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 657943 times)

Offline Rosemary Ainslie

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 3968
Re: Rosemary Ainslie circuit demonstration on Saturday March 12th 2011
« Reply #375 on: March 27, 2011, 04:52:03 AM »
Stefan,

Second (see scope shot below), realize that you are only looking at about half of the cycle. The other half clearly shows that there is positive current sourced from the battery. I have highlighted this in a red elipse.

In summary; the shunt voltage mean value shown is of no use, and does not reflect what the real average current is for that measurement.

.99

Well Poynty.  I hope this is still on the same page that we can still reference that RED ELIPSE.  You forgot to add those BIG SPIKES AT THE TRANSITIONAL PHASES OF THE SWITCH.  Roughly 10 volts above zero and 30 volts below zero.  During THAT moment we have 10/0.25 = 40 amps from the battery and 30/0.25 = 120 volts being returned to the battery.  AS WE ALL KNOW the one spike never manifests at the same time as another.  THEREFORE over time 40 amps * vbatt was deliverd and THEN 120 amps * vbatt was returned.  Factor that in together with the amount of time that the current was flowing during the 'ON' time of the switch or we'd be inclined to think that you're only looking at one side of your argument.

Now.  Assume that the battery average is applied during those spikes.  P = vi dt - therefore during those two moments we have 40 amps * 73.3 volts = a staggering 2 932.00 WATTS discharged and 120 amps * 73.3 volts returned = an even more staggering 8 798 WATTS returned to the battery.  And that's not all.  We then also have another problem.  The actual voltage during the flow of that 40 amps FROM THE BATTERY trends to less than 73.3 volts.  And the actual voltage during the flow of 120 amps BACK TO THE BATTERY trends to more than 73.3 volts. 

Rosemary

Offline poynt99

  • TPU-Elite
  • Hero Member
  • *******
  • Posts: 3582
Re: Rosemary Ainslie circuit demonstration on Saturday March 12th 2011
« Reply #376 on: March 27, 2011, 04:52:58 AM »
Folks,

I tried.   :-\

.99

Offline Poit

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 295
Re: Rosemary Ainslie circuit demonstration on Saturday March 12th 2011
« Reply #377 on: March 27, 2011, 05:03:06 AM »
@ Rosemary:
In a nut shell, what do you plan to do? patent your device and sell it? or open source it and give it to the world?

Offline Rosemary Ainslie

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 3968
Re: Rosemary Ainslie circuit demonstration on Saturday March 12th 2011
« Reply #378 on: March 27, 2011, 05:10:26 AM »
@ Rosemary:
In a nut shell, what do you plan to do? patent your device and sell it? or open source it and give it to the world?

Poit.  It is absolutely and categorically and empirically and in fact and in truth - ENTIRELY UNPATENTABLE - is the first point.  It is that well known.  It is therefore NOT mine to sell and nor is it mine to GIVE.  All we've done is try - really, really hard - to show you what you've all been throwing away - simply because Mr Kirchhoff has claimed an EQUIVALENCE in the transfer of electromagnetic energy - WHICH HAS NEVER BEEN REQUIRED BY Mr Faraday.  We're not even breaking the rules here.  IT'S THAT SIMPLE.

Offline Rosemary Ainslie

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 3968
Re: Rosemary Ainslie circuit demonstration on Saturday March 12th 2011
« Reply #379 on: March 27, 2011, 05:20:38 AM »
Folks,

I tried.   :-\

.99

Poynty - that's a COP OUT.  You make an obscure point which NO-ONE on the forum gets and then you throw your hands up in exasperation.  And then you and your dogs will continue to MUTTER about the incompetence and the lack of understanding and God knows what else that afflicts ALL EVERYWHERE ELSE.  If there was a simple answer then I'm entirely satisified that - not me - but those that I've been working with - would MOST CERTAINLY have found it.  We're looking.  You're trying to stop us from looking.  WHY?

AND WHY do you want to AVERAGE everything when that obscures the classically required method of determining wattage?  BY DEFINITION vi dt requires an exact approximation to time.  Are you saying school classical is WRONG?

Rosemary

ADDED
Sorry.  'Exact approximation' is tautological.  What I really mean is as precise a relationship to time as can be managed.  And it's very, very well managed on the sampling range offered by our LeCroy.

STILL WRONG.  Not tautological.  Mutually exclusive.  Something like that.  In any event.  It can't be both exact and an approximation.  Golly.  I'll get there eventually.

