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

Custom Search

Author Topic: Rosemary Ainslie circuit demonstration on Saturday March 12th 2011  (Read 741303 times)

teslaalset

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 695
Re: Rosemary Ainslie circuit demonstration on Saturday March 12th 2011
« Reply #840 on: April 24, 2011, 09:03:58 PM »
@Rosemary,
Sorry, but I have to support Poynt here.
Seems you have not used Pspice ever, otherwise you would understand the negative power values of the battery.

Rose, is your setup still working?
Why not (as suggested earlier in the this thread) keep it running for a week and see how the batteries are doing after a week? 


teslaalset

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 695
Re: Rosemary Ainslie circuit demonstration on Saturday March 12th 2011
« Reply #841 on: April 24, 2011, 09:05:40 PM »
Deleted, double post. Srry.

Rosemary Ainslie

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 3968
Re: Rosemary Ainslie circuit demonstration on Saturday March 12th 2011
« Reply #842 on: April 24, 2011, 09:11:33 PM »
Guys - I was rather angry when I wrote those posts.  With good reason.  But it may be that I need to explain this carefully. 

The reason I am that anxious to get these measurements evaluated by those EXPERTS is precisely beause the minute one gets to a sum that shows a negative cycle mean voltage on a waveform - then one has definitive proof of COP infinity.

We get this using 1 MOSFET applied in the typical way - or these stack of MOSFETS applied atypically.  Because the minute you take the product of the a negative and a positive then it results in a negative.  And if you have a negative product then you are showing more energy being returned than was initially supplied.  Then we can get this same negative value over the cycle mean even when we dissipate really hefty wattage values over the resistor element.  That's the first point.

But what we wanted to highlight at that demonstration - is that we ALSO get a negative mean wattage without the sum of the voltage across the shunt being negative.  In other words it's the phase angle between the voltages that ALSO has a hidden benefit.  This is because when the battery voltage is climbing from a 'recharge' then too the shunt voltage is falling.  And vice versa.    In other words - just about any way we cut it we're into INFINITE COP territory.

Now.  There is a question of measurement error.  For instance, it was Poynty et al who insisted that I put the probes directly across the battery.  I did this.  But what they expected to find was that the battery voltage would flatline - with a small ripple.  Poynty was ON RECORD with this prediction.  We did the test.  He was WRONG.  But what it did do was give us a reduced voltage value across the battery.  And this, frankly was a relief to find.  Because we had persistently recorded a wattage that I simply COULD NOT RECONCILE with the wattages that we found on the circuit.

In the same way - there may yet be some proof that this energy is erroneous.  But it is absolutely NOT in the absurdities in Poynty's exercises.  Those analyses are not even scientific.  They are utterly misleading - and as ever - it requires a 'fudging' of the values to get there.  There is something happening on this circuit that points to an anomaly.  This because it is absolutely NOT POSSIBLE in terms of classical paradigms - to find more energy returned than delivered.  And that returned energy would show itself as a NEGATIVE VALUE in power analysis.  Otherwise one would absolutely NEVER find a negative mean average or a negative power value on any circuit EVER.  And it is at precisely this point that we have PROOF of an anomaly.

Kindest regards,
Rosemary

Rosemary Ainslie

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 3968
Re: Rosemary Ainslie circuit demonstration on Saturday March 12th 2011
« Reply #843 on: April 24, 2011, 09:15:16 PM »
I see now one thing that is tripping you up; it's the p(t) trace. I usually fore go displaying that, and I go directly to the application of the AVG function on that trace.

When you see the trace statement as" "W(R1)" for example, that means the trace is of p(t) for R1.

When you see the traces statement as: "AVG(W(R1))" using the same example, that indicates MEAN[p(t)]. This latter trace statement is what is required to obtain a numerical value of the average/real power in the device of interest.

Here is what p(t) looks like before applying the AVG function.


.99

THANK YOU FOR THAT DOWNLOAD.  NOW POYNTY POINT.  IF YOUR SIMULATION ANALYSIS IS SHOWING A NEGATIVE WATTAGE WHICH IS A CORRECT REFLECTION OF THE FACT - THEN EXPLAIN IT.  Because there is no way under the sun that this is possible according to the HOST OF EXPERTS that I have spoken to.

At this point you should think this through and come back with an explanation that is not based on the absurdities of saying that this 'represents the net LOSS of the energy from the battery'.  There are enough of us readers here to KNOW that you are NOW TALKING NONSENSE.

AND THEN FOR THE FIRST TIME YOUR POSTS WILL BE ON TOPIC.

