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 741406 times)

Rosemary Ainslie

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 3968
Re: Rosemary Ainslie circuit demonstration on Saturday March 12th 2011
« Reply #345 on: March 26, 2011, 01:05:30 AM »
Hi guys,  typically I'm not able to sleep.  As this is on my mind I'll see if an off load will act as a soporific.

For you Neptune.  I'm not sure what the Zener's tolerance is.  But look up the specs on IRFPG50.  I'd do this for you but it would take a month of Sundays.  What I do know is that we only got that extended oscillation when we put those FETS in parallel.  I did, at the start of that adjustment - try to do a detailed record of first one and then two and so on.  But - it was tedious.  And there were a whole lot of other parameters that then would have to be taken into account - so just stuck to all 5. 

My take is this.  That single spike that we used with just 1 MOSFET - is well able to do the job.  We could get the negative mean and the cycle mean into sustained negative averages - duly witnessed and recorded.  It was interesting.  The more so as it was also scalable.  Effectively we could show a 20 degree rise in temperature for every extra 12 volts applied.  And we could run this off slow or fast frequencies.  It did not make a blind bit of difference.  From memory - I'd need to check the notes - I think we took this up to 4 batteries - or 50 volts or thereby.   Also.  We took the temperature to the 100 degree mark - which was the first challenge. BUT.  There was always that familiar spike that then rang down to the zero crossing.  And I was keen to test the full potential.

I was surprised when we saw that parasitic oscillation.  The significance was as plain as daylight - because there was that delicious antiphase relationship and a waveform as perfectly periodic as a pulse.  Not only that - but this was the first possible evidence for me - that there were two distinct current flows on the same circuit - the one sustaining the other - like two drunks on a roller coaster.  Now.  That was and is my interest.  And I know it's hardly likely to grab any of you.  So.  I'll not refer to this again. 

Here's my point.  I am a rank amateur.  I had NO idea that this parasitic oscillation as it's called - is also well known.  I had to look it up when I saw reference to it on these forums.  I had no idea that this could be expected to cross zero.  Had I known how easy it was to get this - I'd have done it yonks back.  It was the decisive moment for me to do that demo.  I hoped to show our experts that that current flow could only be the result of energy from the system vs energy from the supply.  Unfortunately the experts did not attend that demo.  Everyone but.  And I am satisfied that the indictment is theirs.  It was a shameful display of cowardice.  However.  There are those few experts who are prepared to look at the demo - less publicly.  I'm happy to show them.  I'll see if I can solicit some qualified acknowledgement of anomalies.  I'm ever the optimist.

But to get back on topic.  That oscillation.  It's extraordinary.  I would remind you that the only current that can be perpetuated is under really cold conditions. What we have here is a really strong current.  And it is most assuredly, a self-perpetuating current.  It simply cannot settle.  This remarkable little waveform is precisely the proof that I was looking for because that antiphase condition may be some kind of evidence that current flow needs to return to its source.  And the other point is this.  It does not vary, one cycle to another, one oscillation to another - despite significant and measurable heat being dissipated all over the place.  Then the last point is this.  Those oscillations result in a gain to the system supply - not because of any negative mean averages but precisely because of the antiphase condition of those oscillations.   Those are the anomalies that intrigue me and the members of the team.

So.  The bottom line is this.  We absolutely do not need that oscillation to get the required negative mean average and cycle mean average and negative math trace.  But what we have with this parasitic oscillation is something way more profound.  And, I believe very much more profoundly significant.  I just can't get over that I'd never even heard of this parasitic oscillation.  Certainly not as it shapes itself here.  And to think that all that was ever done with it was to snuff it out or throw it away.  Extraordinary.

Anyway.  I'm now even more awake.  So much for hoping to tire myself out.

Rosemary

Rosemary Ainslie

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 3968
Re: Rosemary Ainslie circuit demonstration on Saturday March 12th 2011
« Reply #346 on: March 26, 2011, 01:18:40 AM »
Hi Rosie,

Well said.  Lets do some imagining.  What are our appications for heat?  Obviously, water and room heating.  Peltier related applications.   !  :)  Stirling or other related heat engines.  Steam turbines.  Ovens.  Kilns.  There are lots of possibilities, which means lots of opportunites.

Cheers,
Twinbeard

Hi TWIN. Always a pleasure to see you around.  And I see you're thinking applications.  Never a bad thing.  I want to get this onto a hot water cylinder.  We call it geysers - here is SA.  This is MUCH NEEDED for our rural communities.  They're off grid for the most part and rely on burning wood or - for those who can afford it - coal.  Not so good - for obvious reasons.   ::)

Kindest regards,
Rosemary

hartiberlin

  • Administrator
  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 8154
    • free energy research OverUnity.com
Re: Rosemary Ainslie circuit demonstration on Saturday March 12th 2011
« Reply #347 on: March 26, 2011, 04:09:20 AM »
Hi,
what about this circuit ?

