I believe that a clear understanding (by all concerned) of the circuit's operation is an important goal that we should strive to achieve.

Hopefully the key bits and pieces being put forward here are getting us closer to that goal.

Rose, are you commenting on the circuit's theory of operation?, and if so, is it from the perspective of your theses or from conventional electronics, or from some other?

I of course have been trying to provide insights into the circuit's theory of operation from the perspective of conventional circuit theory. I am hopeful (and hence the appeal for questions) that those interested, are gaining an understanding as to what the configuration is, why the measurements indicate what they do, and why the circuit oscillates the way it does.

.99

Whether there is an advantage to this circuit (and by "advantage", I assume you refer to some factor of COP>1), is solely dependent on one's perspective, and what assumptions one may be making about the circuit and its operation.

The information being provided is intended to aid in the understanding of the circuit. Once all are "on the same page" in terms of how the circuit works and what functions certain components fulfill, then those so inclined will be sufficiently-equipped to answer the questions you've raised, for themselves.

The assumption I am making in offering all these posts, is that most here are interested in understanding the circuit well enough to decide for themselves if there is a benefit to the apparatus in terms of OU considerations.

.99

Thanks!
The positive peak excursion across the CSR resistor, is a result of the sharply cut off Drain voltage of Q2 when it turns ON. Prior to this when Q2 is OFF, the CSR's inductance is energized by the up-swinging Drain voltage (via the 'Q1' and Q2 capacitance), and so this sudden cut-off causes the CSR's inductance to reverse it's voltage across itself (Lenz's law), and this positive peak voltage is then "limited" by the forward-biased diode, which is why the positive peaks appear "squashed" and widened.

For instance - this is a rather strange 'take'.  You state that 'the CSR' or shunt - its 'inductance is energized by the up-swinging Drain voltage (via the 'Q1 and Q2 capacitance),...  What you fail to refer to is how come there's quite this much 'upswing'. 

ALSO.  You state that the 'CSR's inductance to reverse it's voltage across itself'  is due to '(Lenz's law) when I'm rather satisfied that it's due to Faraday's Law.

And then you state that '... this positive peak voltage is then "limited" by the forward-biased diode, which is why the positive peaks appear "squashed" and "widened".'  Our evidence is that the  positive 'excursions' as you refer to it - are neither 'SQUASHED' nor 'WIDENED'.  Effectively there does not appear to be any restrictions to that postive 'excursion'.  On the contrary.  It's enabled - FULLY - as evidenced when we apply a full offset at the gate. 

So.  Moving on. 
 

This latter part happens when Q2 is ON, so the diode is forward-biased into a 0-volt potential, which is why it can limit the positive peak, even though it may only be a couple volts in amplitude.

There is no 'limit' to that 'positive peak'.  You really need to try your simulator at higher values.  The positive 'peak' is well able to exceed the battery voltage.  And the signal that allows either the 'positive' or the 'negative' peak - depending on which charge is presented and where - at the gate - has nothing whatsoever to do with the the bias of the body diode.  That NEVER CHANGES.  Not on either setting.  It never exceeds the reasonable tolerance of the transistor which limits it to about 6 volts max.  Hardly consistent with the voltage that it's allowed at either side of that circuit.

The sim results show no significant difference between the two circuit configurations in efficiency for power transferred to and dissipated in the load resistor.

And what is omitted here is something that SHOULD by rights be emphasised.  Here it is.  The resistor on that first setting dissipates plus/minus 6 watts - depending on the 'level' or the 'excursion' of that peak voltage.  Yet neither you nor I can find any evidence of this costing the battery anything at all. 

So.  Poynty Point.  If NP asked some appropriate questions - then can you explain how your answers are appropriate?  Are you trying to diminish the significance of this circuit effect with the excessive use of 'innuendo'?  Surely not.  We were all so ready to trust your analysis.

Regards as ever -  and in the rather reckless hope  that you'll prove me wrong - YET AGAIN.

Rosemary

edited for emphasis.
and again.  also for emphasis.

@.99
You have turned it all round now, this thread was on its way out like all the others and now it's back and hotter than ever finally things might get clear and simple 
I take back any disparaging remarks I might have made in the past.
Exceptional work Sir, hats off to you.
 

And Cat - this post worries me more than anything that Poynty writes.  It means that the validity or otherwise of this 'effect' will only be endorsed if he endorses it?  Is that right?  Is there nothing in the evidence that speaks to you?  Am I that ineffective that nothing I present makes a blind bit of difference to your 'beliefs'?  Has that endless attack against my competence actually been that effective?  That's a killer.  More frightening than anything I've read yet.  Because I'm reasonably satisified that there is a dedicated 'reach' to denying this technology and that it's a deliberate and orchestrated denial that has nothing to do with science.  It has everything to do self-interest.  I have no idea if it's jealousy - on the ridiculous assumption that this constitutes a discovery when it does not.  Or if it's funded from interested parties who do not want to see OU progressed.  Or if denial has simply become a compulsive illogical habit - a kind of addiction - like MileHigh has.