Regards,
Rosemary

i_ron

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 1170
Re: Rosemary Ainslie circuit demonstration on Saturday March 12th 2011
« Reply #844 on: April 24, 2011, 09:15:25 PM »
And Poynty.  That highlighted bit of nonsense in your download of the battery voltage.  WHAT A JOKE.  You write this.

negative power of the battery = -33.3 watts.  Then you add (a negative battery power is normal and indicates a net loss of energy over time) - in paranthesis.

WHAT A LOAD OF COBBLERS.  IF ANYONE EVER - ANYWHERE IN THE WHOLE WORLD - EVER FOUND A NEGATIVE POWER VALUE - THEN THERE WOULD BE NOTHING BUT AMAZEMENT.  There is absolutely NOTHING normal in a negative wattage value.  In fact - so EXTRAORDINARY is this that it would be an entirely meaningless term.  Wattage is NEVER NEGATIVE.  Nor is it EVER EXPECTED TO COMPUTE TO A NEGATIVE VALUE.  IF AND WHEN IT DOES THEN IT IS EXTRAORDINARY.  This truth is so enshrined that I was ASSURED - by every expert that I have ever spoken to - that it is ENTIRELY IMPOSSIBLE TO GET A NEGATIVE WATTAGE VALUE because it is ENTIRELY IMPOSSIBLE TO RETURN MORE ENERGY THAN DELIVERED.  And a NEGATIVE WATTAGE ABSOLUTELY HAS NOTHING TO DO WITH THE ENERGY LOST OVER TIME.

You really do take us all for fools.  God help us if the nonsense that you expound is believed by anyone ever.  It is a travesty of science.

Rosemary

Good posts Rosemary!

Unfortunately simulations are only as good as their programing... which follows the dictum, Garbage in equals Garbage Out

Ron

poynt99

  • TPU-Elite
  • Hero Member
  • *******
  • Posts: 3582
Re: Rosemary Ainslie circuit demonstration on Saturday March 12th 2011
« Reply #845 on: April 24, 2011, 09:17:48 PM »
There is something happening on this circuit that points to an anomaly.  This because it is absolutely NOT POSSIBLE in terms of classical paradigms - to find more energy returned than delivered.  And that returned energy would show itself as a NEGATIVE VALUE in power analysis.  Otherwise one would absolutely NEVER find a negative mean average or a negative power value on any circuit EVER.  And it is at precisely this point that we have PROOF of an anomaly.

Kindest regards,
Rosemary

With the simulations, I showed a negative CSR voltage and negative power returned to the battery as a result. I thought that was one of your goals, and that it would be of interest to you.

.99

Rosemary Ainslie

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 3968
Re: Rosemary Ainslie circuit demonstration on Saturday March 12th 2011
« Reply #846 on: April 24, 2011, 09:23:12 PM »
Good posts Rosemary!

Unfortunately simulations are only as good as their programing... which follows the dictum, Garbage in equals Garbage Out

Ron

LOL.  Hi Ron.  Indeed.  But I think that if our simulators can show this negative value - then that's pretty cool.  It means that we may not have strayed too far from our inductive laws in the first instance.  And that's really the nub of our argument.  Faraday's IN - Kirchhoff's OUT.  Not a bad conclusion when you think how all that emphasis on stored energy ended us in this energy crisis. 

Take care
Kindest regards,
Rosie


Rosemary Ainslie

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 3968
Re: Rosemary Ainslie circuit demonstration on Saturday March 12th 2011
« Reply #847 on: April 24, 2011, 09:26:27 PM »
With the simulations, I showed a negative CSR voltage and negative power returned to the battery as a result. I thought that was one of your goals, and that it would be of interest to you.

.99

OK Poynty Point.  I'll pretend to forget that comment that you pencilled in which stated 'a negative battery power is normal and indicates a net loss of energy over time'.  I'll also pretend that I never read your forum posts which are sorely in need of moderation.  And while I'm at it - I'll also just pretend that I think you're trying to advance some knowledge here.  How's that?

Rosie-posie

 ;D

poynt99

  • TPU-Elite
  • Hero Member
  • *******
  • Posts: 3582
Re: Rosemary Ainslie circuit demonstration on Saturday March 12th 2011
« Reply #848 on: April 25, 2011, 12:05:51 AM »
As I said Rose, I thought that an indication of current flow back to the battery in a simulation would be of interested to you. This IS what I have shown. Are you interested?

If so, where do we go from here?