LOL  You've probably got it right -  Poynty Point.  It's presumptuous of me to consider myself an idiot as you've already pointed out.    :o ;D
« Last Edit: March 27, 2011, 06:00:22 AM by Rosemary Ainslie »

Offline cHeeseburger

  • Newbie
  • *
  • Posts: 46
Re: Rosemary Ainslie circuit demonstration on Saturday March 12th 2011
« Reply #380 on: March 27, 2011, 05:56:49 AM »
Well Poynty.  I hope this is still on the same page that we can still reference that RED ELIPSE.  You forgot to add those BIG SPIKES AT THE TRANSITIONAL PHASES OF THE SWITCH.  Roughly 10 volts above zero and 30 volts below zero.  During THAT moment we have 10/0.25 = 40 amps from the battery and 30/0.25 = 120 volts being returned to the battery.  AS WE ALL KNOW the one spike never manifests at the same time as another.  THEREFORE over time 40 amps * vbatt was deliverd and THEN 120 amps * vbatt was returned.  Factor that in together with the amount of time that the current was flowing during the 'ON' time of the switch or we'd be inclined to think that you're only looking at one side of your argument.

Now.  Assume that the battery average is applied during those spikes.  P = vi dt - therefore during those two moments we have 40 amps * 73.3 volts = a staggering 2 932.00 WATTS discharged and 120 amps * 73.3 volts returned = an even more staggering 8 798 WATTS returned to the battery.  And that's not all.  We then also have another problem.  The actual voltage during the flow of that 40 amps FROM THE BATTERY trends to less than 73.3 volts.  And the actual voltage during the flow of 120 amps BACK TO THE BATTERY trends to more than 73.3 volts. 

Rosemary

The answer to all these completely unbelievable numbers and where they come from is, once again, already explained thoroughly.

1) Your shunt is not 0.25Ohms and it is not primarily a resistor,  It is more like 1.5 Ohms and primarily an inductor (at 1.5MHz)

2)  The spikes you see at the transitions of the gate drive signal contain even higher frequency energy than the 1.5MHz waves,  Therefore, the shunt impedance, being primarily inductive, is far higher yet to these spikes, probably around 10 or more Ohms.  As I hope you know, the voltage spike on an inductance does not relate to the value of the current but only to how fast the current is changing (di dt).  This is why even low inductances in a shunt for high frequency work ESPECIALLY WHEN SAMPLING AND MULTIPLYING are being used to derive instantaneous POWER points is STRICTLY TABOO.

3)  Those current spikes, on the order of an Ampere or two peak in reality, are contained entirely in the current loop that is constrained to the gate-source, signal generator and shunt loop and do not even appear at the battery

This has all been explained very clearly several times before,

Kindest Regards


Humbugger
« Last Edit: March 27, 2011, 01:45:58 PM by cHeeseburger »

Offline Magluvin

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 5884
Re: Rosemary Ainslie circuit demonstration on Saturday March 12th 2011
« Reply #381 on: March 27, 2011, 06:14:22 AM »
Hey Rose  =]

Was wondering.  How did you get involved in this project?  What were the the beginnings that got you started in this pursuit? 

Mags

Offline cHeeseburger

  • Newbie
  • *
  • Posts: 46
Re: Rosemary Ainslie circuit demonstration on Saturday March 12th 2011
« Reply #382 on: March 27, 2011, 06:24:20 AM »

Now.  Regarding that equation.  P never, to the best of my knowledge - is represented in any of those equations that you've put forward.  Power is ALWAYS vi dt.  Or Volts x amps x time.  THAT's it.  You can try and argue this till the cows come home Poynty.  This is the fundamental requirement for wattage analysis and this over time = POWER.  NOTHING ELSE.


Rosemary,

I have frequently noticed your Power Equation P = vi dt and refrained from commenting.  Now that you have asserted that so ferociously and implied that Poynt is ignorant when he says P=V*I simply (which is correct), I feel I must comment.

The term "dt" in electronics, statistics and math in general means RATE and refers, of course, to time.  .  dv/dt is the rate of change of a voltage and is given in Volts per second.  di/dt is the rate of change of current, given in Amperes per second.

Power is the rate of energy usage per unit time.  Power is also simply Voltage times current and is an instantaneous quantity apart from time.  It is measured in Watts.  Pwatts = Vvolts x Iamperes.   There is no "dt" involved in calculations of power except where energy consumed or supplied (i.e. rate of change or transfer) per unit time is known and one wishes to find the power:  p = dw/dt where w is energy in Joules, p is power in Watts and t is seconds.  Saying p = vi dt makes no sense given that p = vi, plain and simple.

