Free Energy | searching for free energy and discussing free energy

Evolvingape,

Always intrigues me how people choose their avatars.  I think the term is nominative determinism.  Something like that.  I wish you well in this reach.

You keep on and on about batteries.  Perhaps you could take the trouble to read the para under discussion.  What was meant here is that while we have evidence of 'retained' potential difference over an extended period - I have NEVER seen a charge beyond it's starting point.  Yet the instantaneous wattage analysis indicates that the batteries should have been cooking.  I have no idea how to resolve this.  We STRESS that in the report.  HOWEVER.  Nor is it something that can be evaluated by any of us.  It needs a chemist to do a proper analysis.  All I know is that if you take any current from any plug - rectify it that the negative moves to one application and the positive to another - then one could apply a signal at the gate to each half of the input sinewave in antiphase - and we could, theoretically, bill our utility suppliers.  That's the point.  Either there is some measurements error - or there's an anomaly that also requires some resolution.  With the utmost respect to your own expertise - I think we need the expert advice of chemists to establish the recharged condition of the batteries.  I have not tested the batteries over an extended period - because, frankly, it is NOT the object of the demonstration nor of the report.  I have been seduced - in the past - to doing battery draw down comparisons to prove out performance over rated capacities.  And it made not a blind bit of difference.  Quite apart from which it's a tedious series of tests and controls to prove it.  And even proven - it is regardless NOT considered conclusive - or certainly NOT by mainstream.  And their opinion matters rather more than your own.   

Your comments regarding the parasitic oscillation are noted - but are also spurious.  Parasitic oscillation is NOT associated with a resonance that so perfectly reinforces itself.  Usually one expects enough variation to have the one phase cancel out the other - in some kind of waveform pattern that also generates a variation to the amplitudes.  Nor does one expect oscillation to be sustained with such high levels of current flow.  The intention - in using more FETs was to test whether the full potentials in that spike were, perhaps, being blocked by some resistance in the Zener diode.  Clearly it was.  And clearly there is some exploitable advantage to sustaining this oscillation.  And it is easily managed.  But it does appear that it requires the body diode of the MOSFETS because this condition is not managed with diodes simply placed across a single transistor.  Again.  We are only pointing to an anomaly.

The report was prepared in order to show the repeatable evidence of previously recorded effects.  I'm not sure how you can possibly object to this.  It's the most honest means we have of duplicating an experiment in line with the claims.

Finally - as mentioned in the report.  We have two options.  Either there is something wrong with the established measurements protocols applied to this kind of circuit.  Or we've got an alternate energy supply.  My hope is that the second alternative will be considered because - as far as I can tell - it's the only way to generate a similar waveform. 

Rosemary

 

BTW - and for the record.  The report was printed prior to the demo and then distributed at the demo. 

Hello Lawrence,

I need to put on record that your 'tuning fork' experiment does not - in any way - resolve the resonance that is evident on our circuit.  Perhaps you see a difference?  I think I may have pointed this out in the previous post.

However.  Your good wishes are much appreciated and I'll inform the team.  I would be happier if you would acknowledge, more freely, your reliance on the hard work that preceded your own variation of the Joule Thief circuits.  It seems to be lacking in your posts.  I'm not sure that there is sufficient tribute paid to this.  And I'm not sure that your thesis is strictly as comprehensive as you seem to imply.  Resonance is a very interesting phenomenon.  And it is clearly under exploited.  But this has been mentioned - and even shown - in a huge variety of tests - even on this forum.  In fact, I think the true precursor to this knowledge is Tesla.  I'm not sure that you've got a monopoly here.  And I'm not sure that your thesis is sufficient explanation.  I'm being blunt because I feel this needs saying.

But having said that - I think your efforts towards promotion of your circuit are deserving of every respect.  It's hard work.  I know that only too well.  And your dedication to OU causes is exemplary.

I personally, was absolutely surprised by this resonance.  I expected an improvement.  I never expected it to show itself in this way. 

Kindest regards,
Rosemary

Hi Rosemary
Congradulations with your efforts.
I have to agree with TK re the assumptions made with the battery measurements.
Also enguaging with the resident villiage idiot or clown does not do your credability anygood.. he is a harmless, self deluded enthusiest.
Mark

Hello Rosemary,

Thankyou for your reply,

I will not pay you the discourtesy that you have paid me and cherry pick the statements that I want to answer and ignore the rest. I will attempt to answer all your questions and wonderings and I will stand by what I have said.

