Author Topic: Rosemary Ainslie circuit demonstration on Saturday March 12th 2011 (Read 711032 times)

Sprocket · « **Reply #765 on:** April 22, 2011, 12:26:30 PM »

Quote from: poynt99 on April 22, 2011, 04:43:04 AM

Sprocket,

Have you seen this page?:
http://newlightondarkenergy.blogspot.com/2011/03/report.html

The schematic diagram I posted came directly from her site, and it was from the "report" post. I implied nothing. That simulation diagram was included as part of the Report, which was based on the demonstration they gave. Everyone else can clearly see who was the real perpetrator of obfuscation, why can't you? Obviously that new corrected diagram was just posted today, now that the cat is out of the bag so to speak, and let's not forget who uncovered this.

Are you sure you still want to cling to that asinine accusation?

Regarding your question; what about the other 4 mosfets? You've seen how they are connected, correct?

.99

Read again what I wrote - I specifically said that the pic you posted implied, not your good self - found here;

Quote

http://www.overunity.com/index.php?topic=10407.msg282472#msg282472

So no, there is nothing asinine about my post! This schematic has the Q2 mosfet in that weird configuration and is labelled "Q2-Q5", and that clearly implies that they are all wired that way, which made no sense to me - hence my question to you then about the other 3 mosfets. Which you then neglected to answer! And yes, I now know how they are connected, thanks to Rosemary's blog.

Why you provide that link to the Report page is beyond me - the source-tied-to-gate schematic you posted and I have just linked to above is not found there, just the 'original' circuit...

poynt99 · « **Reply #766 on:** April 22, 2011, 03:28:44 PM »

Quote from: Rosemary Ainslie on April 22, 2011, 10:39:02 AM

Happy - I'll do it if all else fails.

What is that supposed to mean? If what fails, this dog and pony show and constant evasion of the real and simple issue?

Quote

Then I'll invest the time to do this test EXACTLY as is required. But it's nowhere near as easy as you're claiming. If it were then I'd have it running between demonstrations.

That's quite a full load of BS. You could be running this test right now, either way you choose. Either keep track of the load temperature (as happyfunball suggested), or track the battery SOC as I have suggested repeatedly.

If either of these two parameters show a net decline over time, and never recover, then it is quite obvious and clear what is going on....the batteries are being depleted.

It's that simple, but Rose won't do it unless she obtains some kind of assurance from "experts" that this decline (or whatever the result) is a true and accepted indication.

Quote

I have NO idea of the battery chemistry involved. While I know we can exceed watt hour ratings - I'm not sure that we'll also get a full recharge.

Perform the SOC tests over time and you will get a very good idea how the battery chemistry is responding to the circuit and load. No actually, you don't know that you can exceed the amp-hour ratings of the battery; you have not proven that at all yet.

As Happy suggested, do the test (either one) and stop making excuses.

And post a schematic of your circuit. If you have already, then please indicate which one is the correct one.

.99

poynt99 · « **Reply #767 on:** April 22, 2011, 03:38:21 PM »

Quote from: Sprocket on April 22, 2011, 12:26:30 PM

Read again what I wrote - I specifically said that the pic you posted implied, not your good self - found here;

So no, there is nothing asinine about my post! This schematic has the Q2 mosfet in that weird configuration and is labelled "Q2-Q5", and that clearly implies that they are all wired that way, which made no sense to me - hence my question to you then about the other 3 mosfets. Which you then neglected to answer! And yes, I now know how they are connected, thanks to Rosemary's blog.

Why you provide that link to the Report page is beyond me - the source-tied-to-gate schematic you posted and I have just linked to above is not found there, just the 'original' circuit...

Even if I could figure out what you want or what you are trying to say, I don't think I can help you.

.99

cHeeseburger · « **Reply #768 on:** April 22, 2011, 04:57:51 PM »

I just entered in the schematic from the blog 109. Nothing happens. I don't believe that the waveforms she says come from that schematic sim actually did, although it's possible her expert who did the sim is using something other than a version of Pspice or he has left something out or mismarked some component values. The schematic as shown does not produce any kind of oscillation using Pspice.

I'd love to hear about anyone else's effort to sim that schematic. I get nothing at all...just sits there. So here's a chance to be Rosemary's hero and show how Humbugger made an error! Show me my mistake.