Just use a 9 Volts battery and a pot to supply the
negative bias voltage at the gates.
To get it to oscillate you might need to switch the
9 Volts battery on and off a few times.

Then also as Humbugger said the shunt will only
have the battery current and not the 9 Volts battery current.


Well to measure also the battery voltage with a dual channel scope that
has a common ground you need to do this circuit then.

See attached picture.

Many thanks.

Regards, Stefan.

Rosemary Ainslie

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 3968
Re: Rosemary Ainslie circuit demonstration on Saturday March 12th 2011
« Reply #348 on: March 26, 2011, 08:07:30 AM »
I have, apprently been precipitous in my previous reply.  Let me try this again.

I cannot set up that experiment nd I've been advised that any results taken there will be meaningless

Do you still require the waveforms across the battery?


Rosemary Ainslie

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 3968
Re: Rosemary Ainslie circuit demonstration on Saturday March 12th 2011
« Reply #349 on: March 26, 2011, 01:23:45 PM »
Stefan - I've now spoken to Donny.  I understand you've configured the circuit to give a continuous negative trigger.  I had no idea.  I need you guys - Neptune?  or someone - to do this.  I simply cannot.  And there's no-one on the team at the moment who has the time.  But thank you for the schematic.

There's something badly wrong with our apparatus.  I'm hoping it's the cable from the Functions Generator.  Someone is coming out this afternoon to check it out.  If there's a problem then I will only be able to do those battery terminal scope shots on Monday.  It seems that the alarm and despondency on the OUR.com forum is based on the reasonable certainty that I'll brook no argument with these results.  Not true.  We're all of us fishing for a valid argument.  None such to hand yet. 

But if we can get the continual negative triggering - then that will certainly resolve something.  Unfortunately it's out of my competence.  The guy who built the apparatus is coming out later today.  if he's up for it - he may be able to put this together.

I will, either later today or from Monday onwards - do more testing.  I need to show you all that the heavy duty dissipation is WELL ABLE to show a continual negative mean.  It also seems that Geln Lettenmaier is advising everyone that it's just a trick of 'choosing' the right moment.  That may well be.  But the math trace DOES NOT have the benefit of that choice.  It takes the value of the sample range - regardless.  And I'm reasonably certain that I can video a 5 minute shot of a typical example - where you will all be able to see that neither the negative mean nor the math trace default to positive.  The difficulty is getting it into a mode that it doesn't push past the setting and simply do it's own thing.  The actual problem is containing the energy - and that, only because there's a tolerance limit on our test apparatus.

It's one thing to argue that the values may be erroneous.  I also want to find this out.  We have way more energy being returned than is evident in the battery recharge condition.  It is another thing entirely to insinuate that this is a hoax.  IT IS NOT.  I am just way too old and too tired of this argument to get embroiled in such stupidities.  So Poynty.  Please advise your members.  Their latest insinuations are as absurd as their previous.  God.  If I were to schedule the variety of criticisms that have been levelled against me and this technology and the whole gamut - then I think I could fill a book the size of Africa.  it's getting way too tedious guys.  Just look at the science for God's sake.  And it DOES NOT help to regurgitate more and more of your assumptions.  JUST LOOK AT THE EVIDENCE.

Regards,
Rosemary




neptune

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 1127
Re: Rosemary Ainslie circuit demonstration on Saturday March 12th 2011
« Reply #350 on: March 26, 2011, 02:28:05 PM »
First of all thanks to Hartiberlin for posting "my" circuit . I am still saving up money to buy the Mosfets .So I am not able to test this circuit at present . Rosemary I hope you get the function generator sorted .Hopefully , soon you will not need it .  There is someone out there no doubt who can test this . Just remember that some of us out here will continue to believe in your device until or unless  it is disproved beyond any doubt . We are a long way from that at this time .

poynt99

  • TPU-Elite
  • Hero Member
  • *******
  • Posts: 3582
Re: Rosemary Ainslie circuit demonstration on Saturday March 12th 2011
« Reply #351 on: March 26, 2011, 03:36:33 PM »
I have, apprently been precipitous in my previous reply.  Let me try this again.

I cannot set up that experiment nd I've been advised that any results taken there will be meaningless

Do you still require the waveforms across the battery?

You do not need to fiddle with the circuit at all.

