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

Custom Search

Author Topic: Rosemary Ainslie circuit demonstration on Saturday March 12th 2011  (Read 711498 times)

poynt99

• TPU-Elite
• Hero Member
• Posts: 3582
Re: Rosemary Ainslie circuit demonstration on Saturday March 12th 2011
« Reply #90 on: March 17, 2011, 03:05:07 PM »
i see. so would you or humbooger care to explain just exactly how it is that you can connect the measuring device (another circuit), much less the current shunt, to the original and not have it affected? preferably in the real world, with a bench experiment... thanks!

Use a simple RC filter, whereby the R value is substantially higher than the impedance of the node being measured. For example with a 0.25 Ohm CSR, placing a 10k or even 1k Ohm resistor at the MOSFET Source in series with a 10u so capacitor will allow for good isolation from the circuit so as not to affect it's operation, and provide a near pure DC voltage representing current, that can be accurately measured using a common DMM.

Use a high enough time constant (R*C) to substantially filter out the varying voltage at the measurement point. For eg, if your switching frequency is 50Hz (20ms period), use a tau of at least 50 times longer (1s). If we use a 10k resistor, then we need a capacitance of 100u. Obviously, the higher the frequency of operation, the smaller C value can be used. The DMM (set to DC Voltage) will provide additional averaging such that the final measurement will be very accurate.

See attached schema for RC filter on the CSR.

.99

WilbyInebriated

• Hero Member
• Posts: 3141
Re: Rosemary Ainslie circuit demonstration on Saturday March 12th 2011
« Reply #91 on: March 17, 2011, 03:17:59 PM »
Use a simple RC filter, whereby the R value is substantially higher than the impedance of the node being measured. For example with a 0.25 Ohm CSR, placing a 10k or even 1k Ohm resistor at the MOSFET Source in series with a 10u so capacitor will allow for good isolation from the circuit so as not to affect it's operation, and provide a near pure DC voltage representing current, that can be accurately measured using a common DMM.

Use a high enough time constant (R*C) to substantially filter out the varying voltage at the measurement point. For eg, if your switching frequency is 50Hz (20ms period), use a tau of at least 50 times longer (1s). If we use a 10k resistor, then we need a capacitance of 100u. Obviously, the higher the frequency of operation, the smaller C value can be used. The DMM (set to DC Voltage) will provide additional averaging such that the final measurement will be very accurate.

See attached schema for RC filter on the CSR.

.99
is this gonna be like our sim conversation at energetic? do i really have to play lawyer again...
let me rephrase my question counselor. please explain to the good people how it is that by "placing a 10k or even 1k Ohm resistor at the MOSFET Source in series with a 10u so capacitor will allow for good isolation from the circuit." ideally you could demonstrate this (tk's probe placement video comes to mind, where he shows the trace change) with a circuit similar to rose's circuit... ideally you could show there is no change. then we can discuss the inadequacy of 24 bit scopes...

evolvingape

• Sr. Member
• Posts: 478
Re: Rosemary Ainslie circuit demonstration on Saturday March 12th 2011
« Reply #92 on: March 17, 2011, 04:01:11 PM »
Hello Everyone,

I have been thinking about what has been discussed in this thread and trying to formulate a logical plan to move forward.

It has become obvious that due to the classical and non classical debate there is not going to be any resolution when it comes to measurements of the circuits components themselves, inputs, outputs, or indeed any hard values for measurements at all. So far we have only unsubstantiated conjecture.

At this point it is irresponsible of any of us to make any assumptions as to what is occurring in this circuit. If we had any hard data at all then maybe we could, but we do not...

So...

I am going to propose this:

How about Rosemary and her team sets up a test experiment where new batteries are load tested and recharged independently before the test begins. Three times each should suffice for gaining an accurate average of the batteries ability to store charge. I would prefer to see lead acid cells used and delivered dry so that the acid can be added to the water yourself to accurately control the specific gravity of the electrolyte. You would also be able to test each individual cell of the battery for bad cells.

The batteries are then connected to a large distribution block that will power many individual circuits. We are probably talking something like 100 circuits at least here, maybe more.

The circuit heating elements will all be submersed in a large tank of water at ambient pressure. A separate tank will have temperature controlled water to match the test tank temperature, and be controlled by a simple cork float switch. This would keep the test tank volume at the same level and allow water converted to steam to vent to atmosphere.

