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 657931 times)

Offline Rosemary Ainslie

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 3968
Re: Rosemary Ainslie circuit demonstration on Saturday March 12th 2011
« Reply #450 on: March 30, 2011, 03:43:45 PM »
@Rosemary - Yikes, now I realise why you normally don't expand more on what you believe to be the true source of the energy, especially here - that's more along the lines of alchemy than electricity, I bet people have been lynched for lesser heresies! :D

LOL.  I think I've had my share of being publicly lynched.  In fact it never stops.  The latest is to be banned from even viewing OUR.com when I wasn't even a member.  So.  Banned from all 4 forums where I've ever posted -  and not less than 7 threads flamed and locked - possibly as many as 9.  Which none of it does much to promote me as a peace loving individual with more than just a passing interest in clean green.  I must say I'm enjoying an uncharacteristically long period of relative tolerance and calm.  And I think that's due to Harti's direct moderation.  Long may it last.  But I must say I'm anticipating the inevitable '1st post' of a newbie - who'll again remind me how unpopular these findings are.  And, as ever, I sincerely believe their reward for all that effort is more than just emotional.  But there you go.

I've said it before.  All that repetitious history marching alongside these our 'claims' and I've become a firm believer in conspiracies.  Which is widely dismissed as further evidence of my pathological paranoid delusions.  And, as ever, my excuse is that never before has anyone been so thoroughly deluded by so much evidence.  It would all be really comical if it weren't quite so sad.

Anyway - that was a nice little rant.  I'm feeling somewhat bruised at this latest intervention at OUR.com.   

Kindest regards
Rosemary


Offline Rosemary Ainslie

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 3968
Re: Rosemary Ainslie circuit demonstration on Saturday March 12th 2011
« Reply #451 on: March 30, 2011, 03:51:37 PM »
Guys, just to get back on topic.  Regarding Sprocket 'giving up' as he did previously - due to lack of anything apparently happening -  I need to warn any replicators.  The actual resonance - be it from 1 MOSFET  for that single spike or from many to generate this new mad oscillation - please just know that tuning is everything.  It needs patience and possibly some time turning those pots or the settings on the FG.  Nothing easy about this.  I was speaking to a replicator the night before last about just this truth.  We've decided that God is forcing us to look hard to find the benefit.  In desperation I had to mark the settings on my functions generator to get a guide - and even then the actual moment is 'elusive'.  It's a really, really subtle moment.  So be warned.  And then you need a lot of patience.  If any of you get close to that then perhaps get in touch with me and I'll see if I can help you get there.  At least I can explain what to look for.

Kindest as ever,
Rosemary

Offline FredWalter

  • Full Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 124
Re: Rosemary Ainslie circuit demonstration on Saturday March 12th 2011
« Reply #452 on: March 30, 2011, 04:10:45 PM »
It needs patience and possibly some time turning those pots or the settings on the FG.  Nothing easy about this.

Why not automate the tuning using software+a computer driving the frequency generator+something measuring the output that is fed back into the computer, so that software can monitor the frequency in versus the output?

Offline Rosemary Ainslie

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 3968
Re: Rosemary Ainslie circuit demonstration on Saturday March 12th 2011
« Reply #453 on: March 30, 2011, 04:34:59 PM »
Why not automate the tuning using software+a computer driving the frequency generator+something measuring the output that is fed back into the computer, so that software can monitor the frequency in versus the output?

One of our team members mentioned this, way back.  It's apparently MORE than feasible.  Just not to hand - for me.  But you're right.  I'd forgotten this.  It can, indeed be automated through software.  This is definitely doable.

Rosemary

Offline powercat

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 1091
Re: Rosemary Ainslie circuit demonstration on Saturday March 12th 2011
« Reply #454 on: March 30, 2011, 04:42:46 PM »
Guys, just to get back on topic.  Regarding Sprocket 'giving up' as he did previously - due to lack of anything apparently happening -  I need to warn any replicators.  The actual resonance - be it from 1 MOSFET  for that single spike or from many to generate this new mad oscillation - please just know that tuning is everything.  It needs patience and possibly some time turning those pots or the settings on the FG.  Nothing easy about this.  I was speaking to a replicator the night before last about just this truth.  We've decided that God is forcing us to look hard to find the benefit.  In desperation I had to mark the settings on my functions generator to get a guide - and even then the actual moment is 'elusive'.  It's a really, really subtle moment.  So be warned.  And then you need a lot of patience.  If any of you get close to that then perhaps get in touch with me and I'll see if I can help you get there.  At least I can explain what to look for.