.99

poynt99

  • TPU-Elite
  • Hero Member
  • *******
  • Posts: 3582
Re: Rosemary Ainslie circuit demonstration on Saturday March 12th 2011
« Reply #849 on: April 25, 2011, 03:16:07 AM »
THANK YOU FOR THAT DOWNLOAD.  NOW POYNTY POINT.  IF YOUR SIMULATION ANALYSIS IS SHOWING A NEGATIVE WATTAGE WHICH IS A CORRECT REFLECTION OF THE FACT - THEN EXPLAIN IT.  Because there is no way under the sun that this is possible according to the HOST OF EXPERTS that I have spoken to.
We can certainly explore this if you are willing.

Quote
At this point you should think this through and come back with an explanation that is not based on the absurdities of saying that this 'represents the net LOSS of the energy from the battery'.  There are enough of us readers here to KNOW that you are NOW TALKING NONSENSE.
Power coming from (as opposed to going to) a source such as a battery, will always compute to a negative number.

In the attached diagram, there is a simple example with one source (Vbat) and some resistive loads, R1, R2, and CSR1.

The electric field across any source is always in opposition to the direction of current through that source.

I have marked the direction of current in RED and the polarity of the potential difference across each component in BLUE. Note that the battery Vbat has a potential difference opposite to that of all three loads? Since power in a component is the voltage across it times the current through it, it's now obvious why a source will have a negative sign associated with its power. At the loads, the potential difference across them and the current through them are in the same direction, and hence the power associated with any load is positive.

Under normal circumstances, any power source loses or gives up energy, and any load gains or receives energy, so this is an easy way to remember what polarity the power should be in each.

SPICE does not do anything unusual by applying a negative polarity to any source power that it plots on its scope, because you can see that this is precisely how the math works out.

.99

poynt99

  • TPU-Elite
  • Hero Member
  • *******
  • Posts: 3582
Re: Rosemary Ainslie circuit demonstration on Saturday March 12th 2011
« Reply #850 on: April 25, 2011, 03:44:24 AM »
btw Rose,

Part two of my post above is not the explanation of the negative power you referred to in part one. Part two was simply an explanation as to why a source's power normally has a negative sign associated with it.

All loads however, including CSR resistors, would normally have a positive power associated with them, and the fact that the CSR resistor in your measurements AND in my simulation are showing a MEAN NEGATIVE voltage, would seem to indicate that a net current is flowing into the battery, or in other words it seems to be either supplying no net energy at all, or it is getting charged, depending whether the MEAN CSR voltage is 0V or negative, respectively.

If in fact there is current going back into the battery, and it is in the same direction as the battery's electric field (contrary to the norm), then indeed the sign associated with the measured battery power would be positive.

.99

Edit: sp cor.
« Last Edit: April 25, 2011, 05:05:26 AM by poynt99 »

Rosemary Ainslie

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 3968
Re: Rosemary Ainslie circuit demonstration on Saturday March 12th 2011
« Reply #851 on: April 25, 2011, 06:08:22 AM »

Guys, I'm actually going to address this post to the general members here at OU.com.  I've referred to this OFTEN but I really need everyone here to be fully cogniscant of the facts.  From the get go this technology of ours has been attacked.  With scorn and ridicule and absolute rejection.  And it was not enough to just reject the technology.  What was also needed in this sacrificial celebration was my good name along with it.  That's immaterial - because I really DO NOT HAVE ANY SCIENTIFIC REPUTATION to protect.  But you see for yourself that the maligning the one without the other would possibly lose all that compounded force.  It is no accident that the talents of Pickle and TK and MileHigh and Poynty and others et al - et al - an on and on - were enlisted for this purpose.  Just remember how consistently I was getting booted off one forum after the other.  THAT was the object.  They did whatever was needed to get me away from here. 

Now.  Here's the thing.  Never in history has there been a new idea brought to the table - that it was NOT FIRST SCOFFED and the bringer - so to speak - maligned along with that idea.  I'm in really good company.  But the joke is that I'm BRINGING NOTHING.  All we've done is uncovered a property in electric energy that has been entirely OVERLOOKED.  HOWEVER - to get to that property - to the actual magic of the electromagnetic interaction - also needed an analysis of the actual properties of the electric condition and the magnetic condition.  That - of necessity - required a field analysis - and FIELD PHYSICS is a grossly under-evaluated branch of science.  In fact the ONLY people who have a handle on this is our string theorists.  And they're thinking is so COMPLEX - their math that obscure - that not even their expert colleagues can understand them.   

