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: 84248
  • *Latest: khniki

  • *Total Posts: 898014
  • *Total Topics: 15837
  • *Online Today: 44
  • *Most Online: 103
(December 19, 2006, 11:27:19 PM)
  • *Users: 4
  • *Guests: 16
  • *Total: 20

Author Topic: Rosemary Ainslie circuit demonstration on Saturday March 12th 2011  (Read 638293 times)

Offline evolvingape

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 478
Re: Rosemary Ainslie circuit demonstration on Saturday March 12th 2011
« Reply #60 on: March 16, 2011, 04:07:58 PM »
Hello Rosemary,

In Reply #68 made by you today, you state:

“I think we need to apply classical protocols or we'll never cut it with mainstream. “

http://www.thefreedictionary.com/protocols

1. The plan for a course of medical treatment or for a scientific experiment.

Your absolutely right, unless you apply a logical plan via the scientific method you will never cut it with mainstream or anyone else with the ability to think for themselves.

You state:

“I do not care AT ALL what supply is being used. It's the theoretical implications of the measurements and the consequent waveform that is of interest. And this is NOT, absolutey not, restricted to a battery supply. Why do you guys keep going on about this.”

Well mainstream does care about what power supply is being used, and I think you will find a lot of people who occupy this forum will care too. Until you have accurately established the state of your power supply before, during and after the experiment you have no basis to draw any theoretical conclusions at all. That is why we keep going on about this, and I am beginning to wonder why you refuse to perform such simple and commonplace procedures. As it currently stands your results have no validity whatsoever.

You state:

“We do not measure with any ammeters at all. We infer the current flow from the voltage measured across the resistors.”

Volts x Amps = Watts

You refuse to easily measure one parameter and simply calculate it from the other(s)? Any scientist worth his salt would always check his theoretical calculations and verify them with actual measurements whenever possible. Indeed, this is actually the basis of the scientific method itself.

You state:

“Nor would the replacement of the batteries with caps change anything at all whether or not it worked. It's irrelevant. We are not discussing the electrolytic condition of the batteries. We're only talking about the applied energy to a circuit and some means of optimising the output from that supply. That's it. The numbers stack.”

Erm... no, the replacement of Batteries with Caps is not irrelevant at all. Batteries have a stored potential, Caps have an applied potential. Caps would very quickly show whether your circuit is running down or not and consuming power. 6 car Batteries would hide this extremely well even over lengthy testing periods.

Of course we are discussing the electrolytic condition of the batteries, because they are part of the system that you are making theoretical assumptions from. A chemist can only have limited options for checking a battery cell.

They will perform a hydrometer test to check the specific gravity of the electrolyte, they will visually check the plates and electrolyte for sulphation, and then they will...

perform a controlled load test...

because a load test is THE ONLY WAY to confirm the charge storing potential state of the cell!

You are using maintenance free sealed cells so a chemist will ONLY be able to perform a load test because otherwise he would have to destroy the environment of the cell to check the other parameters and therefore invalidate his own tests.

If you were using lead acid cells you could at least measure the voltage under load of each individual 2V cell of the 6off 2V (12V) battery.

This is why we keep going on about this... to constantly avoid the question and attempt misdirection is hugely suspicious and displays a huge lack of understanding of the basics of the technology that you feel you can make theoretical assumptions from and claim infinite COP.

You state:

“If they're wrong - then strangely, they seem to be giving exploitable benefits notwithstanding. And no-one has faulted the measurements nor the protocols.”

So far the only exploitable benefits that have been demonstrated are the fact that you can take 6 car batteries and heat a small wire with them, while producing a parasitic oscillation on an oscilloscope. Hopefully the demonstration video will show more than this :)

I feel I have to point out that your statement that no-one has faulted the measurements or the protocols is demonstrably wrong! If you doubt this obvious fact then I suggest you go back to page 1 of this thread and read it through from the beginning. If you arrive back here and still have the opinion that no-one has faulted the measurements or protocols then you are in denial.

This needed to be said, so I hope you “get this”.

RM :)






Free Energy | searching for free energy and discussing free energy


Offline neptune

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 1127
Re: Rosemary Ainslie circuit demonstration on Saturday March 12th 2011
« Reply #61 on: March 16, 2011, 04:38:36 PM »
@Omnibus .Sorry I did not post feedback in other threads .This was because my questions were answered satisfactorily  , and I wanted to avoid cluttering the threads ,so thanks anyway . So we are all in this together , and , to recap , my questions are .
1 What positive voltage is needed on the gate of the Mosfet to fully switch it on ?
2 The output of the 555 timer is a square wave , what is the voltage difference between the 2 output states .
3 The 2 output states are a positive voltage and zero volts [ or is it a positive voltage and a negative voltage] ?
4 Rosemary says that the oscillation occurs when the gate is negative . If true , why not get oscillation occurring and switch in a small battery in place of the 555 circuit , and keep the oscillation going . There would be no drain on this battery due to the high gate impedance.
5 What else , other than a signal from the 555 timer could cause the gate to go negative?