Furthermore, reply #42 in this thread, made by yourself, says in part:

“You keep on and on about batteries. Perhaps you could take the trouble to read the para under discussion. What was meant here is that while we have evidence of 'retained' potential difference over an extended period - I have NEVER seen a charge beyond it's starting point. Yet the instantaneous wattage analysis indicates that the batteries should have been cooking. I have no idea how to resolve this. We STRESS that in the report. HOWEVER. Nor is it something that can be evaluated by any of us. It needs a chemist to do a proper analysis. All I know is that if you take any current from any plug - rectify it that the negative moves to one application and the positive to another - then one could apply a signal at the gate to each half of the input sinewave in antiphase - and we could, theoretically, bill our utility suppliers. That's the point. Either there is some measurements error - or there's an anomaly that also requires some resolution. With the utmost respect to your own expertise - I think we need the expert advice of chemists to establish the recharged condition of the batteries. I have not tested the batteries over an extended period - because, frankly, it is NOT the object of the demonstration nor of the report. I have been seduced - in the past - to doing battery draw down comparisons to prove out performance over rated capacities. And it made not a blind bit of difference. Quite apart from which it's a tedious series of tests and controls to prove it. And even proven - it is regardless NOT considered conclusive - or certainly NOT by mainstream. And their opinion matters rather more than your own. ”

The Para 4.2 under discussion actually states:

“When the offset of the function generator is adjusted (see Figure 3), the falling edge of the pulse results in a burst oscillation mode. Parasitic inductance is a well-known consequence of MOSFETs placed in parallel. It is undesirable for switching applications and is therefore, traditionally, factored out of the circuitry. On this application we have enabled that oscillation to the limit of the function generator’s slowest switching speed at 2.7 minutes or 6.172mHz. No material or evident variation or decay of that resonance through that entire period, is observed (see Figure 4). This results in a measured increase of recharge at the battery supply as well as sustaining the temperature over the resistor. It would be desirable to extend this period of oscillation to see whether decay in this oscillation, eventually takes place. These results may warrant further research, as the implications are that the current flow may be perpetuated through this self-oscillation.”

I did take the trouble to read para 4.2, I even took the trouble to reproduce it here. What it was meant to say, and what it did say are two entirely different things. To imply that my ability to read and understand the statement in question is in error, when your correction of what it is was meant to say in no way resembles what it did say is not an error on my part, I feel.

You state:

“the instantaneous wattage analysis indicates that the batteries should have been cooking. I have no idea how to resolve this.”

You have been told how to resolve this and have completely ignored the suggestions. Hook the circuit up to self run and if the batteries cook then your “analysis” was correct. If the batteries lose charge over time then the circuit is drawing power to operate. This is so very simple.

You state:

“Nor is it something that can be evaluated by any of us. It needs a chemist to do a proper analysis.”

This is complete nonsense! No chemist is ever used to establish state of charge of a battery cell. State of charge is established by doing a load test under controlled conditions. This is such a simple procedure that millions of qualified electrical engineers are capable and equipped to perform this test tomorrow.

Furthermore TK eloquently explained exactly how to do this in reply #14 in this thread:

“There are many problems with this report, but I'll just point out one serious one. The "Control Experiment" where DC power at various power levels was applied, and stable temperatures plotted, is a proper control experiment. But it wasn't used properly, unfortunately.

In an EXPERIMENT, a researcher varies one or more "independent variables" and measures the effect of this variation on "dependent variables". In the present case the Independent variable of interest is the POWER SUPPLY, whether DC or the Ainslie circuit, and one dependent variable of interest is the time-temperature curve that results from each supply. We are presented with data from the DC circuit supplying power at various levels, and we should be supplied with a graph from the Ainslie circuit supplying power at the same levels... but we aren't. Nor are we shown anything like a graph of supply voltage versus time for the Ainslie circuit, nor are we shown any evidence AT ALL that the batteries are actually being recharged.

Get two sets of batteries, use one set to heat up the load at DC power to a certain temperature and hold it. Use the second set of batteries to power the Ainslie circuit to achieve the SAME time-temp profile as in the DC case. Run both circuits for a given time. Then disconnect the batteries and run a load test... not a "Voltage" test, but a real battery load test, putting a constant load on them and timing how long it takes to run down.

These tests are easy, obvious, and are ACTUAL tests of the Ainslie conjectures. However, you don't see them being performed. At least, not since I did them, nearly two years ago now.