I spent ten years designing and successfully putting into mass production a wide variety of "on purpose" MOSFET RF power oscillators. All of them had 180 degrees phase shift between the source current and drain voltage waveforms but none ever exceeded 100% efficiency. Of course, I made realistic measurements, so I guess that's why no infinite COP was ever seen!

At this time, Rosemary still has not presented a schematic that agrees wiith the photo of her breadboard. As Poynt has pointed out, the breadboard has the solo FET being driven by the gate driver and the source connected to the shunt. The other four have their gates hooked to the shunt and their source pins tied to the gate driver.

It certainly appears that Rosemary is purposely concealing or misdirecting the pathway to replication. I feel quite sorry for anyone who earnestly tries to replicate the hardware. The number of errors, purposely kept secrets and outrageous contradictions has become a true farce. Almost as insane and nonsensical as the measurement scheme and the wishful conclusions it so erroneously supports.

Humbugger

cHeeseburger · « **Reply #769 on:** April 22, 2011, 08:39:41 PM »

From da blog

"I assure you all that it is easily translated into practical applications. All that is still missing is accreditation by academic experts. And this is MUCH required - because without it we can be accused of perpetrating some kind of fraud. It is an unfortunate truth that these kind of claims proliferate our internet and our history. All the more reason to delay any development of marketable applications until this is endorsed."

I have never in my life heard such a non-progressive, non-inventive, non-productive philosophy. Look at all the great inventions and discoveries of the past 300 years. How many of those inventors and entrepreneurs felt they needed to wait for some kind of approval from academia before proceeding? The notion is completely ridiculous...even moreso in the context of "Free Energy Forum Society".

All one needs to do is make a practical product that performs the advertised function and is reasonably priced. Academia can pound sand. What kind of silly, chickenhearted thinking is this, Rosemary? If applications are so easily implemented and the thing is really an answer to the world's energy needs, as you claim, why, oh why would you need anyone's approval or sanction?

I know I'm not winning any popularity contests here with my sometimes scathing dismissals of the validity of Rosemary's claims and her approach to testing. Compared to academia, my rejections are mild. They won't even give her an audience! At least I'm trying to point out the flaws and problems. Academia won't even bother to try.

But let me ask those of you who are encouraging Rosemary along enthusiastically and who so casually dismiss my comments here as being part of some nasty MIB or ego-driven psychopathic conspiracy to stop free energy progress.

Do you agree with Rosemary that free energy developers should wait for academic approval before they start developing applications? DO YOU?

To me this is absolutely antithetical to all that the free energy movement and open source inventors forums stand for. It reeks of an excuse for the pending final failure.

Blame the academics...they stopped my application development by not accrediting my theory. Blame the poor fools like Poynt and Humbugger who keep trying to explain what the problems are and where the mistakes are being made...Blame the forum moderators and owners for not censoring all technical criticisms.

It's getting old.

Kindest Regards,

Humbugger

poynt99 · « **Reply #770 on:** April 23, 2011, 02:57:50 AM »

The correct schematic as per the actual build. I combined all the CSR (shunt) resistors into one on my diagram.

.99

poynt99 · « **Reply #771 on:** April 23, 2011, 03:21:42 AM »

Have any of you wondered why Q2-Q5 are mounted on large heat sinks while Q1 is only on a small U-channel heat sink?

Well if you have, I can tell you it's because Q1 probably doesn't get very hot. Q2-Q5 however probably do. Why? Because Q2-Q5 are sourcing most of the current to the load.

The important realization here, is that as a result, very little of the net current in the load is flowing through the CSR.

.99

Rosemary Ainslie · « **Reply #772 on:** April 23, 2011, 06:00:41 AM »

Quote from: poynt99 on April 23, 2011, 03:21:42 AM

Have any of you wondered why Q2-Q5 are mounted on large heat sinks while Q1 is only on a small U-channel heat sink?

Well if you have, I can tell you it's because Q1 probably doesn't get very hot. Q2-Q5 however probably do. Why? Because Q2-Q5 are sourcing most of the current to the load.

The important realization here, is that as a result, very little of the net current in the load is flowing through the CSR.

.99

Guys,

I want to know how upwards of 48 amps flowing over more than 80 percent of the duty cycle - can possibly represent 'very little' of anything at all. The more so as the voltage behind that current is also upwards of 48 volts. During the oscillation phase there is a really, heavy duty current flow.