Offline markdansie

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 1471
Re: Rosemary Ainslie circuit demonstration on Saturday March 12th 2011
« Reply #62 on: March 16, 2011, 06:36:00 PM »
@evolvinggape
"Erm... no, the replacement of Batteries with Caps is not irrelevant at all. Batteries have a stored potential, Caps have an applied potential. Caps would very quickly show whether your circuit is running down or not and consuming power. 6 car Batteries would hide this extremely well even over lengthy testing periods."

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






Free Energy | searching for free energy and discussing free energy

Re: Rosemary Ainslie circuit demonstration on Saturday March 12th 2011
« Reply #62 on: March 16, 2011, 06:36:00 PM »
Sponsored links:




Offline Rosemary Ainslie

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 3968
Re: Rosemary Ainslie circuit demonstration on Saturday March 12th 2011
« Reply #63 on: March 16, 2011, 08:44:44 PM »
Mark and evolvingape

I am reminded how destructive is membership on these forums to any emerging technology.

Here's the problem.  I have a thesis that proposes that the forces are actually magnetic fields in varying dimensions - being one, two or three dimensional.  And in the field they exist outside our own timeframe.  But that's not pertinent to the discussion.  And it's certain to be far outside your own interests.  But the whole idea of this circuit was intended to prove that thesis.  The idea is that any amalgam - any three dimensional object - comprises an atomic and/or molecular structure that is bound by discrete packages of one dimensional fields.  They're extraneous to the atom.  And they simply interact with the atomic energy levels which is here proposed to comprise two dimensional magnetic field.  So.  These small one dimensional fields simply bind those atoms and molecules into a crystalline structure. 

The proposal - as it relates to the transfer of electric energy or to the electromagnetic interaction - is that provided that material is conductive and/or inductive then it is able to induce its own potential difference which is the manifest voltage measured across circuit components.  These fields have unbound from their previous 'holding pattern'.   But this voltage - which is an imbalanced field condition - relies on the amount of mass of those fields.  And this, in turn, is determined by the number of atoms that it binds.  Effectively - the more the mass - the more the fields - the more energy is then brought into play in that electromagnetic interaction.

Now it seems that you are all satisfied that if I were to eliminate the batteries then I would also  thereby prove something? Exactly what?  I take away the source of all those magnetic fields and somehow I must then get this to operate in terms of the prediction in that thesis?  I've tried to get an analogy to this before because it's also MileHigh's favourite complaint.  My answer was something like this.  It's like saying I see you can run.  But can you run without legs?  Or I see you can fly - but can you fly without wings?  I absolutely require all that mass - both in the batteries and in the circuit material.  And if the supply was from a plug source - I would still require all that applied voltage and it would still need to be returned to the plug.  It is the value or the amount of those imbalanced voltages that, I believe, generates that oscillation - or that resonance.   What is valid is to test this on smaller batteries.  Feel free - but then you also may need to reduce the size of the resistor to get that oscillation.  I'm not sure.  But it's possible.  You'll need to scale it from all aspects.

Again.  I am absolutely indifferent to the source itself.  I only require  that voltage and the actual material property of that voltage which I propose is particulate and bipolar.  The results are non classical - for a reason.  The concepts that predicted this result are non classical.  While the measurements are standard - the thing that is actually being tested is not.  But - surprisingly - NOR does that conflict with known science.  It simply conflicts with what has been assumed is the property of current flow.   And, while there's been a great deal ASSUMED about this - there has never been definitive proof of it.  The proposal here is that current flow DOES NOT comprise the flow of electrons.

