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.

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
« previous next »
Pages: 1 ... 54 55 56 57 58 [59] 60 61 62 63 64 ... 120   Go Down

Author Topic: Rosemary Ainslie circuit demonstration on Saturday March 12th 2011  (Read 711561 times)

Offline TheCell

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 285
Re: Rosemary Ainslie circuit demonstration on Saturday March 12th 2011
« Reply #870 on: April 25, 2011, 07:49:11 PM »
It is interesting that a simulation shows the effect of charging the battery with even one mosfet used. Now you could exchange the mosfet with a normal bipolar transistor or / and exchange the lead acid battery e.g. with a lithium ion battery and watch if the effect still persists.
If the effect diminishes after exchanging the battery than it's a bedini thing,
if it does so after exchanging the mosfet , it maybe a case of negative resistor effect shown with it.

Logged

Offline Rosemary Ainslie

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 3968
Re: Rosemary Ainslie circuit demonstration on Saturday March 12th 2011
« Reply #871 on: April 25, 2011, 07:56:55 PM »
Quote from: nul-points on April 25, 2011, 10:00:04 AM
hi Rosemary

if 4 out of the 5 MOSFETs are merely providing (rather unconventional) feed back to Q1 gate, how many are actually needed to achieve the same effective results (eg. as March 12)?  does it still work with, say: 4? ..3? ..2? ..1?

also, does any other particular number of 'feedback' MOSFETs appear to give a better result than 4 of them?

thanks
np


http://docsfreelunch.blogspot.com

Hi nul-points.  I'm afraid I can't answer this.  Once those clips are disconnected I can't reconnect them because I can't quite follow their threads.  It's my bad eyesight.  So.  I need someone else to do this test and the guys who work with me on this are just too busy.  I was, in fact, hoping to get some of this done today - but we got caught up with an entirely unrelated circuit.  They're trying to generate a continual oscillation without the switch.  Some really interesting results.  But too unstable at this point.  Apparently we'll have another go at this in a week or so.  When we've got it that it's more repeatable then I'll post that circuit.  Some interesting thinking. 

I'll also do some detailed tests on how many MOSFETs required during this coming week.  But I'll have to wait to find out who's available. 

Kindest as ever,
Rosemary

edited
« Last Edit: April 25, 2011, 08:27:18 PM by Rosemary Ainslie »
Logged

Offline nul-points

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 995
    • Doc Ringwood's Free Energy blog
Re: Rosemary Ainslie circuit demonstration on Saturday March 12th 2011
« Reply #872 on: April 25, 2011, 08:01:10 PM »
Quote from: poynt99 on April 25, 2011, 05:46:14 PM
I think we all can agree on the established fact that a net MEAN negative CSR voltage would seem to indicate a net current going back into the source battery.

A question to Rose, and any of the readers here (it would be interesting to hear any thoughts on this):

Is this apparent reversed current going back toward the source battery a consequence and product of the circuit operation itself, or is battery chemistry involved and somehow required to produce this reverse-current effect?

.99

i think that is a key question in starting to get a handle on the nature of any anomaly which may be present

tests have been suggested (some months back) to discriminate between these possibilities but the onus is rather on Rosemary to try some of these variations whilst keeping the remainder of the circuit unchanged, so we can be more confident that any different behaviour only follows the change and not anything to do with the build-specifics of other reps

(EDIT - however, i wouldn't expect battery-related effects to be evident in sim results)


my initial response to a CSR in the Vgs loop would be to move it to the drain side - but - it's just possible that the feedback from a Vgs shunt could be contributing to anomalous operating conditions

so on reflection i'd probably put this change on the 'try-one-change-at-a-time' list of follow-up tests

just my 2c
np


http://docsfreelunch.blogspot.com
 
 

Logged

Offline poynt99

  • TPU-Elite
  • Hero Member
  • *******
  • Posts: 3582
Re: Rosemary Ainslie circuit demonstration on Saturday March 12th 2011
« Reply #873 on: April 25, 2011, 08:08:52 PM »
Quote from: Rosemary Ainslie on April 25, 2011, 07:56:55 PM
I was, in fact, hoping to get some of this done today - but we got caught up with an entirely unrelated circuit.  They're trying to generate a continual oscillation without the switch.  Some really interesting results.  But too unstable at this point.
:o
Could you explain a bit more what you mean Rose? Are you saying you guys are attempting to make an oscillator with no active device at all, i.e. no MOSFET or transistors?