As a paper reporting an experiment, there are some major areas that need revision. As an experiment itself, it needs to be severely redesigned in order ACTUALLY to test any well-formed hypothesis that might be constructed from Rosemary's conjectures.”

I am not the only one saying this, and I am not the only one being ignored. More massive red flags. This test is so simple and so commonplace that I am simply staggered that you think you can deceive an educated community in this manner.

Furthermore, you state:

“I have not tested the batteries over an extended period - because, frankly, it is NOT the object of the demonstration nor of the report. I have been seduced - in the past - to doing battery draw down comparisons to prove out performance over rated capacities. And it made not a blind bit of difference. Quite apart from which it's a tedious series of tests and controls to prove it. And even proven - it is regardless NOT considered conclusive - or certainly NOT by mainstream. And their opinion matters rather more than your own. ”

If testing the batteries is not in any way important to you I am confused as to how you feel you can  confidently state in Para 6: Discussion:

“The results of this demonstration are consistent with the previous reported test results related to this circuitry. The difference here is that there is an extended period of self-induced oscillation following the falling edge of the gate drive signal. This appears to enhance the circuit performance to what is now measured with what appears to be an infinite co-efficient of performance. This value has been carefully measured, but it is preferred that the circuit and all its effects be carefully evaluated by experts.”

An infinite co-efficient of performance... no evidence whatsoever, despite claiming it has been carefully measured, and no intention of providing said evidence even though your target audience is knowledgeable that such tests in electrical circuits are not only common but easily and conclusively performed. The fact that these tests are used daily to perform COP<1 measurements is irrelevant as they will also show COP>1.

You state:

“Your comments regarding the parasitic oscillation are noted - but are also spurious. Parasitic oscillation is NOT associated with a resonance that so perfectly reinforces itself. Usually one expects enough variation to have the one phase cancel out the other - in some kind of waveform pattern that also generates a variation to the amplitudes. Nor does one expect oscillation to be sustained with such high levels of current flow. The intention - in using more FETs was to test whether the full potentials in that spike were, perhaps, being blocked by some resistance in the Zener diode. Clearly it was. And clearly there is some exploitable advantage to sustaining this oscillation. And it is easily managed. But it does appear that it requires the body diode of the MOSFETS because this condition is not managed with diodes simply placed across a single transistor. Again. We are only pointing to an anomaly.

So...

You claim my observation of parasitic oscillation (which you have previously never even mentioned) is noted but spurious. You also state that you are only pointing to an anomaly. May I suggest that it is premature of you to assume that parasitic oscillation is not the cause of your anomaly before scientifically calculating and predicting the parasitic oscillation you would expect to see in your circuit. I have provided you with the information to perform said calculations. May I also suggest that you consider a constant signal with no loss of amplitude (despite your deliberate lack of clarity on what amplitude you are actually calculating) could be a product of an overlooked component of a DC circuit signal as implied by ambiguity.

I would also like to point out that I am not attacking you, I am simply attacking your scientific method of evidence for making your assumptions. Does that make me an Academic ?

You seem not to care about the opinions of individuals in this community as much as you care about the opinions of the Academic community, who will not give you the time of day. I would like to point out that the people that gravitate here, on the whole, care about the Truth, the Proof and Replication, not about continuance of the paycheck and public recognition.

As a fellow OU researcher I respect you. Never forget this. Any professional disagreements we may have are purely that, they are not personal.

As for my Avatar... well that's my business... and has no place in the forefront of our scientific discussion.

Answers to all of the questions regarding component specifications currently outstanding and your intention of conforming to the scientific method in future, to present respectable evidence that can be peer reviewed would be appreciated.

On a final note I would appreciate an accurate quote of where I objected to your report in respect of your previously documented claims of repeatable evidence. I made no such objection, and was merely commenting on the fact that your report could not possibly have included results from the demonstration considering it was prepared and distributed before the event.

With Respect,

RM

Thanks Lawrence - for your well wishes.  I trust that, in time, you'll be able to explain your thesis better.  And indeed, we need reminders that ALL our efforts are needed.  It must, surely, help this drive to clean green.

Mark - thanks for your qualified tribute.  I do not share your opinion though, on who or who not, is a clown.

