saturday March 12th 2011
« Reply #274 on: March 24, 2011, 05:25:56 AM »
Sponsored links:




Offline poynt99

  • TPU-Elite
  • Hero Member
  • *******
  • Posts: 3582
Re: Rosemary Ainslie circuit demonstration on Saturday March 12th 2011
« Reply #275 on: March 24, 2011, 05:31:45 AM »
The Drain scope trace is irrelevant for your input power measurement.

You need the battery voltage and the battery current. That's it, done.

Remove all your probes and use them near your battery array if you wish to try the scope again for input power. You will need another CSR in series with the battery.

Otherwise, use one DMM to measure the DC current, and another to measure the voltage across the batteries as you are already. Multiply the two, and you have your input power. The meters should provide enough averaging to give you an accurate number. The voltage seemed stable enough, it's just a matter of how stable the current through the meter will be. If it is stable (DC current setting btw), then you are off to the races. ;)

.99

Offline Rosemary Ainslie

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 3968
Re: Rosemary Ainslie circuit demonstration on Saturday March 12th 2011
« Reply #276 on: March 24, 2011, 05:37:56 AM »
The Drain scope trace is irrelevant for your input power measurement.

You need the battery voltage and the battery current. That's it, done.

Remove all your probes and use them near your battery array if you wish to try the scope again for input power. You will need another CSR in series with the battery.

Otherwise, use one DMM to measure the DC current, and another to measure the voltage across the batteries as you are already. Multiply the two, and you have your input power. The meters should provide enough averaging to give you an accurate number. The voltage seemed stable enough, it's just a matter of how stable the current through the meter will be. If it is stable (DC current setting btw), then you are off to the races. ;)

.99

When you find a DMM that can manage the frequency at those oscillations then let me know. 

And what does that mean ' off to the racees '?  I've never heard the expression.

Regards,
Rosemary

Free Energy | searching for free energy and discussing free energy

Re: Rosemary Ainslie circuit demonstration on Saturday March 12th 2011
« Reply #276 on: March 24, 2011, 05:37:56 AM »
Sponsored links:




Offline poynt99

  • TPU-Elite
  • Hero Member
  • *******
  • Posts: 3582
Re: Rosemary Ainslie circuit demonstration on Saturday March 12th 2011
« Reply #277 on: March 24, 2011, 05:46:34 AM »
When you find a DMM that can manage the frequency at those oscillations then let me know. 

And what does that mean ' off to the racees '?  I've never heard the expression.

Regards,
Rosemary

Are you measuring the battery voltage with a DMM in your video? I seem to recall seeing both a ~60VDC measurement, and a ~50VDC measurement.

How did the meter manage the high frequency at those two measurements?

Off to the races:
http://idioms.thefreedictionary.com/off+to+the+races

.99

Offline Rosemary Ainslie

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 3968
Re: Rosemary Ainslie circuit demonstration on Saturday March 12th 2011
« Reply #278 on: March 24, 2011, 06:03:34 AM »
Guys,  it is very evident that the only way these results can be refuted is to look to AVERAGING everything in reach.  If one relies on averages - then I am reasonably certain that one could also, thereby deny the measurements.  BUT.  It would need to be applied in the face of the required classical measurement protocols.  This is Poynty's and Humbuggers last ditch argument.

The ENTIRE reason that we put up those two demonstrations was to SHOW that what is known of in 'school classical' as 'parasitic oscillation' has got exploitable advantages that have NOT been evaluated - thus far - by that same school classical.  Those oscillations move in both directions across zero indicating that energy is both delivered and returned.  They correspond to the voltages measured at the drain so there is clear evidence that current is flowing first from and then back to the supply source.  The ONLY appropriate question then is this.  Is there more or less energy being returned?  What the Our team boffins are trying to imply here is that NO significant energy is being returned and this can be SHOWN , SOMEHOW?  by looking at the results on a DMM.  Which is interesting.  Becuase there is no DMM that can show this happening.  What the DMM will do is 'average' that value.  Essentially the argument is this.  DO NOT LOOK AT THE EVIDENCE THROUGH A MICROSCOPE.  Just use your eyes.  I am entirely satisfied that if we did just use our eyes - then we would indeed not be able to evaluate that advantage. 