.99
Logged

Offline Rosemary Ainslie

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 3968
Re: Rosemary Ainslie circuit demonstration on Saturday March 12th 2011
« Reply #874 on: April 25, 2011, 08:09:02 PM »
Quote from: poynt99 on April 25, 2011, 03:26:37 PM
Rose,

I remember there was some suspicion that the Instek function generator may not be working properly (possibly damaged), but I thought it was subsequently determined to be OK. Is this now not the case? Is that why you now require another generator?

What model is the Tek generator you've now got?

.99

We had a first early ISO-TECH.  GFG H216A.  This gave us 3 minutes on the duty cycle - max 20% on or off - and it worked perfectly.  Then we tested this against a second identical model to check that the effect was not associated with vagaries related to that make.  The second - also an Iso-Tech - also fresh out the box - didn't work as there was something wrong with the duty cycle - that it would not adjust at all.  Then we tried a 3rd that worked as well as the 1st.  Because we'd marked the various optimised button settings on the first - we continued working with that.  We then got another 'new out the box' for the home demos - which is when we found we could only get 2.08 minutes from the switch.  Then we replaced this - yet again - and I 'think' we're back to 3 minutes.  But the waveform still has that 'hammer head' 'start' of each oscillation.  I now think this must have been the result of one of the MOSFETS that we needed to replace.  But I can live with this variation.  It's just a shame that we can't get back the early shape that did not default during the oscillation phase. 
 
We have still not tested the Tektronix.  Hopefully I'll start on this soon.  It's a Tektronix CFG280.  Not new out the box - but fully tested and fully calibrated.

Regards,
Rosemary
Logged

Offline Rosemary Ainslie

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 3968
Re: Rosemary Ainslie circuit demonstration on Saturday March 12th 2011
« Reply #875 on: April 25, 2011, 08:12:46 PM »
Quote from: Sprocket on April 25, 2011, 04:12:43 PM
Rosemary, you mentioned that you couldn't get that massively-long mark-space ratio to work properly anymore a few pages back - is that the reason you had to get another one, or was it just for the shorter duty-cycle?

Hi Sprocket.  Yes indeed.  The really interesting test will be on this Tektronix - because it's able to give a 5% duty cycle 'on' or 'off' which I'm looking forward to testing.

Take care of yourself Sprocket.  I love your posts.
Kindest regards,
Rosemary

 :)
Logged

Offline poynt99

  • TPU-Elite
  • Hero Member
  • *******
  • Posts: 3582
Re: Rosemary Ainslie circuit demonstration on Saturday March 12th 2011
« Reply #876 on: April 25, 2011, 08:15:50 PM »
Agreed np,

However imho, the most practical CSR placement least prone to error or influence is in the negative leg of the battery, and as close as possible to the battery as well.

As pointed out in a previous post with diagram, this also provides a very convenient configuration to allow the scope probes to span both the battery and the CSR, and provide for the same lead "common".

.99
Logged

Offline poynt99

  • TPU-Elite
  • Hero Member
  • *******
  • Posts: 3582
Re: Rosemary Ainslie circuit demonstration on Saturday March 12th 2011
« Reply #877 on: April 25, 2011, 08:21:10 PM »
Quote from: Rosemary Ainslie on April 25, 2011, 08:09:02 PM

We have still not tested the Tektronix.  Hopefully I'll start on this soon.  It's a Tektronix CFG280.  Not new out the box - but fully tested and fully calibrated.

Regards,
Rosemary

Thanks.

I'd be interested in hearing about the results with this generator as well.