The real question is this. What in that switch transposition enables this? My own take is this. The gate is either presenting a positive signal to the drain or a negative signal to the source. Effectively what standard settings on that MOSFET enable, is the positive to the drain or a zero or a negative, to the drain. That's it. So then? Does that mean that there has, perhaps, been a negative potential on the circuit that was simply not allowed to fully generate? This because our transistors were designed on an ASSUMPTION? And that assumption being that the negative voltage component was simply stored energy? And, somehow this stored energy is released in those really high spikes?

The puzzle is this. Parasitic oscillations are known to cross zero and result in that complex sine wave that is sort of snubbed out at each transition as it manifests. It's the fact that it crosses zero at all that perhaps should have given us a clue. Some early indication of this negative potential difference on the circuit itself. I suspect that the doping in those transistors is designed precisely to prevent this. Or certainly to prevent it from persisting as it does here with this transposition.

Either way. What is clear as daylight is that there is no restriction to the flow from the battery and no restriction to the flow from what has been seen as counter electromotive force. And IF that CEMF is the result of 'stored' energy - then how is it that it can exceed the energy from the supply in the first instance. No-one has difficulty - for some reason - in explaining this when it's a spike. But there is some greater effort needed to resolve this under classical paradigms IF and when we find that continuous oscillation - or that continuous resonance.

It seems that there is NO STOPPING IT - provided that the signal at the gate stays negative. And that is definitely NOT acceptable in any standard or mainstream school of thought. And please note. The MOSFETS ALL stay relatively cool. They are NOT unduly stressed under normal conditions. They only become stressed when we apply too much signal at the gate. Then it seems to want to default into a kind of 'runaway' condition - as I think Happy referred to it.

Regards,
Rosemary

Rosemary Ainslie · « **Reply #773 on:** April 23, 2011, 06:40:42 AM »

And Guys - another thought. Consider too that these parasitic oscillations are only evident when those MOSFETs are put in parallel. What actually has happened there? Could it be that all those extra body diodes now come into play? That there are then enough of them to better enable that returning flow? I'm sure this is part of it. But I absolutely do not have the answers. I've been reading up on transistors but we really need an expert. Perhaps someone here can comment.

And Dear God - Please let it not be Poynty. I'm heartily sick of his negativity. First it was a misreading of the voltage across the battery. Then it was inductance on the wire. Then it was gross undersampling. All of it gross and unadulterated nonsense.

Again - with regards,
Rosemary

nul-points · « **Reply #774 on:** April 23, 2011, 10:03:32 AM »

hi Rosemary

the important thing at this 'poynt' is not to get distracted

it seems that there are now at least two follow-ups suggested by recent developments:

A) with the circuit as tested, go on to make whatever developments are necessary to enable continuous operation** (eg. try those suggestions for DC negative gate drive, etc)

B) with a circuit modified to place all MOSFETS truly in Gate/Drain/Source parallel, establish whether it's still possible to achieve parasitic oscillation - and if so, does this version provide significantly different energy conversion results to your March 12 test?

**
i realise that establishing proof of your 'new conduction model' is your own personal driver in performing this experiment, but i believe that you also have an altruistic desire to see people benefit from the 'clean green' energy which this circuit might address: eg. off-grid water heating

somebody recently made the valid point that if your circuit is be used in this way, then it must be made to operate continuously without danger of overheating or of 'slipping out' of the preferred drive conditions

unfortunately, i think that until you successfully enable the continuous safe operation of your circuit then nobody will be prepared to either to give any credence to your conduction model or to try and apply the 'technology'

it would be a shame to have come so far, in the face of so much flak, and not to bring this 'Herculean' task to a successful completion

i hope that you will take this post in the constructive spirit in which it is intended

np

http://docsfreelunch.blogspot.com

TheCell · « **Reply #775 on:** April 23, 2011, 12:19:22 PM »

It should be checked first to what extent the signal generator supplies power to the circuit. If this Power is not negligible put a high ohmic resistor into the signal line (10k) of the signal generator(as mentioned before).
Continuous operation tests do not make sense if during the whole time the signal generator acts as an energy supply.
IMHO it is a battery pulsing circuit , similar to the feg of bedini, or that device that richard willis demonstrates. Remember that guy pete sumaruck, who looped a battery via an inverter, that powers a 60 Watt lamp and a charger, charging this battery . Likely to succeed.

poynt99 · « **Reply #776 on:** April 23, 2011, 04:43:25 PM »

Quote from: TheCell on April 23, 2011, 12:19:22 PM

It should be checked first to what extent the signal generator supplies power to the circuit. If this Power is not negligible put a high ohmic resistor into the signal line (10k) of the signal generator(as mentioned before).
Continuous operation tests do not make sense if during the whole time the signal generator acts as an energy supply.