Rosemary

Offline nul-points

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 995
    • Doc Ringwood's Free Energy blog
Re: Rosemary Ainslie circuit demonstration on Saturday March 12th 2011
« Reply #64 on: March 16, 2011, 09:00:11 PM »
i have to concur with the other members who say that the issue of the power source is of key importance here

*IF* there is an energy anomaly in this setup (and this has yet to be established - hopefully by inspection of suitably comprehensive test results) then it will be absolutely necessary to identify the cause and mechanism by which this occurs

one strand of investigation will be to confirm which elements of the system are necessary and sufficient to cause the effect


one possibility (as suggested by Bedini & followers) is that under certain pulsing conditions, a battery can be made to operate as a kind of 'negative resistor' and store more energy than it supplies

if *THIS* is true then Mark's suggestion of using capacitors would not be a sufficient test to confirm OU here because capacitors, as has been mentioned, operate mainly electrically, not chemically


if Rosemary were to repeat her tests using capacitors as the energy source (albeit scaled down due to smaller energy capacity of capacitors compared to the batteries), the results will show one of two things:

A) Rosemary's 'effect' still occurs - therefore the 'magic' is in the circuit/components;

(also, as a result, more people in different disciplines, will be prepared to believe that something unusual has occurred and that it's not just due to the extensive battery energy involved in the original tests)


B) the energy in the capacitors just depletes - with or without parasitic oscillation;

this would disprove Rosemary's assertion** that it doesn't matter what supplies the electrical energy
(eg "I am absolutely indifferent to the source itself"; it can be "wall-plug", "battery";... etc)

in this case, attention must therefore focus back on the batteries - are they a necessary part of an anomaly?  ...or are they just masking the eventual depletion of energy?

in this case, a new test protocol must be developed which enables Rosemary (or others) to establish EXACTLY what is the role played by the batteries in this 'effect'


so, Rosemary - people are only asking you to do the same thing we'd all need to do in the same circumstance - run additional, different tests which answer some real, nagging questions at the back of any good engineer's mind ("have i accounted for all possible conventional explanations?")

ok - said my piece - let's see what the present test results show

all the best
np

http://docsfreelunch.blogspot.com/
 

Free Energy | searching for free energy and discussing free energy

Re: Rosemary Ainslie circuit demonstration on Saturday March 12th 2011
« Reply #64 on: March 16, 2011, 09:00:11 PM »
Sponsored links:




Offline neptune

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 1127
Re: Rosemary Ainslie circuit demonstration on Saturday March 12th 2011
« Reply #65 on: March 16, 2011, 09:20:26 PM »
I am somewhat disappointed that there is no one on here that is able to answer my questions about the 555 timer circuit that I asked in my last post . I do expect Rosemary to answer as it is not her field of expertise . These questions are at the very heart of this device .

Offline FatBird

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 1179
Re: Rosemary Ainslie circuit demonstration on Saturday March 12th 2011
« Reply #66 on: March 16, 2011, 09:48:20 PM »
Neptune, Please repeat your question about the 555 & I will try to answer it for you.


.

Free Energy | searching for free energy and discussing free energy

Re: Rosemary Ainslie circuit demonstration on Saturday March 12th 2011
« Reply #66 on: March 16, 2011, 09:48:20 PM »
Sponsored links:




Offline nul-points

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 995
    • Doc Ringwood's Free Energy blog
Re: Rosemary Ainslie circuit demonstration on Saturday March 12th 2011
« Reply #67 on: March 16, 2011, 10:18:34 PM »
I am somewhat disappointed that there is no one on here that is able to answer my questions about the 555 timer circuit that I asked in my last post . I do expect Rosemary to answer as it is not her field of expertise . These questions are at the very heart of this device .

1) - usually several volts (depends on actual device used);
     were there any side-effects on the drive-level due to multi MOSFETs being used in parallel?

2), 3) i think we're waiting to see some close detail waveform data from Rosemary to confirm this - or is this now available to us somewhere?

4) need to establish first if the oscillation sustains with true disconnection of SigGen - and with what remnant DC bias connection (eg. resistive/capacitive connection to ground) - again, need close view of one or two driving pulses

5) other possible causes of negative voltage on the gate could be, say, voltage spikes caused by inductive or capacitive coupling to high-voltage or current pulses nearby

hope this helps
np

http://docsfreelunch.blogspot.com/

Offline neptune

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 1127
Re: Rosemary Ainslie circuit demonstration on Saturday March 12th 2011
« Reply #68 on: March 16, 2011, 10:18:41 PM »
@FatBird , thanks . My questions are
1 The output of the 555 timer circuit is a square wave ,what is the voltage difference between these 2 states .
2 Is it true  that the 2 states are a positive voltage and zero volts , or is it a positive voltage and a negative voltage .
3 What positive voltage is necessary on the gate of the Mosfet to turn it completely on .  is it about 7.5 volts ?
4 If the output of the 555 toggles between pos volts and zero , can you see any way in which the Mosfet gate can become Negative?
Rosemary talks about the desired oscillation occurring when the gate is negative , and this has happened for up to 2 or 3 seconds .If this is the case , one could at that point disconnect the 555 from the gate and replace it with a small battery giving a negative potential , and the oscillation might continue indefinitely .What do you think ?