Simply get it running as usual, then take the battery measurement as we've described, right on the battery terminals.

This is a starting point, so the only interest at the moment is actual battery voltage wave forms. There is no need for additional shunts or 9V battery circuits to make the device run.

There are 4 jumpers connecting the batteries together, and I estimate that each is about 1.5 feet in length. So even though you may place the scope leads directly across the 60V battery stack, there is still 6 feet of inductive wire in that circuit, and it will affect the voltage wave form.

My assumption is, that 6 feet of wire will show a marked difference compared to about 22 feet of wire (all the wire in the battery circuit, including that running to the device), and this will be enough to cause Rose to pause and ask "why is this measurement different compared to the other?"

btw, what was meant by your comment above Rose? Are you saying you won't do the test?

Of course the battery voltage wave form is required; your entire experimental results ride on the contention that the battery voltage wave form will be quite different, depending on where the measurement is taken.  ::)

.99

Rosemary Ainslie

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 3968
Re: Rosemary Ainslie circuit demonstration on Saturday March 12th 2011
« Reply #352 on: March 26, 2011, 04:00:20 PM »
You do not need to fiddle with the circuit at all.

Simply get it running as usual, then take the battery measurement as we've described, right on the battery terminals.

This is a starting point, so the only interest at the moment is actual battery voltage wave forms. There is no need for additional shunts or 9V battery circuits to make the device run.

There are 4 jumpers connecting the batteries together, and I estimate that each is about 1.5 feet in length. So even though you may place the scope leads directly across the 60V battery stack, there is still 6 feet of inductive wire in that circuit, and it will affect the voltage wave form.

My assumption is, that 6 feet of wire will show a marked difference compared to about 22 feet of wire (all the wire in the battery circuit, including that running to the device), and this will be enough to cause Rose to pause and ask "why is this measurement different compared to the other?"

btw, what was meant by your comment above Rose? Are you saying you won't do the test?

Of course the battery voltage wave form is required; your entire experimental results ride on the contention that the battery voltage wave form will be quite different, depending on where the measurement is taken.  ::)

.99

Poynty.  I've set up the batteries as required by Neptune.  The probes span it comfortably and I've got 5 in series.  Can add a sixth.  That's in the bag.  The problem is that the circuit isn't workig.  I think it's the functions generator.  If it is - then I can only test this on Monday because that's the only time I can get another cable.  That's the first point

I know that lthere's likely to be very little difference - but I'll let you draw your own conclusions.

Now.  I am under no obligation to read your forum.  But I do.  It's invariably head to toe on comments regarding me, my character, my intentions, my delusions, my stubborness - name it.  Why do you allow this?  You know perfectly well that those comments are NOT the truth and that they are diametrically against your posting standard requirements.  It intrigues me that not only do you allow it - but you ACTIVELY encourage it.  Where Poynty is your sense of fair play?  Your members are poisonous.

Rosemary

Rosemary Ainslie

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 3968
Re: Rosemary Ainslie circuit demonstration on Saturday March 12th 2011
« Reply #353 on: March 26, 2011, 04:16:17 PM »
First of all thanks to Hartiberlin for posting "my" circuit . I am still saving up money to buy the Mosfets .So I am not able to test this circuit at present . Rosemary I hope you get the function generator sorted .Hopefully , soon you will not need it .  There is someone out there no doubt who can test this . Just remember that some of us out here will continue to believe in your device until or unless  it is disproved beyond any doubt . We are a long way from that at this time .

Neptune?  Was that what you were asking?  I've got someone coming out here soon.  I'll let you know if we can do this.  Yet again, Neptune to the rescue.

And I really don't want anyone to believe in this or otherwise.  Never the intention.  All that's needed is to find out where all that extra energy is coming from.  It's an embarrassment of riches Neptune.  We have between 20 watts to 150 watts being added to the system.  It makes no difference if you factor in the inductance over those components because the advantage comes from that antiphase relationship between those voltages.  Clearly whatever measurement protocols are being applied are wrong - or there's an error in the measurements.  Which is why we got a second scope.  And the second scope gave the same readings.  So.  Where then is the error?  At it's best it conflicts with classical prediction.  And its worst it shows that classical measurement protocols don't apply.  Either way - it's an untenable place to find ourselves.  Certainly there is absolutely NOT any evidence conservation. 

Poynty et al are relying on enough variation in the measurement across the battery to obviate this.  If this happens then - even then, we'd have to say that the excess was due to the wires.  Which means what?  We must eliminate those wires?  That the benefit was erroneous?  And so it goes.  Round and round in circles.  I've had a belly full.  In every respect.