You are on the correct path, however the function generator never supplies much power to the circuit at all. What I believe it does do, and what is required for both the oscillation and transfer of power to the load through Q2-Q5, is provide a low-impedance AC path for the oscillations to ground potential.

How it does this precisely is unknown without having the schematic for that generator, but I believe one possibility might be protection diodes on the output of the generator.

Inserting a 10k in series with the generator will most certainly kill the operation.

.99

poynt99 · « **Reply #777 on:** April 23, 2011, 05:24:11 PM »

If anyone can find a schematic or Service Manual for the GFG-8216A Function Generator, that will help a lot.

Alternate models in the same family most likely have the same output configuration, so these schematics might apply as well:

GFG-8255A
GFG-8250A
GFG-8219A
GFG-8217A
GFG-8215A

.99

poynt99 · « **Reply #778 on:** April 23, 2011, 06:11:44 PM »

There are 'nul-points' in Rose going forward with any test until she can state in no uncertain terms which connection diagram (if any) she herself is going by as her reference.

So far she has published three very different schematics, and I think the good folks here deserve to know which one everyone should be referring to when discussing the circuit.

It is clear and obvious from the demonstration video how the actual circuit is connected (if one bothers to look), but so far Rose has not published a schematic diagram that depicts that actual configuration.

Until Rose comes forward and discloses the actual circuit drawing that represents the prototype apparatus she has been testing, there is 'nul-point' in suggesting she change to real-parallel (which she will unlikely do anyway).

.99

poynt99 · « **Reply #779 on:** April 23, 2011, 06:32:43 PM »

In the mean time, I have been playing with the simulation, and I believe I have a good enough handle on things to produce a number of results.

There are basically 3 different configurations we can explore:

1) Q1-Q5 in true parallel. An oscillating circuit is possible in this configuration, but the wave forms are somewhat different than what Rose currently has.

2) Q1 as the Gate drive, and Q2-Q5 with G and S pins swapped. This configuration oscillates and produces wave forms that are closer to the actual scope measurements. This is also the current configuration of the actual apparatus as it has been tested. I can demonstrate an average 0 or negative shunt voltage as Rose has. The Vbat and shunt traces are nicely inverted (although lightly offset) from each other. All powers and currents can be demonstrated.

3) Q2-Q5 receive Gate drive, and Q1 is connected with G and S pins swapped. This is the configuration of the last simulation diagram Rose published on her blog. This is not representative of the current build apparatus, but does produce similar results to 2) above. In fact in terms of the simulation, this configuration produces wave forms that are closer to the actual scope traces than in 2). A negative shunt current can easily be demonstrated, along with all the actual powers and currents throughout the circuit.

The one caveat however in all the simulations, has been that the Gate drive resistor must be quite a bit lower than the theoretical 50 Ohms output of the Function Generator. Values can range from 2 Ohms to 22 Ohms (as was used in the last sim posted by Rose).

My simulation of the exact same Simetrix schematic Rose last posted did not want to run with the Gate resistor at 22 Ohms as shown. It required a value of about 5 Ohms in order for oscillation to occur. This could be due a to slightly different IRFPG50 model used in Simetrix compared to PSPice. However, as I mentioned in a previous post, the Function Generator does not supply significant power to the load, it is mainly used as a DC bias for the Gate to enable/disable circuit oscillation by adjusting the MOSFET channel resistance. The FG also appears to be providing for a low-impedance AC path for the high frequency oscillations, and without this path, the circuit will not oscillate and supply significant power to the load.

So I ask Rose or anyone; is there any particular circuit and any particular "effect" you would be interested in seeing?

Just let me know and I will try to produce the desired results. In the mean time, I will be playing a bit more and perhaps posting some of the various results which I feel get to the meat of the matter here.