Free Energy | searching for free energy and discussing free energy

Re: Rosemary Ainslie circuit demonstration on Saturday March 12th 2011
« Reply #68 on: March 16, 2011, 10:18:41 PM »
3D Solar Panels

Offline neptune

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 1127
Re: Rosemary Ainslie circuit demonstration on Saturday March 12th 2011
« Reply #69 on: March 16, 2011, 10:21:40 PM »
@Nul-points . You replied whilst I was typing . Thanks for replying , your info is very helpful

Offline FatBird

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 1179
Re: Rosemary Ainslie circuit demonstration on Saturday March 12th 2011
« Reply #70 on: March 16, 2011, 10:46:52 PM »
1.  The V out depends on the supply voltage.  Example, if you used a 12 V supply, the Output V would be about + 11.5 Volts.

2.  The Output High is a Positive V.  The Low is about + .2 V, which is Ground for all practical purposes.

3.  Depends on the Mosfet.  An approximate average full turn on V for a 5 Amp, 200 V Mosfet is about 1 V.

4.  No, EXCEPT if her circuit had an inductance that would RING (oscillate).  In that case the ringing can indeed drop negative.
    If I remember right, her load resistor is wire wound.  If so, then it could ring negative.

Neptune asks = If this is the case , one could at that point disconnect the 555 from the gate and replace it with a small battery
                     giving a negative potential , and the oscillation might continue indefinitely .

5.  Probably so, but the circuit switching arrangement would be tricky & involved.
.

Free Energy | searching for free energy and discussing free energy

Re: Rosemary Ainslie circuit demonstration on Saturday March 12th 2011
« Reply #70 on: March 16, 2011, 10:46:52 PM »
3D Solar Panels

Offline cHeeseburger

  • Newbie
  • *
  • Posts: 46
Re: Rosemary Ainslie circuit demonstration on Saturday March 12th 2011
« Reply #71 on: March 16, 2011, 10:49:13 PM »
Hello All...Newbie here.

I've been following Rosemary's work on her blog page lately and I've noticed a couple of things that seem strange to me.

First, I can't find anywhere that she says what her measurements of input power or voltage or current actually are.  Never once is a number actually given for any of these values, as far as I can tell.  All the scope traces I've seen her present show an input (battery) voltage with over a hundred volts of AC at over 1MHz on it.  That can't be right.  There must be some large inductances or long wires being used in the battery circuit.  No decent battery would have such a high impedance on its own as to allow such a large AC voltage swing.  She says her batteries are brand new and very high quality types.

Second, she recently showed her latest circuit and parts values.  I noticed that the shunt being used to measure the battery current flow is made up of several quite long ceramic wirewound resistors.  She states the combined inductance as being 130nH or something like that and 0.25 Ohms combined parallel resistance.  With an oscillation frequency of over 1MHz, the inductance is the predominating part of the shunt impedance (by a huge margin) and the shunt impedance will be adding a large phase shift and showing much larger voltages across it than a pure 0.25 Ohm resistor would.

So, when the wildly oscillating AC "battery voltage" is multiplied (sample by sample) within her oscilloscope math by the phase-skewed voltage across her inductive shunt, the results will be totally unrelated to the actual DC-equivalent average power. 

Measurements made on this deeply-flawed basis could quite easily show a negative (reflected) power being returned to the battery when such was not actually the case at all.  Or they could easily show zero (or close to zero) power being drawn when, in reality, significant power was being drawn out of the battery.

I would suggest that a simple low-pass filter be applied on both the shunt voltage measurement and the battery voltage measurement in order to find the actual DC equivalent input power.  This will eliminate the false readings associated with the phase shifts and inductive parasitics in the circuitry and reveal quickly the actual DC net power flow either out of or into the battery.

This has been suggested to Rosemary many times by many folks on several forums but, so far, she refuses to do it and has ignored all such advice.  Adding fifty cents worth of R and C to form a simple first-order low-pass filter and then just measuring the results with a DMM is all that is needed. 

It's much easier than trying to change the batteries to smaller ones or run using a capacitor or DC power supply.  It could be done in five minutes at almost no cost and would give results that are far more ACCURATE AND TRUSTWORTHY than doing math on 8-bit scope traces which are wildly swinging around with huge imposed AC voltages far beyond what would appear across any decent battery or a pure resistive shunt.