I assure you.  There is NO WAY that one can get more energy returned to a supply than was first delivered without there being a second supply source.  That's it.  In a nut shell.  And that's what we keep showing.  But we're going to the 'heart' of classical argument because we're showing it with conventional measurement.  I suspect that Poynty's stopped arguing the evidence - because there's just way too much of it.  Now he's arguing the relevance.  And when he uses spurious argument as he did to NP and when NP also feels flattered at the answer instead of alert and cautious - then we're SUNK.  That is not what these forums are about.  We're meant to be asking questions and giving all evidence due and proper consideration.

I could bore you all by showing you the kind of objections posed thus far - that has taken us to these 60 odd pages of writing - but it would take up too much time and more wasted space.  But cast your mind back.  Look at the facts.  Try and remember what's been said.  Those denials were based on incorrect science.  YET you're more inclined to believe Poynty than our own presentations?  Why?  Because he denies the evidence?  And that's more plausible?  Golly.  As I said.  If that's the case - then we may as well close up shop - close down these forums - and just keep our findings to ourselves. 

Kindest regards,
Rosie 

And Cat - this post worries me more than anything that Poynty writes.  It means that the validity or otherwise of this 'effect' will only be endorsed if he endorses it?  Is that right?  Is there nothing in the evidence that speaks to you?  Am I that ineffective that nothing I present makes a blind bit of difference to your 'beliefs'?  Has that endless attack against my competence actually been that effective?  That's a killer.  More frightening than anything I've read yet.  Because I'm reasonably satisified that there is a dedicated 'reach' to denying this technology and that it's a deliberate and orchestrated denial that has nothing to do with science.  It has everything to do self-interest.  I have no idea if it's jealousy - on the ridiculous assumption that this constitutes a discovery when it does not.  Or if it's funded from interested parties who do not want to see OU progressed.  Or if denial has simply become a compulsive illogical habit - a kind of addiction - like MileHigh has.

I assure you.  There is NO WAY that one can get more energy returned to a supply than was first delivered without there being a second supply source.  That's it.  In a nut shell.  And that's what we keep showing.  But we're going to the 'heart' of classical argument because we're showing it with conventional measurement.  I suspect that Poynty's stopped arguing the evidence - because there's just way too much of it.  Now he's arguing the relevance.  And when he uses spurious argument as he did to NP and when NP also feels flattered at the answer instead of alert and cautious - then we're SUNK.  That is not what these forums are about.  We're meant to be asking questions and giving all evidence due and proper consideration.

I could bore you all by showing you the kind of objections posed thus far - that has taken us to these 60 odd pages of writing - but it would take up too much time and more wasted space.  But cast your mind back.  Look at the facts.  Try and remember what's been said.  Those denials were based on incorrect science.  YET you're more inclined to believe Poynty than our own presentations?  Why?  Because he denies the evidence?  And that's more plausible?  Golly.  As I said.  If that's the case - then we may as well close up shop - close down these forums - and just keep our findings to ourselves. 

Kindest regards,
Rosie

Hi Rosie
I don't think the conspiracy against you is as big as you think, many good people of this forum have tried making your circuit unfortunately they have not achieved the same results as you claim,
if anyone looks on YouTube for your circuit they will get 52 results posted in the last two years,
that in itself speaks volumes when you compare it with say the Bedini circuit.
http://www.youtube.com/results?search_type=videos&search_query=Rosemary+Ainslie+circuit&search_sort=video_date_uploaded&suggested_categories=28&uni=3
Yes I understand your circuit is unconventional and almost impossible to measure correctly,but from where I am sitting .99 is only trying to improve the situation so that others can easily make the circuit and measure it correctly, yes you have supporters but I have yet to see their replication back up your claims.
I admire your dedication and very much it is what is needed to be successful and the other half is that people can easily understand your work and follow in your footsteps, .99 is only trying to help you in this.
 

Hi Rosie
I don't think the conspiracy against you is as big as you think, many good people of this forum have tried making your circuit unfortunately they have not achieved the same results as you claim,
if anyone looks on YouTube for your circuit they will get 52 results posted in the last two years,
that in itself speaks volumes when you compare it with say the Bedini circuit.
http://www.youtube.com/results?search_type=videos&search_query=Rosemary+Ainslie+circuit&search_sort=video_date_uploaded&suggested_categories=28&uni=3
yes I understand your circuit is unconventional and almost impossible to measure correctly,but from where I am sitting .99 is only trying to improve the situation so that others can easily make the circuit and measure it correctly, yes you have supporters but I have yet to see their replication back up your claims.
I admire your dedication and very much it is what is needed to be successful and the other half is that people can easily understand your work and follow in your footsteps, .99 is only trying to help you in this.
 