Energy is Power times Time, pt.  One Watt that is available for one second is one Joule or one Watt-second.  Ten Watts that is available for 10 seconds is 100 Joules or 100 Watt-seconds.

If you have 1 billion Watts for 1 nanosecond, you have one Joule of energy.

But I know you already know this...I've seen you use these relationships correctly many times.

Neither p (instantaneous power) nor P (average Power over time) is correctly expressed as vi dt.  The equation for average power in a repeating non-sinusoidal waveform is far more complex and involves a DC component and the amplitude and phase relationships of all the AC sinewave voltage and current components as derived from a Fourier Series. 

This is essentially what your scopes are doing in a somewhat different way AND THE AMPLITUES AND PHASE ANGLES BETWEEN THE VOLTAGE AND CURRENT AT ALL PRESENT FREQUENCIES MUST BE ACCURATELY FED INTO THE SCOPE OR IT JUST DOESN'T WORK OUT THE RIGHT ANSWER.

Cheers,

Humbugger
« Last Edit: March 27, 2011, 02:42:39 PM by cHeeseburger »

Offline Poit

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 295
Re: Rosemary Ainslie circuit demonstration on Saturday March 12th 2011
« Reply #383 on: March 27, 2011, 06:26:24 AM »
@ Rosemary:

Thank you for your response.

Please forgive my stupid questions, but heres another :)

Could you please explain in a short paragraph what exactly you have? (i.e demonstrating). I understand it is some sort of heating device. I've tried reading the posts surrounding this demonstration, but get quickly bamboozled by all the tech talk. I would consider my self a novice inventor and have a keen interest in OU, not a great understanding of electronics (but enough to get by - i.e basics, what the components do and why etc etc).

If this question has anoyyed you, please disregard, as I would understand if you declined to answer (due to the ignorance on my half) - sorry

Poit (Peter)

P.S If this is something that is unpatenable and something that you feel members here have missed, would it be feasible for a step by step guide to build this invention? again sorry for the ignorant questions :) Thank you

Offline Rosemary Ainslie

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 3968
Re: Rosemary Ainslie circuit demonstration on Saturday March 12th 2011
« Reply #384 on: March 27, 2011, 06:28:03 AM »
Hey Rose  =]

Was wondering.  How did you get involved in this project?  What were the the beginnings that got you started in this pursuit? 

Mags

Hello Mags.  SO NICE TO SEE YOU AROUND.  You don't want to know.  It's a long story.  I was trying to prove a magnetic field model.  It needed the electromagnetic force to be controlled by - or based on - a one dimensional magnetic field.  The strong nuclear force needed to be based on a 2 dimensional field.  And gravity on a three dimensional field.  I could only PROVE it on the electromagnetic force.  Which is why I put that circuit together.  So.  The argument is that ALL is magnetic.  In other words it's a FUNDAMENTAL force and it has its own particles.  It's just that - in a field - they move at faster than light speed.  So.  Light can't find it.  It's invisible.  And since our astrophysicists are LOOKING FOR precisely this 'invisible' particle or 'dark energy' in a 'dark force' - then I'm inclined to think that it's right here.  In the magnetic field.  It's way too prosaic and too obvious to appeal to our learneds.  And, unfortunately, it's apparently too complex to appeal to the general public.  So.  I've fallen between two chairs. 

But that's a really long argument.  To me it was as clear as daylight.  So far there are precisely 6 people that I know understand it and possibly another dozen or so who are not owning up to understanding it.  So.  To my surprise - it's actually not that clear at all. 

But I would absolutely not recommend you get embroiled in it.  It's not for the faint hearted and it's not relevant to what this proof shows.  What's needed here are APPLICATIONS.  IF, that is, we can convince anyone at all.  Neptune suggests we stop trying to convince the academics and just concentrate on the possible uses.  And it's probably a good suggestion.

Offline Rosemary Ainslie

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 3968
Re: Rosemary Ainslie circuit demonstration on Saturday March 12th 2011
« Reply #385 on: March 27, 2011, 06:43:16 AM »
@ Rosemary:

Could you please explain in a short paragraph what exactly you have? (i.e demonstrating). I understand it is some sort of heating device. I've tried reading the posts surrounding this demonstration, but get quickly bamboozled by all the tech talk. I would consider my self a novice inventor and have a keen interest in OU, not a great understanding of electronics (but enough to get by - i.e basics, what the components do and why etc etc).