Kindest as ever,
Rosemary

Wow Rosie
that was some statement.You now need to be a tuning magician to make what appears to be a simple circuit work, on top of being a mathematical genius to measure it properly,  Wow.

Now it makes sense why you have been on so many forums and so many threads for the last two years or so.

This really needs to be made simple (solid-state)I guess you've been relying on others to come up whit this solution, I can't blame you for that.

I think your problems will remain until things are simpler and your work can be replicate precisely by more people easier.
 :)

Offline Rosemary Ainslie

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 3968
Re: Rosemary Ainslie circuit demonstration on Saturday March 12th 2011
« Reply #455 on: March 30, 2011, 04:59:50 PM »
Wow Rosie
that was some statement.You now need to be a tuning magician to make what appears to be a simple circuit work, on top of being a mathematical genius to measure it properly,  Wow.

Now it makes sense why you have been on so many forums and so many threads for the last two years or so.

This really needs to be made simple (solid-state)I guess you've been relying on others to come up whit this solution, I can't blame you for that.

I think your problems will remain until things are simpler and your work can be replicate precisely by more people easier.
 :)

Cat.  You don't need to be a mathematical genius to apply integrated power analysis.  That's absolutely standard.  And you certainly don't need to be a genius to implement battery controls and draw down tests.  Nor do you need to be a genius to recognise parasitic oscillations.  It's to deliberately generate them that is atypical and not within standard knowledge.  Just remember that paarastic oscillations have actually never been studied.  They've been 'snuffed' and - according to those links - there's a whole industry invested in the knowledge of how to get rid of them.  What we're doing now is trying to get them to come and do their thing.  That's different.

But the fact is that this resonating condition is required and we are certainly breaking new ground with this.  So.  We don't have all the answers.  But I'm sure it's a short learning curve.  And remember that we did - indeed - get a full on replication posted on this and on Energetic forum.  It was not for want of evidence for that claim that there was resistance.  I thought you knew this?  You seemed to have followed this history rather closely.

Anyway.  I'm doing my best here Cat.  I only want to see this technology progressed.  But perhaps I've taken it as far as I can and should let you guys just do your thing.

Kindest regards,
Rosemary

Offline powercat

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 1091
Re: Rosemary Ainslie circuit demonstration on Saturday March 12th 2011
« Reply #456 on: March 30, 2011, 05:08:11 PM »
Cat.  You don't need to be a mathematical genius to apply integrated power analysis.  That's absolutely standard.  And you certainly don't need to be a genius to implement battery controls and draw down tests.  Nor do you need to be a genius to recognise parasitic oscillations.  It's to deliberately generate them that is atypical and not within standard knowledge.  Just remember that paarastic oscillations have actually never been studied.  They've been 'snuffed' and - according to those links - there's a whole industry invested in the knowledge of how to get rid of them.  What we're doing now is trying to get them to come and do their thing.  That's different.

But the fact is that this resonating condition is required and we are certainly breaking new ground with this.  So.  We don't have all the answers.  But I'm sure it's a short learning curve.  And remember that we did - indeed - get a full on replication posted on this and on Energetic forum.  It was not for want of evidence for that claim that there was resistance.  I thought you knew this?  You seemed to have followed this history rather closely.

Anyway.  I'm doing my best here Cat.  I only want to see this technology progressed.  But perhaps I've taken it as far as I can and should let you guys just do your thing.