Thanks Cat.  But power measurements are not difficult.  It's just that for accuracy one needs good instruments.  But I hear you.  And I see how I've offended NP - not intended.  Abject apologies NP. 

And it is absolutely NOT true that no-one has replicated our results.  But there too - it seems that we do this with ease where everyone else seems to battle.  Perhaps that too is to do with the oscilloscopes that I've been privileged to access. 

You only ever need a shunt in series with the negative or positive rail of the supply - to determine the rate of current flow. And this times the supply voltage - is the product - the amount of power delivered.  No matter what system is being tested - this is absolutely all that's needed.  I have never seen it applied to any of the tests that I've seen elsewhere.  Not even on Lawrence's tests.  I've seen that it may be there.  I've seen motors that keep turning.  But.  For some reason - this definitive value is never actually shown.  We show it.

It is understood that the amount of energy required to apply a signal at the gate - is nominal.  But if this is contended as a possible source of energy - then it is relatively simple to measure this too.  And we've done this.   I'll need to look up those results again.  But they were that insubstantial that we haven't even repeated those tests.  And even then they were seen to be returning energy to the functions generator rather than being delivered. 

In effect we have a net gain to the system.  Not a disproportionate gain.  Not a measurable >17 or >7 watts.  But a net gain.  A full on evidence of zero discharge from the supply.  In other words Infinite COP.  That in itself should raise eyebrows.  Then the kicker.  Poynty's sims and our own endorse this result.  Which means that however those algorithms are determined - conventional or standard protocols actually do allow for this eventuality.  That great big 'no no'.  That never to be entertained possibility.  That embarrassing result that no self-respecting electrical engineer is prepared to consider.  Our machines are ignoring them.  They're just showing us and they keep showing us that this result is just so available.

And then do yourself a favour - if you're really going to quote some stats.  Check up on how many denials there are of this result - compared to how many endorse it.  I'd say it's in the region of 10 against to every one that I post.  And it's only me trying to do this.  There is not one member of the team who are in the least bit interested in this 'internet event'.  They get on with their lives and help me where they can.  But they sure as hell aren't going to engage here - in public so to speak.  That's my deal.  I'm alone in this 'mission' to try and use 'dialogue' as a means to advance all this. 

It's not the happiest thing that I've every tried to do - I assure you.  What it has done has alerted me to the actual effectiveness of the internet as a medium to advance anything at all.  I'm not sure that it's workable.  And I'm seriously rethinking this.  But what I do know is that it's a public record.  If I die without any progress - then what I think or thought - is here recorded.  Perhaps that has merit.  Not sure.  But one hopes.

Anyway.  Enough said.  I think we need to hear from Poynty.  And I need some kind of reassurance.  I took an unfortunate stroll through a couple of his threads last night.  And those spurious and pretentious arguments against this and that clamorous reach to paint me an idiot - it's just so out of line.  There is absolutely no reason for me to trust his intentions.  Even if they were honourable - then why that post to NP?  It's loaded with implication and it's all intended - yet again - to discount the evidence.  Nowhere has there been open acknowledgement.  I need to read that much - at least.  Right now Poynty has not openly admitted that there's a gain.  Why? 

Kindest as ever,
Rosie

Regarding those two additional (not yet implemented) simplifications;

Does anyone see the potential to re-locate the fixed 5VDC voltage source, yet not disturb the circuit operation at all?

.99

It appears you have misunderstood the gist of my post Rose.

The Drain indeed has about a 250V up-swing in voltage in my simulation, but np's question, and my subsequent response was regarding the positive portion of the voltage across the "CSR".

In this regard, the effects I described are appropriate to the positive portion of the "CSR" voltage, and what causes it.

.99

No.  Not actually.  I certainly understood your post.  You haven't understood mine.  Why have you referenced Lenz Law and omitted Faraday's.  And why did you write 'The sim results show no significant difference between the two circuit configurations in efficiency for power transferred to and dissipated in the load resistor.'  You're referring to sim results on just ONE setting.  What happens to your sims Poynty - when you actually start applying an effective positive voltage at the gate that DOES result in an increase in energy?  When that voltage across the shunt stays postiive for the duration of the 'on' period of each duty cycle? 

With respect - a cursory reading of that comment of yours and one would almost think that there's no point to that Q1 MOSFET at all.  Surely you're not being serious?

Rosemary