We do, indeed, use a DMM to show the overall voltage on the battery only to double check that this corresponds to the mean average voltage that we show on our scope.  But we are absolutely NOT interested in that average.  We are interested in the moment by moment benefit of that oscillation.  Unless, of course, there is some merit in refusing to do a detailed evaluation.  Then we can just claim that the retained level of charge on the battery is the anomaly and this would then NEVER be able to proven.  You catch the drift - I hope.  We would then be left arguing which battery gives the best benefit - which is absolutely a never ending argument - and, as intended, will entirely obscure the actual questions that have been addressed.

Poynty.  Stop scraping that barrel.  You and Humbugger are tediously trying to refute these measurments.  I see that Cheeseburger is now claiming that there was no-one at the demo.  Tell him, from me, that we did that video at about 4 o'clock in the afternoon - having shown those results during that extended time period - from 11 am through to 4 pm.  Indeed, at 4 there were only 6 of us still there.

What ludicrous depths will you two go to to deny all this.

Regards,
Rosemary

Free Energy | searching for free energy and discussing free energy

Re: Rosemary Ainslie circuit demonstration on Saturday March 12th 2011
« Reply #278 on: March 24, 2011, 06:03:34 AM »
3D Solar Panels

Offline poynt99

  • TPU-Elite
  • Hero Member
  • *******
  • Posts: 3582
Re: Rosemary Ainslie circuit demonstration on Saturday March 12th 2011
« Reply #279 on: March 24, 2011, 06:09:46 AM »
Guys,  it is very evident that the only way these results can be refuted is to look to AVERAGING everything in reach.  If one relies on averages - then I am reasonably certain that one could also, thereby deny the measurements.  BUT.  It would need to be applied in the face of the required classical measurement protocols.  This is Poynty's and Humbuggers last ditch argument.

The ENTIRE reason that we put up those two demonstrations was to SHOW that what is known of in 'school classical' as 'parasitic oscillation' has got exploitable advantages that have NOT been evaluated - thus far - by that same school classical.  Those oscillations move in both directions across zero indicating that energy is both delivered and returned.  They correspond to the voltages measured at the drain so there is clear evidence that current is flowing first from and then back to the supply source.  The ONLY appropriate question then is this.  Is there more or less energy being returned?  What the Our team boffins are trying to imply here is that NO significant energy is being returned and this can be SHOWN , SOMEHOW?  by looking at the results on a DMM.  Which is interesting.  Becuase there is no DMM that can show this happening.  What the DMM will do is 'average' that value.  Essentially the argument is this.  DO NOT LOOK AT THE EVIDENCE THROUGH A MICROSCOPE.  Just use your eyes.  I am entirely satisfied that if we did just use our eyes - then we would indeed not be able to evaluate that advantage. 

We do, indeed, use a DMM to show the overall voltage on the battery only to double check that this corresponds to the mean average voltage that we show on our scope.  But we are absolutely NOT interested in that average.  We are interested in the moment by moment benefit of that oscillation.  Unless, of course, there is some merit in refusing to do a detailed evaluation.  Then we can just claim that the retained level of charge on the battery is the anomaly and this would then NEVER be able to proven.  You catch the drift - I hope.  We would then be left arguing which battery gives the best benefit - which is absolutely a never ending argument - and, as intended, will entirely obscure the actual questions that have been addressed.

Poynty.  Stop scraping that barrel.  You and Humbugger are tediously trying to refute these measurments.  I see that Cheeseburger is now claiming that there was no-one at the demo.  Tell him, from me, that we did that video at about 4 o'clock in the afternoon - having shown those results during that extended time period - from 11 am through to 4 pm.  Indeed, at 4 there were only 6 of us still there.

What ludicrous depths will you two go to to deny all this.

Regards,
Rosemary

Thank you for that confirmation regarding the DMM battery voltage measurement being valid. Now, do the same with another such meter, but this time use it as a current meter.

It is perfectly valid to heavily average both the battery voltage and battery current measurements for INPUT power only. Multiply the two averaged values together to obtain the average input power from the batteries.

It's that simple Rose.

.99

Offline Rosemary Ainslie

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 3968
Re: Rosemary Ainslie circuit demonstration on Saturday March 12th 2011
« Reply #280 on: March 24, 2011, 06:23:07 AM »
Thank you for that confirmation regarding the DMM battery voltage measurement being valid. Now, do the same with another such meter, but this time use it as a current meter.

It is perfectly valid to heavily average both the battery voltage and battery current measurements for INPUT power only. Multiply the two averaged values together to obtain the average input power from the batteries.