Obviously the circuitry for the temperature control of the additional supply tank will not be part of the experiment, it is just there to ensure that the water is the same temperature as the test tank.

So, leave this running for a long time, say a month, and then disconnect everything and perform a load test on all the batteries. This will tell us whether the charge holding capacity has changed during the experiment.

The temperature of the test tank water would have been accurately monitored throughout, as would the voltage across the battery bank.

By performing the experiment this way all of the energetic processes will be converted within the system and remove the need for any other measurements by people.

It will very quickly become apparent whether there has been any loss of energy from the supply, therefore proving or disproving Rosemary's claims that the battery charge remains stable without loss or gain. I think we would all agree that a battery can maintain its voltage at a stable level without actually maintaining its charge, so the net power (Watts available) would decrease. This is why Voltage measurements on a large battery are next to useless for measurement purposes, and are insufficient to prove anything on their own.

Questions:

1) Would the addition of a large distribution block affect the results sufficiently to disqualify the experiment ?

2) Would the addition of 100 circuits affect the ability of the â€œenergetic massâ€ that Rosemary absolutely requires to deliver sufficient â€œcurrent pressureâ€ to the many circuits ?

3) Would you all agree that this would conclusively prove whether the Watts within the system are not consumed, and that the excess energy, if any, will be shown by temperature measurement of the water ?

I would appreciate your thoughts on this matter,

RM

WilbyInebriated

• Hero Member
• Posts: 3141
Re: Rosemary Ainslie circuit demonstration on Saturday March 12th 2011
« Reply #93 on: March 17, 2011, 04:10:57 PM »
i have a question. why is that science, with all it's fancy fancy equations and formulas, cannot measure exactly how much energy is in a battery? and let's not be facetious and suggest that load testing and then averaging is exact...

markdansie

• Hero Member
• Posts: 1471
Re: Rosemary Ainslie circuit demonstration on Saturday March 12th 2011
« Reply #94 on: March 17, 2011, 04:20:44 PM »
Hi pirate, Willy and other
I am sad this thread has degenerated into some mudslinging for whatever reason.
I admire what Rosemary is doing for some time
However, I also support the many who has challenged (without the insults) the way the power in and out is calculated and measured.
This was a response to a claim made that there was no net drawdown on the battery, yet no data was given to support this claim.
Many suggestions of how best do this have come forward, some may be the right way to go and some perhaps the wrongway to go in how to measure.
If the issue was raised by just one person then it could be argued that it is not an issue. However it has been raised by many.
This does not distract from the efforth Rose has undertaken and I echo your sentiments expressed.
Mark

powercat

• Hero Member
• Posts: 1091
Re: Rosemary Ainslie circuit demonstration on Saturday March 12th 2011
« Reply #95 on: March 17, 2011, 04:39:04 PM »
i have a question. why is that science, with all it's fancy fancy equations and formulas, cannot measure exactly how much energy is in a battery? and let's not be facetious and suggest that load testing and then averaging is exact...

As part of my previous work as an automotive engineer you find yourself running a battery on a car virtually empty when trying to diagnose and if you don't do a jump-start, you often fined after 20 minutes or so that the battery has partially recovered and might well give you one more starting attempt.
Anyway the point I'm trying to make is not to trust batteries, dead ones empty ones or any other type, I think Bill will back me up on this ;)he has lots of experience with dead ones

Pirate88179

• elite_member
• Hero Member
• Posts: 8366
Re: Rosemary Ainslie circuit demonstration on Saturday March 12th 2011
« Reply #96 on: March 17, 2011, 04:48:58 PM »
Mark:

I agree with you.  My personal thoughts are, and I may have been the first to suggest this, or not, but I have on other topic areas, is to use caps, or rather, supercaps.  Rose does not want to got this route and I respect that.  This is her deal and she needs to do what she sees fit.

I just like the caps because of what I learned on the earth battery experiments and seeing how the high spikes, that Bedini uses, are instantly converted to usable power in the supercaps.  Also, to me, there is less question of power in/out with caps but, as I said, this is Rose's show, and she should be able to proceed however she wants to.

Bill

evolvingape

• Sr. Member
• Posts: 478
Re: Rosemary Ainslie circuit demonstration on Saturday March 12th 2011
« Reply #97 on: March 17, 2011, 04:52:59 PM »
Hi,

I was not being facetious and suggesting that load testing was exact. What I was trying to do was formulate an approach that would indicate whether or not there was net drawdown on the battery bank as Mark so rightly pointed out. No assumptions or claims can be made at all until this issue is resolved!