WILBY - NICE TO SEE YOU AROUND.
Rosemary 


edited

Hi Rosemary
Congradulations with your efforts.
I have to agree with TK re the assumptions made with the battery measurements.
Also enguaging with the resident villiage idiot or clown does not do your credability anygood.. he is a harmless, self deluded enthusiest.
Mark

Your are correct Mark. He is indeed! From pendulums to Tong wheels to JT variant circuit and now the new hobby horse is kinetic motion in tuning forks! What a deluded clown.

Oh, who can forget about the flying saucer landing at the (2008) Beijing Olympics and the Obama White House lawn. Yawn...

cheers
chrisC

The instruments God would not argue against, have never been the issue Rose.

The perfect measuring instrument is only as good as the hands that use it.

.99

Hello Rosemary,

A quote from Reply #42, made by yourself in this thread, March 14, 2011, 04:01:27 PM

“Your comments regarding the parasitic oscillation are noted - but are also spurious. Parasitic oscillation is NOT associated with a resonance that so perfectly reinforces itself. Usually one expects enough variation to have the one phase cancel out the other - in some kind of waveform pattern that also generates a variation to the amplitudes. Nor does one expect oscillation to be sustained with such high levels of current flow. The intention - in using more FETs was to test whether the full potentials in that spike were, perhaps, being blocked by some resistance in the Zener diode. Clearly it was. And clearly there is some exploitable advantage to sustaining this oscillation. And it is easily managed. But it does appear that it requires the body diode of the MOSFETS because this condition is not managed with diodes simply placed across a single transistor. Again. We are only pointing to an anomaly.”

So what does spurious mean ?

http://www.thefreedictionary.com/spurious

“Lacking authenticity or validity in essence or origin; not genuine; false.”

Your Blog entry for March 14, 2011:

http://newlightondarkenergy.blogspot.com/
91 - yet again
Dear Reader,

I am reminded, again and again, of the sad but predominant need to decry and deny any good news related to this technology of ours. My only comfort is that truth cannot - forever - be suppressed.

All I would like to draw your attention to - which is the sole reason that we held that demonstration - is that what is known of in the trade as 'parasitic oscillation' is a very exploitable event. This is very easily verified. You need to put those MOSFETS in parallel - then let the system do its thing. If nothing else comes from this - then at least, to those who experiment at all - just test this for yourselves. We have, traditionally, been throwing away a potential in back electromotive force - that actually needs to be encouraged. Parasitic oscillation is - self-evidently - the need for all that energy to manifest as current flow. And for this you need to 'widen the throat' - so to speak - the 'path' to allow it to flow. For those who've grasped the implications. The circuit now acts as a booster converter - without the attendant energy expense.

We have tested this to 30 amps. I have every reason to believe that with more FETs we could have accommodated even more current. And then, the theoretical implication is that this should obviate those extremes spikes at the transitional phases - when we go into heavy duty mode. And then too it should just comfortably osciallate. This is what requires advancement, research. Let's just look at all that potential. It will, most certainly, put paid to all those equivalence requirements applied to electromagnetic energy transfer - that has dogged our theoreticians for way too long. They're nonsense. Certainly NOT applicable to electric energy.

And. Dear God. What harm to test this? And what harm to view that test? What harm? Anywhere? Just look again at the crisis of nuclear energy. Just look at the catastrophes that result from using such dangerous technology. Look at the political crises escalating around the globe as result of abuses related to energy rights. The crisis of pollution. The crisis and risks to the continuation of our species.

At the risk of referencing something where I'm ill equipped to comment - while God may have given us supremacy over all things - I wonder if he would not prefer it that we were a little less prodigal and a little less self-serving - in our use of all that abundance. And I wonder then - that with the small inclusion of some transistors to some of our circuitry then the indications are that - at its least - we can do away with some of those toxic energy supplies. Not a bad thing at all.

I wonder at the malice that keeps dogging my best efforts. I am only trying to do my best in the interests of clean green. I'm increasingly aware of the need to silence me and to discredit the technology. It is a fact that the latest reach - that lastest entire distortion of the events at the demonstration - was by a nuclear physicist. Let him go public with his name as he is, so publicly yet so vicariously, able to distort the facts.

Kindest regards,
Rosemary

So... Let me get this straight...

You are now claiming that what you are seeing in this circuit is what is known in the trade as “parasitic oscillation” ?

May I suggest that it is not only the nuclear physicist that is engaged in distortion of the facts.

Thanks Rosemary, I have not laughed that hard in ages, I almost fell off my chair! 

RM