.99
Logged

Offline Rosemary Ainslie

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 3968
Re: Rosemary Ainslie circuit demonstration on Saturday March 12th 2011
« Reply #878 on: April 25, 2011, 08:21:40 PM »
Quote from: poynt99 on April 25, 2011, 05:46:14 PM
I think we all can agree on the established fact that a net MEAN negative CSR voltage would seem to indicate a net current going back into the source battery.

A question to Rose, and any of the readers here (it would be interesting to hear any thoughts on this):

Is this apparent reversed current going back toward the source battery a consequence and product of the circuit operation itself, or is battery chemistry involved and somehow required to produce this reverse-current effect?

.99

Not sure if I'm allowed to venture an answer here.  My own take is that just as there's a quantifiable energy in the battery - and a quantifiable amount of this generated to flow as current through the circuit - in the same way the circuit material has that same quantifiable amount of energy which is also then generated to flow - but in the opposite direction.  The two currents forge their own path to their own separate sources.  Therefore - regardless of the battery chemistry - this energy keeps getting routed back to where it belongs - the one postive - back to the battery to discharge it - then the one negative - back to the circuit material that generated it.

Therefore there may or may not be time for the electrolytes to entirely reposition or whatever the term is.  But the current - the actual material current flow - is compelled to return there.  Which is also why I do NOT think that a capacitor would work.  It would separate the current flow from the source and I'm not sure how it can then know where to return.  But I'm open to correction.  I know that some small test was done on this during this last week and it did seem as if the capacitor did not retain any charge.  But I was not there to see the test and I am not in receipt of the full results. 

Kindest as ever,
Rosemary   
Logged

Offline nul-points

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 995
    • Doc Ringwood's Free Energy blog
Re: Rosemary Ainslie circuit demonstration on Saturday March 12th 2011
« Reply #879 on: April 25, 2011, 08:26:25 PM »
Quote from: poynt99 on April 25, 2011, 08:15:50 PM
Agreed np,

However imho, the most practical CSR placement least prone to error or influence is in the negative leg of the battery, and as close as possible to the battery as well.

As pointed out in a previous post with diagram, this also provides a very convenient configuration to allow the scope probes to span both the battery and the CSR, and provide for the same lead "common".

.99

yes - i'm with you on the common ground advantages - but perversely my gut feel says try at least 1 change-out test for minimal feedback at the gate - maybe with minimal monitoring just to get a 'go/no-go' type handle on any contribution to anomalous operation from a 'source-ended' gate drive

...anyway - for the moment, it sounds like Rosemary & team may be trying the earlier DC gate drive suggestion, so i guess we need to 'watch this space'!
Logged

Offline poynt99

  • TPU-Elite
  • Hero Member
  • *******
  • Posts: 3582
Re: Rosemary Ainslie circuit demonstration on Saturday March 12th 2011
« Reply #880 on: April 25, 2011, 08:32:27 PM »
Quote from: Rosemary Ainslie on April 25, 2011, 08:21:40 PM
Therefore - regardless of the battery chemistry - this energy keeps getting routed back to where it belongs - the one postive - back to the battery to discharge it - then the one negative - back to the circuit material that generated it.
In summary of the above, are you saying that battery chemistry IS involved and a necessary part of the process to produce the reverse-current effect?

Quote
Therefore there may or may not be time for the electrolytes to entirely reposition or whatever the term is.  But the current - the actual material current flow - is compelled to return there.  Which is also why I do NOT think that a capacitor would work.  It would separate the current flow from the source and I'm not sure how it can then know where to return.  But I'm open to correction.  I know that some small test was done on this during this last week and it did seem as if the capacitor did not retain any charge.  But I was not there to see the test and I am not in receipt of the full results. 

Kindest as ever,
Rosemary
Was the capacitor connected in parallel with the battery stack or was it connected to the circuit by itself?

.99
Logged

Offline Rosemary Ainslie

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 3968
Re: Rosemary Ainslie circuit demonstration on Saturday March 12th 2011
« Reply #881 on: April 25, 2011, 08:34:23 PM »
Quote from: poynt99 on April 25, 2011, 08:08:52 PM
:o
Could you explain a bit more what you mean Rose? Are you saying you guys are attempting to make an oscillator with no active device at all, i.e. no MOSFET or transistors?