It's that simple Rose.

I confirm that the DMM can do an AVERAGE.  Now.  Tell me, if you can, how an analysis of those averages accommodates the advantage of the phase angles - that 180 degree phase angle?  Or is it that this will be entirely obscured?  And is this - perhaps - why you so URGENTLY require this? 

Again,
Rosemary

Free Energy | searching for free energy and discussing free energy

Re: Rosemary Ainslie circuit demonstration on Saturday March 12th 2011
« Reply #280 on: March 24, 2011, 06:23:07 AM »
3D Solar Panels

Offline Rosemary Ainslie

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 3968
Re: Rosemary Ainslie circuit demonstration on Saturday March 12th 2011
« Reply #281 on: March 24, 2011, 08:16:18 AM »
Guys - Stefan - all - I really need to make this clear.  There are readers on this forum that are not that used to the spreadsheet analysis and the significance of this.  Many of you are - like me - amateurs.  And the most of you interested in experimenting on the claims in these threads.  But this point needs saying and I hope you can bend your mind around it.   For those who already know this - apologies for stating the obvious.

Power measurements are based on wattage which is determined by vi dt.  The more samples to determine that voltage the more exact is that value likely to be.  Now.  What surprised me is how accurate is this.  One example is that one can take a voltage sample across the battery and it never defaults past zero - and one can take the voltage average of the drain - and nor does this cross zero.  And yet - when you do an instantaneous analysis of this - being a product of the battery voltage and the drain voltage - then that voltage can CERTAINLY show a repeated zero crossing.  And that also, PERFECTLY reflects the shape of the waveform across the load resistor as evidenced.  Perhaps Humbybumble can check this out.  He seems to think that two postives can NEVER result in a negative.  Little does he know.

I'm entirely unschooled.  So this was REALLY interesting to me.  The more so as this gave an exact depiction of the waveform across that resistor as shown in the scope shots that we managed off our Fluke (borrowed for a VERY short time).

The same principle is evident in the actual wattage delivered to and from the battery.  Here we have evidence that the shunt is recharging the battery when the battery voltage is at its highest - and that it's discharging the battery when the battery voltage is at it's lowest.  Therefore the battery recharge always trumps the discharge.  I'll try and download some spread sheet shots.  God knows how this is done - but it must, surely be possible.

Meanwhile - just to recap the principle.  The 'clockwise' flow of current is multiplied by the battery battery voltage - multiple samples through that entire period.  Then the the 'anti clockwise flow of current is multiplied by the battery voltage - multiple samples through that entire period.  That way, and ONLY in that way - can one take the actual phase of the two voltages into account.  Stefan I do hope you get this. The ONLY way to determine the energy delivered from those batteries is, as Poynty et al first claimed and are now ANXIOUSLY denying - is to take INSTANTANEOUS WATTAGE ANALYSIS.  If you rely on mean average voltages then - by all means - feel free.  But it is absolutely NOT correct power analysis.  I HOPE THIS IS CLEAR.  I seem to keep having to say it.

AND this is for ALLCANADIAN.  It is ABSURD  to claim that collapsing fields - in whichever direction - can exceed the resistance of an opposing diode.  Just rethink this please.  If the current flow is negative - then - in relation to the drain it will show POSITIVE.  That absolutely DOES NOT MEAN that current has continued to flow in the same direction.  What a load of nonsense.

If you think about this in terms of an AC current flow through a rectifier - then here's what happens.  Above zero - the current flows clockwise.  Below zero the current flows anti clockwise.  with reference to the drain - BOTH will appear to be above zero.  BUT that is absolutely NOT a relfection of the paths they have taken through that circuitry.

Regards,
Rosemary

ADDED.  Btw.  What worries me is that I have to explain this.  I'm the amateur guys.  What gives?  Is there an agenda here?  Or is it that you really don't know these things?  Golly.  ???  ::)
« Last Edit: March 24, 2011, 10:10:42 AM by Rosemary Ainslie »

Offline Rosemary Ainslie

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 3968
Re: Rosemary Ainslie circuit demonstration on Saturday March 12th 2011
« Reply #282 on: March 24, 2011, 09:32:24 AM »
And Guys, in this repeated effort to cast aspersions - as freely as confetti at a wedding - is the new claim that the VV math trace is, confused by us all, as a reflection of wattage.  I challenge ANY ONE OF THOSE MISINFORMANTS ON POYNTY'S FORUM to show any SINGLE reference by any one of us - either in the demonstration or on any posts here - or on my blog that  we have referred to that math trace representing a WATTAGE VALUE.