As Rosemary's statements are a mass of contradictions, for example she states that the power supply mass is absolutely required for operation of the anomaly, and yet in the next breath states that she is absolutely indifferent to the power supply used. So... I have been trying to work within the restrictions set by Rosemary to come up with some answers.

Rosemary will not alter her circuit in any conventional way claiming that it will remove the anomaly if she does so. Ok, I get that.

So, I am forced to take an approach that works within the constraints Rosemary has dictated.

The issue of the potential difference of the power available to the circuit and the power consumed by the circuit in use is still outstanding, this is why I have suggested using many individual circuits to actually load the battery bank at a higher rate.

As for the load testing, no its not exact, but if it does show a large discrepancy between starting conditions, and ending conditions then questions will be asked why. If it does not then it may well prove Rosemary's claims of equal charge being returned to the battery.

For example it may indicate that current is actually being consumed by the circuit to produce heat, but will not show up with a single circuit, on a very large power supply.

Load testing is not a perfect answer, but it will tell us far more than a voltage measurement will, and is a step forward given the restrictions placed on possibilities by Rosemary herself.

RM

neptune

• Hero Member
• Posts: 1127
Re: Rosemary Ainslie circuit demonstration on Saturday March 12th 2011
« Reply #98 on: March 17, 2011, 07:16:44 PM »
It is a shame that we have some "mud slinging" on this thread . The subject here is so important that we need to forget our differences . For some reason , I only discovered Rosemary fairly recently , and there is a vast amount of info to catch up on . so I may ask questions that have already been answered . First this business of voltage offset . As I understand it , this means a waveform of square pulses that toggle not between pos and zero but between pos and neg states . Correct [or insult !] me if I am wrong . I understand that the 555 circuit as shown is not normally capable of this . Question . Has this circuit been made to work ONLY when driven by a function generator with voltage offset , or have 555 versions worked .
Now a bit of a daft idea .At frequencies up to about 100 Hz it would be possible to replace the MOSFET by mechanical switching , using a motor , a cam and car ignition points .A suitable zener diode could be connected across the points . Possibly s a separate capacitor could be used to represent the internal capacitance of the Mosfet . If the device still works , it would be easier to nail down the effect .

poynt99

• TPU-Elite
• Hero Member
• Posts: 3582
Re: Rosemary Ainslie circuit demonstration on Saturday March 12th 2011
« Reply #99 on: March 17, 2011, 07:31:45 PM »
is this gonna be like our sim conversation at energetic? do i really have to play lawyer again...
let me rephrase my question counselor. please explain to the good people how it is that by "placing a 10k or even 1k Ohm resistor at the MOSFET Source in series with a 10u so capacitor will allow for good isolation from the circuit." ideally you could demonstrate this (tk's probe placement video comes to mind, where he shows the trace change) with a circuit similar to rose's circuit... ideally you could show there is no change. then we can discuss the inadequacy of 24 bit scopes...
Method to determine if the proposed alternative to measuring current has any significant effect on the wave forms and values:

Select a MEAN measurement in the scope for the CSR channel. This is equivalent to determining the average value using the RC/DVM method. Note the measurement in the scope.

Keep the scope probe attached to the CSR, and attach the RC filter and DVM as I outlined. Note the MEAN value the scope is measuring to see if it has changed. Note the CSR wave form to see if it has changed. Note the voltage reading on the DVM and compare with the scope measurement.

.99

PS. If you can find a 24-bit scope, I'd be quite happy to discuss it.

markdansie

• Hero Member
• Posts: 1471
Re: Rosemary Ainslie circuit demonstration on Saturday March 12th 2011
« Reply #100 on: March 17, 2011, 08:01:19 PM »
@evolvingape
If Rosemary must use a battery the other simple way to go is to use the smallest capacity battery to meet the specs and since it is claimed to be closed loop let the device run over several days or weeks. A simple heat exchanger could be deviced to measure and extract the heat as it is generated. So if heat persists and the battery maintains its charge...strong evidence.
Just a thought anyway
mark

Rosemary Ainslie

• Hero Member
• Posts: 3968
Re: Rosemary Ainslie circuit demonstration on Saturday March 12th 2011
« Reply #101 on: March 17, 2011, 08:31:08 PM »
Hi guys.  Golly - we're moving all over the place here.  I keep trying to explain the point about batteries and - for some reason - keep missing you all.  At the risk of stating the obvious, battery discharge/recharge is a chemical event.  What it does is produce an electric current that is then used in whatever application required.  The other way to produce current flow is through a generator which is used by our grid suppliers - and generators - and so on.  Typically the grid supplies ac and the battery dc.  If this question was purely about the recharge condition of batteries - then I'd have lost interest way back.  I am only interested in that current flow and having a stab at determining the properties of that current flow.  This because I believe we are dealing - not with electrons which are tangible particles with known mass and charge - but with an entirely different particle that is here proposed to make up a magnetic field.