.99

No.  What's being designed is the use of MOSFETs without a signal generator.  But I'm on such wobbly ground here.  I shouldn't have mentioned it probably.  I have NO idea what the circuit showed.  But we'll post it when we've got something more stable.  Some interesting early indications of that same oscillation.  But no benefits.  I think they're looking to modify the circuit. 

Probably shouldn't have mentioned it.  You'll need to be patient.  I'll certainly have something to post within the next ten days or so.

Regards,
Rosemary
Logged

Offline poynt99

  • TPU-Elite
  • Hero Member
  • *******
  • Posts: 3582
Re: Rosemary Ainslie circuit demonstration on Saturday March 12th 2011
« Reply #882 on: April 25, 2011, 08:36:34 PM »
Quote from: Rosemary Ainslie on April 25, 2011, 08:34:23 PM
No.  What's being designed is the use of MOSFETs without a signal generator.  But I'm on such wobbly ground here.  I shouldn't have mentioned it probably.  I have NO idea what the circuit showed.  But we'll post it when we've got something more stable.  Some interesting early indications of that same oscillation.  But no benefits.  I think they're looking to modify the circuit. 

Probably shouldn't have mentioned it.  You'll need to be patient.  I'll certainly have something to post within the next ten days or so.

Regards,
Rosemary

OK thanks.

I see it was an issue of the terminology used.

.99
Logged

Offline Rosemary Ainslie

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 3968
Re: Rosemary Ainslie circuit demonstration on Saturday March 12th 2011
« Reply #883 on: April 25, 2011, 09:00:57 PM »
Quote from: poynt99 on April 25, 2011, 08:32:27 PM
In summary of the above, are you saying that battery chemistry IS involved and a necessary part of the process to produce the reverse-current effect?
Was the capacitor connected in parallel with the battery stack or was it connected to the circuit by itself?

.99

Poynty.  What I'm actually saying is this.  The current that flows from the battery is trying to get back to the negative terminal.  Then it can reposition it's charge.  Then it can separate from the field (the voltage and/or current) into discrete packages that then break away from the field and move to recombine the molecules.  WHEN they separate from the voltage/current - then they can recombine those atoms into a molecular arrangement that is more 'balanced'.  But they never actually 'break' from that voltage/current into those discrete packages - because they've no sooner reached the negative terminal than the NEGATIVE cycle kicks in.  The potential difference has now changed from the one to the other - from the battery to the circuit material.  And the potential difference that is now weighed in favour of this negative current wants to do exactly the same thing - just get back to the POSITIVE terminal of the circuit material to recombine those atoms.  It no sooner gets there than the POSTIVE cycle kicks in.  And so it goes. 

So.  The short answer is NO.  There is no time for that chemical interaction to take place.  Effectively the battery and the circuit material are both permanently imbalanced.  And they both represent an energy supply source.

Golly.  I wonder if this makes any kind of sense to anyone at all.  I do hope so.   
 
Regards,
Rosemary

BTW - I THINK this is what's happening.  I don't know.  It is, therefore, just my opinion - at this stage.  This is where we need those chemistry experts.
Logged

Offline poynt99

  • TPU-Elite
  • Hero Member
  • *******
  • Posts: 3582
Re: Rosemary Ainslie circuit demonstration on Saturday March 12th 2011
« Reply #884 on: April 25, 2011, 09:08:02 PM »
Quote from: Rosemary Ainslie on April 25, 2011, 09:00:57 PM
So.  The short answer is NO.  There is no time for that chemical interaction to take place.  Effectively the battery and the circuit material are both permanently imbalanced.  And they both represent an energy supply source.

Golly.  I wonder if this makes any kind of sense to anyone at all.  I do hope so.   
 
Regards,
Rsoemary

If you are saying that battery chemistry (and hence a physical "battery") is not a required element to produce this reverse-current effect in the circuit, then could some other DC voltage source be substituted for the battery and still have the circuit exhibit that reverse-current effect?

.99
Logged
Pages: 1 ... 54 55 56 57 58 [59] 60 61 62 63 64 ... 120   Go Up
« previous next »