This, again, is in the hopes of spreading the general impression that none of us know whereof we speak.  As it is, right now, I'm rather concerned that they really do NOT know.  Because if they do - then why are they going to such extraordinary lengths to misinform everyone.  What we reference is that the math trace represents the product of two voltages.  That's the limit of the math capability on those DSO's - as it does not offer us a formula option.  Or if it does, then the fault is mine.  I do not know how to apply it.  But the product of two voltages is an accurate guide because, if it is negative - then that will reflect in the wattage analysis.  And if it is positive then that too will reflect in the analysis.  It is a GUIDE.  And we only ever reference it as a GUIDE.

I'm heartily sick of having to refer to these things.  And if I don't, then - as has happened before - there is the chance that those who are interested in this - will simply assume that all is based on ERROR.  And that is the one thing that I cannot allow to happen again.  There is always risk associated with posting on these forums.  There are many who are actively engaged in refuting all.  When the claims are small and the evidence weak - then those poor experimentalists get some kind of license to continue.  But when they're strong - then - as sure day follows night - we/they will be dogged by attacks that are personal, inappropriate or entirely erroneous.  In my case I've been accused of every possible criminal motive coupled with every possible psychotic afflication, coupled with every possible lack of ability, training or intelligence.  Makes one think.   To the best of my knowledge I don't think that there has ever been this scale of attack on any other technology as has been mounted against us here.  And - frankly - therein is my comfort.  Why would they bother if they weren't somehow deeply concerned?  It doesn't help that there are also those who are sincerely blinded to this reach and march alongside and trumpet all that denial.  And this,  simply because they don't have the intellectual acumen required to analyse the facts for themselves.

And what's doubly frightening is that they manage to discourage - not only us the poor ou promotors - who are already confronting mainstream and classical school - but those that dare replicate or take these claims seriously.  Everyone has been calling for careful measurement.  I think we've obliged.  Certainly to extent of my pocket and our combined skills.  yet is seems that there's still an ongoing need, apparently, is to devote huge chapters of my time - trying to rescue the evidence from a concerted attempt at diminishing it.  If it's within my capability - I will not let that happen again. 

Kindest regards,
Rosemary




Offline Rosemary Ainslie

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 3968
Re: Rosemary Ainslie circuit demonstration on Saturday March 12th 2011
« Reply #283 on: March 24, 2011, 04:13:07 PM »
Guys,  I can't get the test up again until Saturday.  Meanwhile this is for Harti.  It will be a whole wack of screen shots - and I'll give comments against each one.  So.  Apologies for this but there'll be multiple posts following.

This one.
Channel 1 = Rshunt
Channel 2 = Vbatt
Channel 3 = Gate
Channel 4 = Drain

These settings never vary.


a - cycle mean rshunt
b - math trace a x c
c - mean average vbatt
d - mean average rshunt

Typically an example of very high wattage disssipation at the load.  In this case > 44 watts
Note that the cycle mean is negative - the mean average is positive. 
Math trace - as in all examples stays negative.

Included here to remind you all that high wattage dissipation does not automatically result in a postive cycle mean average.  AGAIN.  That example used in the demonstration was intended to highlight the concern related to the phase condition of those voltages that result in an infinite COP.

Added

« Last Edit: March 24, 2011, 09:07:03 PM by Rosemary Ainslie »

Offline Rosemary Ainslie

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 3968
Re: Rosemary Ainslie circuit demonstration on Saturday March 12th 2011
« Reply #284 on: March 24, 2011, 04:19:55 PM »
2nd example.

Settings the same as previous.  This an example of a 'runaway' heat rise that required quick disconnection.  No idea of the actual wattage output.  Certainly in excess of 44 watts.  Shown here to again highlght the point that we do not ALWAYS get a positive mean average voltage across the shunt.  And again.  It was simply used in the demonstration to highlight the advantage of the phase angles that result in an infinite COP.

Note that the cycle mean and the mean average voltages are negative.
Note also that the spikes are no longer periodic.  They're all over the place.

Also.  The spikes on the mosfet are VERY HIGH.  This was always our guide that we were stressing the system.  When I saw this we disconnected - at speed.  Max temperature measured was to 220 degrees centigrade.  Didn't risk taking it higher.

 

OneLink