.99

Cookie	Origin	Persistency	Information and Usage
ecl_auth	overunity.com	Expires after 30 days	This cookie contains the text "EU Cookie Law - LiPF cookies authorised". Without this cookie, the Forums' software is prevented from setting other cookies.
SMFCookie648	overunity.com	Expires according to user-chosen session duration	If you log-in as a member of this site, this cookie contains your user name, an encrypted hash of your password and the time you logged-in. It is used by the site software to ensure that features such as indicating new Forum and Private messages are indicated to you. This cookie is essential for the site software to work correctly.
PHPSESSID	overunity.com	Current session only	This cookie contains a unique Session Identification value. It is set for both members and non-members (guests) and it is essential for the site software to work correctly. This cookie is not persistent and should be automatically removed when you close the browser window.
pmx_upshr{NAME}	overunity.com	Current session only	These cookies are set to records your display preferences for the site's Portal page if a panel or individual block is collapsed or expanded
pmx_pgidx_blk{ID}	overunity.com	Current session only	These cookies are set to records the page number for the site's Portal page if the page for a individual block is changed.
pmx_cbtstat{ID}	overunity.com	Current session only	These cookies are set to records the expand/collapse state for a CBT Navigator block content.
pmx_poll{ID}	overunity.com	Current session only	These cookies are set to records the id for the current poll in a multiple Poll block.
pmx_{fadername}	overunity.com	Current session only	These cookies are set to records the state for a Opac-Fader block.
pmx_LSBsub{ID}	overunity.com	Current session only	These cookies are set to records the current category and the state for a static Category block.
pmx_shout{ID}	overunity.com	Current session only	These cookies are set to records the current state of a Shout box block.
pmx_php_ckeck	overunity.com	Page load time	This cookie will probably never see you. It is set, if a Syntax check on a PHP block is initiated and will be deleted if the function executed.
pmx_YOfs	overunity.com	Page load time	This cookie will probably never see you. It is set on portal actions like click on a page number. The cookie is evaluated on load the desired page and then deleted. It is used to restore the vertical screen position as before the click.

1	We are aware that Google uses additional cookies it stores on your PC and when you browse our site and all other sites. These are used to target advertising and Google currently does this without seeking your permission. Four of these cookies we know about are named "rememberme", "NID", "PREF" and "PP_TOS_ACK" and are stored in Google's cache on your computer.
2	If you are accessing this site using someone else's computer, please ask the owner's permission before accepting cookies.
3	Your browser provides you with the ability to inspect all cookies stored on your PC. In addition your browser is responsible for removing "current session only" cookies and those that have expired; if your browser is not doing this, you should report the matter to your browser's authors.
4	We regret and apologies for any inconvenience this causes to members and guests who are accessing our web site from outside the European Union. It is not currently possible for us to interrogate your browser and obtain geographic location information in order to decide whether or not to prompt you to accept cookies.

News:

User Menu

Author Topic: Rosemary Ainslie circuit demonstration on Saturday March 12th 2011 (Read 711032 times)

Sprocket

Re: Rosemary Ainslie circuit demonstration on Saturday March 12th 2011

poynt99

Re: Rosemary Ainslie circuit demonstration on Saturday March 12th 2011

poynt99

Re: Rosemary Ainslie circuit demonstration on Saturday March 12th 2011

cHeeseburger

Re: Rosemary Ainslie circuit demonstration on Saturday March 12th 2011

cHeeseburger

Re: Rosemary Ainslie circuit demonstration on Saturday March 12th 2011

poynt99

Re: Rosemary Ainslie circuit demonstration on Saturday March 12th 2011

poynt99

Re: Rosemary Ainslie circuit demonstration on Saturday March 12th 2011

Rosemary Ainslie

Re: Rosemary Ainslie circuit demonstration on Saturday March 12th 2011

Rosemary Ainslie

Re: Rosemary Ainslie circuit demonstration on Saturday March 12th 2011

nul-points

Re: Rosemary Ainslie circuit demonstration on Saturday March 12th 2011

TheCell

Re: Rosemary Ainslie circuit demonstration on Saturday March 12th 2011

poynt99

Re: Rosemary Ainslie circuit demonstration on Saturday March 12th 2011

poynt99

Re: Rosemary Ainslie circuit demonstration on Saturday March 12th 2011

poynt99

Re: Rosemary Ainslie circuit demonstration on Saturday March 12th 2011

poynt99

Re: Rosemary Ainslie circuit demonstration on Saturday March 12th 2011