Kindest regards,
Rosemary

from what I can remember of the successful replication (not enough of them)and a huge amount of arguments about the measurements
so at the moment it all as clear as mud to me
but I live in hope and wish you all the best

http://www.youtube.com/results?search_type=videos&search_query=Rosemary+Ainslie+circuit&search_sort=video_date_uploaded&suggested_categories=28&uni=3

Offline Sprocket

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 410
Re: Rosemary Ainslie circuit demonstration on Saturday March 12th 2011
« Reply #457 on: March 30, 2011, 09:06:10 PM »
Quote
"Whatever ideas are the most suppressed
are most likely to be the closest to the truth."
- Weidner's First Law of the Universe

"If a picture is worth a thousand words
then a symbol is worth a thousand pictures."
- Weidner's Second Law of the Universe

"The only people who call conspiracies
' theories' are the conspirators."
- Weidner's Third Law of the Universe

@Rosemary - I couldn't resist a Copy&Paste of Weidner's Three Laws - any conspiracy aficionado will know who he is!  The first and last pretty well describe the situation.  My first real taste of this here involved Archer Quinn, I personally remember checking stats on several of the most prolific posters then - several had user-names that had been registered years in advance, but had never posted! One in particular was then posting an average of 17 post per day, many huge in size!  All to crawl back into whatever holes they had been summoned from when the melee eventually died down!  I'm surprised I can remember this many details!  OUR is kinda bizarre, the format there tends to be, Grumpy suggests something, then everyone else tells him why it's impossible!  Apparently there's no interest in what's possible, only what's impossible - a kind of intellectual masturbation methinks.  But back on topic...

Regarding tuning, I was just yesterday trying to track-down some multi-turn pots to help in this regard.  The only one I could find was a 10K 5-turn pot, but that seemed a bit high for this.  Of course there are lots of trimmers available but I'd like to get a potentiometer for this.  First time round I was just using ordinary 3/4 turn ones.  I presume with all your fancy equipment, you were just adjusting the signals amplitude and offset?  My input was fixed. 

Offline hartiberlin

  • Administrator
  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 8001
    • free energy research OverUnity.com
Re: Rosemary Ainslie circuit demonstration on Saturday March 12th 2011
« Reply #458 on: March 31, 2011, 01:40:15 AM »
I think,
as long as the function generator is still used these
measurement problems persist and the circuit is not very useable.

So better all replicators try it with the 9 Volt battery first
and try to get it running in this oscillation mode
without any function generator.

And please use low or almost zero inductance shunts, if you measure
the current as what Hummbugger has posted is true, that the
inductance of the shunts can mess up your scope shots.

Also use only Lead Acid batteries or maybe still NiMH
batteries with it, cause only these can stand the recharge pulses.

Don´t use Lithium accumulators, as they are easily blown
and can explode and cause severe fires from the BackEMF pulses !

Also you need to measure what power your load resistor is putting out
best calorimetrically heating water for example and then compare it to the
Watthours ( amphours x voltage)  your batteries are holding.

If you can run it longer than the stored Watthours of your batteries
the circuit goes overunity.

Good luck.

Regards, Stefan.

Offline Goat

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 623
Re: Rosemary Ainslie circuit demonstration on Saturday March 12th 2011
« Reply #459 on: March 31, 2011, 05:32:44 AM »
I think,
as long as the function generator is still used these
measurement problems persist and the circuit is not very useable.

So better all replicators try it with the 9 Volt battery first
and try to get it running in this oscillation mode
without any function generator.

And please use low or almost zero inductance shunts, if you measure
the current as what Hummbugger has posted is true, that the
inductance of the shunts can mess up your scope shots.

Also use only Lead Acid batteries or maybe still NiMH
batteries with it, cause only these can stand the recharge pulses.

Don´t use Lithium accumulators, as they are easily blown
and can explode and cause severe fires from the BackEMF pulses !

Also you need to measure what power your load resistor is putting out
best calorimetrically heating water for example and then compare it to the
Watthours ( amphours x voltage)  your batteries are holding.

If you can run it longer than the stored Watthours of your batteries
the circuit goes overunity.

Good luck.

Regards, Stefan.

Hi hartiberlin/Stefan

Because of your post at http://www.overunity.com/index.php?topic=9878.msg279916#msg279916 and the connection to this thread and you're above post wouldn't it make sense to use the ceramic Y5V
caps to absorb the heat from Rosemary's heater in the circuit to further exploit the circuit into a higher COP or a feedback to a large capacitor on the I/P (input) and remove the battery for a closed loop?