Now.  Why this is possibily significant - is because, IF this particle is the 'thing' that makes up the material of current - as we measure it and know it - then we are also grossly underusing it's potentials.  It is proposed to have a bipolar charge.  That way it can move it two directions - subject to a path through any given circuit.  It is proposed to belong to the material 'from whence it came' and that it will get back there if circuit conditions allow.  It is also proposed that in moving through the circuit and subject to it's returning to its source, then its potential differences are equalised and its charge perfectly conserved.  It is also proposed that the heat that is dissipated at sundry components is as transitory as those voltage imbalances.  Once those discrete packages get back to their source they combine with 'broken fields' of these same particles and all that heat then resolves itself in the rebinding of that material.

But I won't bore you with the thesis.  I know that you guys are only interested in the applications.  So again.  Let me try and stress where this points.  To my way of seeing it there are two entirely different sources of current flow.  The first is from the battery and that - being a dc supply - moves exclusively in a clockwise direction.  The second is from the material of the circuit components themselves - which becomes a second source of energy and this moves in an anticlockwise direction.  But what they are both trying to do is to get back to their respective sources being either the battery or that circuit material.  That oscillating or resonating condition is sustained precisely because, no sooner has the battery had a return of all it's voltage - discharged as current flow, than the circuit has extruded its own voltage.  And no sooner has the circuit had a return of all that voltage discharged as current flow, than the battery has extruded its own.  And so on.  In effect the clockwise current flow is the trigger for the anticlockwise current flow.  And the paths for both these flows is enabled on that circuit.  They never settle.

So.  In effect the first radical departure from mainstream is this proposal.  There is a second energy supply source in that circuit material.  The next point is this.  I expected a greater benefit.  I did not expect this wild oscillation.  But what the thesis does claim is that the heat that is dissipated at the work station of a circuit, results - not from any transfer of energy as such - but from the transfer of a voltage imbalance into the circuit material itself.  The proposal is that the current flow has a charge bias - being either positive or negative.  The sum of those discrete orbits of binding fields in that circuit material is precisely balanced in an orbit.  An orbit is made up of two moments.  It first moves in one direction with a charge justification and then it moves in an opposite direction with an opposite justification.  Therefore, if these binding fields are orbiting - then one half opposes the other half.  So, if the current flow that is imposed through that material is say, positive - then it will extrude all those positive fields in its path.  And if it is negative then it will extrude all those negative fields in its path.  Essentially that orbit is broken and one half of the fields then move outside of the material and congregate again in a long string that orbits that material component which we then measure as voltage.  It leaves behind the other half.  And while the one extruded half can still congregate as a 'field' what is remaining - that other half - cannot.  It then loses it's 'grip' so to speak on all those atoms that it was holding in a fixed pattern.  And in a cascading sequence of breaks it then becomes as hot and slow and big as it was first fast and cold and small.  It literally grows.  It also then comes out of the field condition and can be seen and experienced in our own dimenstions.  It is no longer orbiting at velocities that exceed light speed.  We see that glow.  Photons can now interact with that material.  It is very much in our tangible dimensions.

The point is this.  That imbalanced - that broken condition of those discrete packages that remain in the circuit material - it is a CONSEQUENCE of the current flow in the first instance.  Energy has NOT been transferred to it from the supply.  All that has been transferred is a voltage imbalance.

THAT is the point.  Sustain that imbalance and, what is evident, is that this heat is also sustained.  If you can get your minds around this - then I've finally succeeded.  You see, there are many out there who actually do understand the thesis.  It's no accident that wherever I post I am trailed and trolled by a stream of highly competent individuals who are most anxious to silence me and discredit this thinking.  And the reason for this is that the thesis is showing us free energy and the tests are proving this.  Just think about it.  The lastest from our Poynty is that I'm an Idiot savant - for God's sake.  And Humbugger's mandate is unquestionably to throw as much dirt in this trail as he possibly can.  And under usual circumstances it's enough to flame these threads of mine and kill the subject.  I hope, this time round - and after the last spate of efforts that we've managed - that this will survive these attacks.  And guys.  It would be a good point to try and grasp this thinking.  Because we are not talking batteries.  We're actually talking free and abundant energy and thanks to the 'team' we've found it - pretty conclusively - in that extraordinary oscillation.  I think.