That's where I committed the heresy.  I made it simple.  Or I thought I did.  Apparently there are still those who have difficulties here and I intend changing that to make it ever simpler.  But I should not have been able to comment at all.  It simply doesn't fit with the profile of all that required high IQ and general brilliance - coupled with a first class training.  I'm the first to acknowledge this.  But but the same token I'm delighted to acknowledge it.  Here's why.  If I - who am representative of all that is average - can get MY head around it - then ANYONE CAN.  And that's my comfort.  Because the truth is this.  We have allowed our EXPERTS full license to comment on physics and - by default - on ENERGY which is the holy grail of physics.

And they, in turn, have been reluctant to ask questions - but rather to ONLY provide ANSWERS.  And even here - I suspect it's because we, the public imposed that condition on them.  It was 'the deal' in that relationship.  That way we also relinquished our own responsibility to get familiar with all the conceptual reasoning behind physics.  We 'left it' to them.  And in doing so we also relinquished our responsibility to ENGAGE in what was and is evidently a mushrooming energy crisis.  We are polluting our Mother Earth and giving it toxic scabs and poisoned lungs - and acres upon acres of poles of wires to scar it's beauty.  We're INTRUDING on a natural condition to impose our own greedy desire for energy and more and more and ever more of it.  Nothing wrong with that need.  Everything wrong in the manner in which we're trying to do this.  And while all this abuse suits the pockets of those who actually get enriched by all this, if we do NOT stem the tide of all this pollution - then I absolutely agree that Nature both can and will get rid of us.  This world is way too perfect for her to allow a lasting damage.  And she can, most certainly, recover what she wants and reject what she doesn't. 

Which all is a circuitous way of pointing out that we really need to explore this energy.  The good news is this.  Possibly for the first time ever we're in the happy position of proving a claim with MEASUREMENT.  That's a first.  Up until now, we've been told that the measurements don't support it.  But NOW THEY DO.  So.  Let's concentrate on all that measurement.  Because this goes to the  HEART of their denials and to the quintessential essense of all that required PROOF.

Kindest regards,
Rosemary

WilbyInebriated

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 3141
Re: Rosemary Ainslie circuit demonstration on Saturday March 12th 2011
« Reply #852 on: April 25, 2011, 06:14:24 AM »
As I said Rose, I thought that an indication of current flow back to the battery in a simulation would be of interested to you. This IS what I have shown. Are you interested?

If so, where do we go from here?

.99
i have an idea. probably not the most popular idea ever but...

you could get some fpga's, take the software instruction that tells this programmable hardware (fpga's) how to wire itself up as and look on that software instruction as a genetic algorithm chromosome. mutate it randomly and evolve the hardware... this has been done for over a decade and you (poynt) appear to have the skills to get the hardware part of it done. and there appears to be plenty of people on your forum (and this one) who could probably help out with the coding. hell, i might even help you out with the coding. you can even do 'extrinsic evolution' on a computer (i know you love your sims... ;) ) instead of intrinsic evolution on an actual hardware fpga. you could do this for ainslie device, the tpu, or anything you can imagine.

are you interested in such a route or would you prefer continue to defend your hallowed and incomplete classical electrodynamics and pretend that you doing such is a benefit to us all?

Rosemary Ainslie

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 3968
Re: Rosemary Ainslie circuit demonstration on Saturday March 12th 2011
« Reply #853 on: April 25, 2011, 06:26:06 AM »
i have an idea. probably not the most popular idea ever but...

you could get some fpga's, take the software instruction that tells this programmable hardware (fpga's) how to wire itself up as and look on that software instruction as a genetic algorithm chromosome. mutate it randomly and evolve the hardware... this has been done for over a decade and you (poynt) appear to have the skills to get the hardware part of it done. and there appears to be plenty of people on your forum (and this one) who could probably help out with the coding. hell, i might even help you out with the coding. you can even do 'extrinsic evolution' on a computer (i know you love your sims... ;) ) instead of intrinsic evolution on an actual hardware fpga. you could do this for ainslie device, the tpu, or anything you can imagine.

are you interested in such a route or would you prefer continue to defend your hallowed and incomplete classical electrodynamics and pretend that you doing such is a benefit to us all?

Hi Wilby.  What is an fpga?

WilbyInebriated

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 3141
Re: Rosemary Ainslie circuit demonstration on Saturday March 12th 2011
« Reply #854 on: April 25, 2011, 06:29:44 AM »
Hi Wilby.  What is an fpga?
a field programmable gate array. the logic elements that constitute its most elementary workings can be changed at will by reprogramming the bits in the chip’s memory, known as configuration bits. gates, for example, can be changed to and gates or not gates, input wires can be reprogrammed to be output wires, and so on.

edit: look at the config bits as genetic algorithm chromosomes and we can 'evolve' circuits. circuits that do some amazing things.