But I'll do these last tests.  I know it won't resolve anything.  But I'll do that test.  And if I can get someone to do that design of yours Neptune - then count on it.  I'll CERTAINLY do that one.  That, at least, will give some kind of resolution.

Kindest regards,
Rosemary

Rosemary Ainslie

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 3968
Re: Rosemary Ainslie circuit demonstration on Saturday March 12th 2011
« Reply #354 on: March 26, 2011, 05:05:33 PM »
Poynty

I should be able to get that oscillation with just one battery.  The scope wires would be connected directly to the battery.  No other wires in the setup. 

Now.  Tell me what will change that I - at it's least - know what it is that YOU expect. 

Will there now be no evidence of that wild voltage oscillation at the battery?  Will it peak and trough at lower and higher values - correspondingly?  Or will it simply stay level? With the occassional ripple?

Will the antiphase condition between the voltage and the shunt now change?  Will this be out of phase and therefore 'no advantage'?

If I apply the math trace - a product of the battery and shunt voltages - will they now show 'positive' as opposed to negative?

Will the mean average across the shunt change to default always to positive?

Let me know what you expect to see Poynty.  Because this time I want the argument 'up front' if possible.

Rosemary

neptune

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 1127
Re: Rosemary Ainslie circuit demonstration on Saturday March 12th 2011
« Reply #355 on: March 26, 2011, 05:22:16 PM »
Hi Rosemary . It would be nice if you can get someone to do the negative gate circuit , but don't bust a gut because it sounds like You have your share of problems right now . So take it easy . Now some random suggestions for replicators . As I said earlier , unless someone can suggest a spiral shaped element from a domestic appliance we are stuck with a home made element . Nickel chrome wire is very common in scrap domestic appliance heaters from toasters , clothes dryers  , electric fires and storage heaters etc . Make the coil large diameter compared to its length . Wind the wire on a former . A glass bottle or jar might do to start with or perhaps a pot mug with the handle broken off . Or a ceramic egg cup? You could use Nichrome wire to make your own non inductive shunt resister , just measure the resistance with your multimeter .The mosfets IRFPG50 are now available on Ebay from Hong Kong at 2 for under 10 dollars .Batteries are perhaps the major expense .In the past I have used scrap car batteries . Remember a scrap car battery is one that is no longer capable of giving 100 amps to start a car .Go to the scrapyard armed with a car headlamp bulb , and pick the batteries the give the brightest light .Remember you can always sell them back to the scrapyard and get most of your money back .Finally It would be useful to have an AM radio to listen for the oscillations around 1.5 Mhz.

teslaalset

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 695
Re: Rosemary Ainslie circuit demonstration on Saturday March 12th 2011
« Reply #356 on: March 26, 2011, 05:34:11 PM »
As I said earlier , unless someone can suggest a spiral shaped element from a domestic appliance we are stuck with a home made element . Nickel chrome wire is very common in scrap domestic appliance heaters from toasters , clothes dryers  , electric fires and storage heaters etc .

Maybe you could use Mug Water Heaters.
Sometimes they are called Travel Immersion Water Heater.
They are for sale for around 6 - 15 US dollars
I have one at home that has a resistance of 185 Ohms and is suitable for 220V.

Pirate88179

  • elite_member
  • Hero Member
  • ******
  • Posts: 8366
Re: Rosemary Ainslie circuit demonstration on Saturday March 12th 2011
« Reply #357 on: March 26, 2011, 06:05:43 PM »
Or something like this one with a lot of surface area for its length?

@Teslaalset:

Those are cool.  I didn't know that they existed.

Bill

poynt99

  • TPU-Elite
  • Hero Member
  • *******
  • Posts: 3582
Re: Rosemary Ainslie circuit demonstration on Saturday March 12th 2011
« Reply #358 on: March 26, 2011, 07:17:12 PM »
Rose,

Indulge me in a simple exercise for which the results we can hopefully agree on: Analogy Part 1.

This is not meant to relate directly with your inductive switching circuit, it is meant to demonstrate a simple concept. Albeit, the two circuits are similar in concept.

Do you agree with the equation shown to calculate the power delivered by the battery Vbat?

V(P1-P4) is the voltage across the battery, and V(P3-P4)/0.25 allows us to determine the current through the battery. Their product then equals battery power...agreed?

If you agree, then I can proceed to part 2 of this analogy.

.99

Rosemary Ainslie

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 3968
Re: Rosemary Ainslie circuit demonstration on Saturday March 12th 2011
« Reply #359 on: March 26, 2011, 07:24:17 PM »
yes - agreed

Rosemary