This technique has been used for decades and is well-known to any engineer who has tried to make accurate DC-equivalent power measurements on circuits that have pulsed or high frequency AC current draw.  Multiplying phase-skewed values derived across inductive shunts and batteries hooked up with long wires and no bypass capacitors has no chance of ever yielding accurate DC-equivalent power numbers.

Doesn't anyone else here know this?  I have not seen it pointed out or heard similar suggestions on this forum.

cHeeseburger - to go!  (Hold the lettuce)

P.S.  Hooking two or more MOSFETS directly in parallel is well known to cause parasitic oscillations that are, in fact, difficult to get rid of when they are unwanted.  Rosemary is using a function generator and has liberally applied DC offset voltages to the pulse output and tweaked that offset to enhance the oscillations, so using a 555 timer circuit will probably not work the same way at all.  Anyone desiring to replicate should forget all about the earlier Rosemary Ainslie COP 17 schematics and use the latest circuit shown in her blog report.  Don't forget to use at least ten feet of wire to hook up the batteries!  And NEVER add any bypass caps ANYWHERE!  Oh...and use a long twisted pair of small-guage wires to run from the signal generator to the MOSFET gates.  That extra inductance and impedance mismatch can get a solid oscillation going even with a single MOSFET.
« Last Edit: March 17, 2011, 01:44:16 AM by cHeeseburger »

Offline markdansie

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 1471
Re: Rosemary Ainslie circuit demonstration on Saturday March 12th 2011
« Reply #72 on: March 17, 2011, 12:41:22 AM »
@cheeseburger
Your modifications for testing as you suggest the logical way to go. I have spoken to a few other engineers who did not have ideas too distant from yours. I guess myself and others were dumbing it down to try and point out that nothing can be claimed to support her hypothesis if many of the variables or red flags are not eliminated especially the power supply.
@rosemary
In many ways you are just subjecting yourself to peer review here as you would have to in mainstream. We are in many ways much kinder. Please do not bring in emotional comments as there is no room for sentiment in scientific methodology and process.
However option B for you is adopting the "Ignorance is Bliss" stance.
No one is attacking you here...but many more qualified than me are speaking volumes here...please listen.
Kind Regards
Mark

Offline cHeeseburger

  • Newbie
  • *
  • Posts: 46
Re: Rosemary Ainslie circuit demonstration on Saturday March 12th 2011
« Reply #73 on: March 17, 2011, 01:29:55 AM »
Hi, Mark!

I believe the evidence points to the idea that Rosemary has chosen option B a long time ago.  To expect that any thinking person would accept her claims without even a statement from her regarding her measured input power seems just nuts to me.

After all, what else is there to measure?  She long ago (and with good reasoning supported by almost everyone commenting) decided that measuring the output power via voltage and current multiplication at the load would not work easily because of the load inductance and its inherent phase shift and non-unity power factor.  So the 'scope method was shunned in regard to measuring output power with not so much as a peep of objection from her or anyone else.

Instead, the thermal integration method was chosen...even in her original 2002 publication.  Comparing the thermal equalibrium temperature of the load driven by her circuit against the DC power from a bench supply that was required to reach the same thermal equalibrium temperature.  Perfectly acceptable and reasonable way to proceed.

What she and everyone else seems to have blindly overlooked is that the measurement of input power is plagued with the exact same complications of inductance-based phase shifts and power factor complexities that were deemed too difficult to overcome on the output side.  There is no difference!

Yet, thosands of forum posts and blogs and hundreds of thousands of words and arduous special arrangements to borrow fancy oscilloscopes and try to lern to use them and bitter heated arguments have since ensued all regarding the correct measurement of the inpuit power.  To date, no numbers have emerged!

All I am suggesting is that simple techniques that in no way alter the circuit operation, i.e. using a simple RC low-pass filter on the battery voltage and current shunt voltage will give the exact same advantage that using the thermal integratiion method of obtaining equivalent DC power provides in the output measurement.  Even better, there is no need for a "control" or comparison test at the input side as must be done on the output side.

The only reason to use an oscilloscope in this whole exercise is to "tune and tweak" the circuit for whatever characteristics Rosemary thinks are best.  Once that is done, the scope should be turned off and forgotten.

Measure the average DC-equivalent input voltage and current using a good DMM and the RC filter.  Multiply.  End of story!

cHeeseburger

Offline fritznien

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 293
Re: Rosemary Ainslie circuit demonstration on Saturday March 12th 2011
« Reply #74 on: March 17, 2011, 03:41:53 AM »
a dirty great pi filter would be even better but then it would show clear results.

 

OneLink