Rosemary

evolvingape

• Sr. Member
• Posts: 478
Re: Rosemary Ainslie circuit demonstration on Saturday March 12th 2011
« Reply #102 on: March 17, 2011, 08:46:53 PM »
Hi Mark,

Yes I completely agree with you but there will be problems implementing this approach.

A quote from Reply #75 by Rosemary:

â€œWhat is valid is to test this on smaller batteries. Feel free - but then you also may need to reduce the size of the resistor to get that oscillation. I'm not sure. But it's possible. You'll need to scale it from all aspects.â€

So Rosemary is saying that it will be valid to test with smaller batteries but she herself will not be doing this. The circuit is also going to have to be scaled differently which will mean that components will change.

Full specifications of the circuit are still outstanding despite in Reply #1 harti stating that they would be forthcoming after the demonstration. I do not believe harti goes around telling untruths, so I am forced to believe that he was led to believe that full specifications would be provided.

Operating procedures for the tuning of the circuit are not available, and the only ones capable of performing said tuning is Rosemary and her team.

So yes, while your points about smaller batteries and also caps are perfectly reasonable, they are also going to be completely ignored by the originator of the technology and the claims based on said technology will only come from the circuit as it currently stands.

So in light of the difficulties I have changed my approach. I am now asking Rosemary to provide evidence and proof with the circuit unchanged, using a method that we can all agree would show some indication of whether the circuit is drawing power or not.

We do not need exact measurements, we only need to show a difference or not to provide strong evidence one way or another. Without performing these tests Rosemary has no basis whatsoever to claim that she has found a source of infinite energy.

As Rosemary has not published her thesis in a legible format, she is the only one that understands it. Please Rosemary, do not presume to know what are my interests. I would be most interested in a full and complete report of your thesis, with evidence and results to back your claims. So far we only have speculation on your part about what you think is happening!

She claims the thesis is showing us free energy (what thesis ? Please provide a link to where it is published) and the tests are proving this (what tests ? You have not provided any results or evidence at all, only conclusions).

RM

neptune

• Hero Member
• Posts: 1127
Re: Rosemary Ainslie circuit demonstration on Saturday March 12th 2011
« Reply #103 on: March 17, 2011, 08:55:52 PM »
Am I right in thinking that a full technical report will be issued on the demo which occurred on March 12th ? If so , this will hopefully settle all arguments on testing protocols . Meanwhile , let us all keep cool and let not our differences blind us to what we have in common . Rosemary is a strong woman and does not need me or anyone else to defend her . She does things her way , and she owes us NOTHING .She has already given us the gift of the century . I do not pretend to understand her thesis , as what knowledge I have is based on classical theory . I do not doubt that someone will try caps as a power supply , and a lot of other ideas . I look forward to the official report . I believe that when the effect is confirmed and isolated , circuits will be possible without a pulse input , and will be self oscillating .

Rosemary Ainslie

• Hero Member
• Posts: 3968
Re: Rosemary Ainslie circuit demonstration on Saturday March 12th 2011
« Reply #104 on: March 17, 2011, 09:10:11 PM »
Am I right in thinking that a full technical report will be issued on the demo which occurred on March 12th ? If so , this will hopefully settle all arguments on testing protocols . Meanwhile , let us all keep cool and let not our differences blind us to what we have in common . Rosemary is a strong woman and does not need me or anyone else to defend her . She does things her way , and she owes us NOTHING .She has already given us the gift of the century . I do not pretend to understand her thesis , as what knowledge I have is based on classical theory . I do not doubt that someone will try caps as a power supply , and a lot of other ideas . I look forward to the official report . I believe that when the effect is confirmed and isolated , circuits will be possible without a pulse input , and will be self oscillating .

Neptune, I'm afraid the only report there is the one on the blog.  I presume you've read it.  There won't be another but we may yet try and publish a paper - yet again.

Kindest regards,
Rosemary

here's the link - in case you missed it.
http://newlightondarkenergy.blogspot.com/2011/03/report.html