I don't know but this smells of Synchronicity!!!

Regards,
Paul

Offline cHeeseburger

  • Newbie
  • *
  • Posts: 46
Re: Rosemary Ainslie circuit demonstration on Saturday March 12th 2011
« Reply #460 on: March 31, 2011, 06:29:32 AM »
I think,
as long as the function generator is still used these
measurement problems persist and the circuit is not very useable.

So better all replicators try it with the 9 Volt battery first
and try to get it running in this oscillation mode
without any function generator.

And please use low or almost zero inductance shunts, if you measure
the current as what Hummbugger has posted is true, that the
inductance of the shunts can mess up your scope shots.


Stefan is correct here.  Rosemary has explained that she sees very large spikes in the shunt (reported by her to be +10V and -30V in amplitude) at the moments the function generator switches.  These come from the signal generator trying to suddenly change the voltage on the huge gate capacitance and are further hugely exaggerrated in amplitude by the fast-changing nature of the resulting current spike and the inductance of the shunt.  They are only present in the gate-current loop and are not present in the battery loop, as I explained.

I believe it is these spikes that she agrees are far more negative than positive which cause her scope average on the current trace to often show a small negative value (millivolts) which is then misinterpreted as battery charging current.  This only shows up in the scope-averaged current at the low-power operating level because the operating currents are very small, so these spikes throw off the average.  In the higher power mode of operation, these spikes still subtract from the measured average current, but that current is much larger in this mode so the overall average still always shows as a positive number.

To get a true measure of the actual battery current, either the function generator must be eliminated (as Stefan suggests) or the shunt must be moved out of the gate circuit loop and placed where it sees only battery currents.

In either case, the shunt must have an inductive reactance  that is far below the shunt resistance at 1.5MHz or the scope sampling and multiplying technique cannot be used due to large phase shifts in the apparent current versus the true current at any given sampling instant.  This is extremely difficult if not impossible to do, since even the length of a one inch straight wire will add 20nH to the shunt, causing many degrees of phase shift.  Even the very best "non-inductive" shunt resistors will exhibit several nanohenries of inductance and skew the phase at 1.5MHz significantly.

But all is not lost!  Even with a highly inductive shunt, as Rosemary is using, the true average current in the shunt is easy to obtain...without even using a scope that features averaging!

Recall my demonstration from an earlier post in this thread where I showed a 0-2A trapezoid wave and the effects on the voltage displayed that a large inductance would have.  The true average current in that setup was +1A and ramped evenly back and forth between zero and +2A, never going negative at all.  Yet the inductive voltage was well below zero half the time, whenever the true shunt current was down-ramping toward zero.  See the first picture, reproduced here for your convenience.

Now we take that same circuit, doing the same thing, with the same values (printed out for you on the second picture) and add two little simple  RC filters to average both traces.  Guess what!  Both traces now show the exact true average current of 1 Ampere positive (50mV on a 50m Ohm shunt resistance).  They are exactly superimposed.  So now we know the magnitude and direction of the actual DC equivalent average current flowing even though we have measured it across a highly (grossly in this case) inductive shunt resistor!

Humbugger

Offline Rosemary Ainslie

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 3968
Re: Rosemary Ainslie circuit demonstration on Saturday March 12th 2011
« Reply #461 on: March 31, 2011, 07:42:00 AM »
Hello guys,

This thread is really going along well.  I've just been over the last points and delighted to acknowledge that I do not understand the significance of different caps and different shunts and on and on.  All exactly as it should be.  So.  I'll be leaving this thread to you guys.  I know it's in very capable hands with Neptune and Sprocket - and even Paul.  And I have much to do elsewhere.  I'll post here when I get more results. 

Just bear in mind the simple fact that - like the gold in 'them thar hills' there's energy in those spikes and even more in those oscillations.  But.  It releases heat - which is not the motive energy that you guys traditionally look for.  And Neptune, if it's taken a long, long time to get here - just think of our 'kick off' position all of 12 year ago now.  Then it was widely considered 'absurd' to try and return energy back to the source.  Paradigms are definitely shifting.