Poit - it's a good question.  The 'how to' is probably best explained by Neptune et al.  The 'what we have' is - we think - a means of getting an energy efficiency which our measurments show is pretty jolly good.  We have great difficulty in measuring any energy at all 'supplied' by an energy supply source - for a great deal of energy 'dissipated'.  The arguments are that there are errors in measurements.  It's a valid argument.  We need to explore WHERE those errors may be.  But - thus far - we've not found them.  Poynty et al - who probably represent the 'control' in a sort of experimental way - claim that we are wrong because we're not AVERAGING the values.  But - as I've been trying to point out - mainstream will NOT ALLOW AN AVERAGING.  Even if they did - we can get the experiment to show that EVEN WITH AVERAGING we have a gain. 

Hope that makes it clearer.

P.S If this is something that is unpatenable and something that you feel members here have missed, would it be feasible for a step by step guide to build this invention? again sorry for the ignorant questions :) Thank you
It probably would.  But I am most reluctant to recommend 'replications'.  This because a previous excursion in this direction resulted in a jealous attempt to appropriate that as a discovery.  This is counter productive.  It would deny the thesis that preceded the claim and it would open it to patenting options which we've been at GREAT PAINS AND EXPENSE to avoid.  And more to the point - PRECISE replications are IMPOSSIBLE.  How may ways are there to generate Back electromotive force?  And how many ways can one generate parasitic oscillations?  I'm not sure it could EVER be determined.  What we're trying to encourage people to do is to look at the value in that - and to stop throwing it away.  Because, according to the numbers that we show - there's a surprising evidence of an awful lot of energy that is also very exploitable.

Again.  Hopefully that helps explain things.

Kindest regards,
Rosemary
[/quote]

Offline Poit

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 295
Re: Rosemary Ainslie circuit demonstration on Saturday March 12th 2011
« Reply #386 on: March 27, 2011, 06:49:15 AM »
Thank you :)

Offline Magluvin

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 5884
Re: Rosemary Ainslie circuit demonstration on Saturday March 12th 2011
« Reply #387 on: March 27, 2011, 06:59:31 AM »
Hey Rose

Very cool.    So you've been in the deep end of the pool.  ;]

I always blew off ideas of aether, or energy from the vacuum, dark energy/matter.  But once I got into the Faraday Paradox, a lot of things look different to me.  Just the fact that the magnet could move with the conducting plate and current was still produced, opens doors. 
Imagine a magnet/coil and led arraignment that you could just attach to the spokes of a bicycle wheel and as the wheel spins, led lights.

My beginnings was in 7th grade. Found books in the library on perpetual motion. I made many wheels. My grand father helped. =]
He was an inventor as was his dad.  I think Great grandpa Carl may have known Tesla, as they both had dealings with Westinghouse in Pittsburgh, 60 miles from home.
Carl had a setup in the early 1910s that was what looked like 2 motors connected at the shaft and all wires connected to a box with a switch.  Flip the switch and spin the shaft by hand and off it went.
He had shown it around town, so ha had many witnesses. But the men in black of 1910 came and made threats. He dismantled the device.

So here we are. I think we are on the edge of rediscovering many things that were discouraged many years ago.

This Gabriel transformer is a huge discovery.  It is described in a Tesla pat  433702.  We could have had this back then. Less power in than out.  Thank God for Tesla, and having the paperwork still available to find.  Its hard to decipher the intentions of his patents. But once you get one of them, you learn how to read into others the same and you get more out of it.

;]

Mags 

Offline kEhYo77

  • Full Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 241
Re: Rosemary Ainslie circuit demonstration on Saturday March 12th 2011
« Reply #388 on: March 27, 2011, 07:00:43 AM »
I have found interesting bit of information about parasitic oscillations of MOSFETs in PARALLEL (the condition is to have more than one!):
www.microsemi.com/micnotes/APT0402.pdf

Offline Rosemary Ainslie

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 3968
Re: Rosemary Ainslie circuit demonstration on Saturday March 12th 2011
« Reply #389 on: March 27, 2011, 07:08:30 AM »
Hello KeHYo.  I also saw that link.  Very interesting.  And note that the only recommendation is to get rid of it.  LOL.  What fixates my attention is that zero crossing.  I wonder if we shouldn't try and digest the implications here.  It's very telling.

And Mags, very interesting.  I think once one gets into aether energy - then one just becomes obsessed.  It's the nature of the beast.  It just calls for so much attention.  Hopefully we've got aether energy here or dark energy or whatever anyone wants to call it.  We need all that abundance.

Good stuff guys.  I'm off for the day.  Nice mornings postings.

Rosemary