And Magzy - I'm hoping that you'll do us the favour of posting your results here on those tests.  They're BRILLIANT.  Every bit of evidence helps.  And such a clean way of showing it.

Nice thinking everyone.  Hopefully you'll all find that 'extra' in some kind of variant of this circuit.  And Stefan, many thanks for the input and - more to the point - for keeping this thread on topic.  I am not sure though that the inductance/impedance thing is that significant.  If you factor in for this - then the returns are even more extreme. 

I need to focus on getting my circuit up and ready for more demos.  And I need to focus on some much needed editing on my blog.  I'll certainly post here when I've got news and/or results.  I think I'll need a fortnight or so.

Kindest as ever,
Rosie

added

Just had a diagnosis.  2 of the MOSFETs blown.  Interestingly it's enough to block that oscillation.  Seems that they all need to work but still not sure if all 5 are required.  I'll let you know.  They're to be replaced - hopefully - by Monday.
« Last Edit: March 31, 2011, 03:21:14 PM by Rosemary Ainslie »

Offline neptune

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 1127
Re: Rosemary Ainslie circuit demonstration on Saturday March 12th 2011
« Reply #462 on: March 31, 2011, 05:28:22 PM »
Hi all . Mainly posting to keep this thread on the front page . Rosemary , sorry to hear your leaving us for a bit but the demo must take priority of course . If you can , let us know what will be different this time , apart from the audience . Maybe a non inductive shunt perhaps ? Regarding the dead mosfets , I would say it depends on their actual faults . If one or more went short circuit , it would no doubt kill everything . I personally think two would work , as this parasitic oscillation in parallel mostfets has been described  as a "push Pull" effect . One would think that more mosfets would be better for higher power circuits . I am sure we all wish you the best possible luck with the demo , and look forward to the results .

Offline nul-points

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 995
    • Doc Ringwood's Free Energy blog
Re: Rosemary Ainslie circuit demonstration on Saturday March 12th 2011
« Reply #463 on: April 01, 2011, 12:41:19 AM »
added

Just had a diagnosis.  2 of the MOSFETs blown.  Interestingly it's enough to block that oscillation.



looks like that link was correct about possible damage to the MOSFETS

wonder if it's correct about the other 2 things i picked out from it, too?

  http://www.overunity.com/index.php?topic=10407.msg279486#msg279486

all the best
np


http://docsfreelunch.blogspot.com
 

Offline Rosemary Ainslie

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 3968
Re: Rosemary Ainslie circuit demonstration on Saturday March 12th 2011
« Reply #464 on: April 01, 2011, 05:35:18 AM »
Hi all.  Just seen that Humbugger is still posting.  Please note that any attempt at 'averaging' is absolutely NOT acceptable measurement protocol.  I realise why it's so urgently advanced.  Also.  The non-inductive shunt has been tested and shows not the SLIGHTEST difference.  Also.  There is - indeed - a measurable 5 watts at the gate.  This RETURNS to the FG.  It does not COME from it. 

I think the most critical measurement, as has been rather obsessively poynted out - is the waveform at the terminal of the battery.  Early indications are that this is consistent with the measurements at the test point on the apparatus.  But to finalise this - I'll need to get that apparatus returned with the MOSFET's replaced.

Just  word of caution.  Please do NOT assume that Humbugger's opinions are anything more than that.  In fact it  is my opinion based on the inappropriate and anxious need to deny EVERYTHING related to this - not least of which is my own 'idiocy' as he refers to it on OUR.com - that he is rather anxious to kill all interest in this technology.  And I wonder at that need.  We may yet find that there's nothing in this experiment.  But NOTHING can be concluded from AVERAGING ANYTHING AT ALL.  Measurements of power is based on vi dt.  That's it.

Kindest regards,
Rosemary

Added.  While Humbugger continues to post - then I will definitely need to 'hang around'.  Pity.  I've got so much to do.  Anyway.  Hopefully I'll manage to diffuse some of his negativity.