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.

GDPR and DSGVO law

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

Google Search

Custom Search

Author Topic: Rosemary Ainslie circuit demonstration on Saturday March 12th 2011  (Read 670058 times)

Offline Rosemary Ainslie

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 3968
Re: Rosemary Ainslie circuit demonstration on Saturday March 12th 2011
« Reply #525 on: April 08, 2011, 06:46:02 PM »
Thanks for the support there Neptune.  It's been a hellish week - ending with The Boss's call for some public attack on my work.  What's new?  I think he's either Mookie - whose got his own reach for OU and is simply hopelessly jealous.  Or it's our friend the cheesy Hamburger - who must be well compensated for those extraordinary efforts to destroy my reputation and our work along with it.  Or it's Harvey - who's that anxious to detract from the model that I suspect he wants it for himself.  LOL.   Extraordinary.  I've said it before guys.  When the average person comes up with any kind of OU claim there's immediate support.  I see it all over the place.  Lasersaber - Magsy, Lawrence, the Joule thief - cold fusion - and on and on.  And on our work - from the get go I've had a level of attack that has been unprecedented on these forums and on the internet.  It started with TK and has simply never stopped.  One could almost think that these results really, really matter. 

Anyway.  The good news is that I also know the most of you - at its least - tolerate these huge efforts of mine.  So.  Who cares?  It seems to come with the territory.  It would have been better to have had a disputable low wattage value that was poorly measured.  Then I'm reasonably sure no-one would have minded my ramblings. 

Anyway - to get back on topic - I've already got some interesting results.  I've let it run now for the last 3 hours just to see if there's a trend.  I'll post here later tonight.  Looking good.  Which means that some of you will be quite pleased and Poynty et all will have to fill their quivers and get ready for another barrage of barbed comments.

Oh well.

Kindest regards,
Rosemary

Offline Rosemary Ainslie

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 3968
Re: Rosemary Ainslie circuit demonstration on Saturday March 12th 2011
« Reply #526 on: April 08, 2011, 10:08:23 PM »
Ok Guys.  I'm exhausted.  I'll do the upload tomorrow.  But Poynty's right.  The probes across directly across the battery definitely reduce the battery voltage - by quite a bit.  But no ripples.  The same basic shape - as before with the same antiphase relationship to the shunt voltage.

Math trace still negative.  Actually what I'm hoping is that with the reduced battery voltage we'll get something closer to the fact.  The previous left us with a HUGE surplus that I simply could not reconcile with the wattage dissipated.  I didn't have time to fine tune and just settled for the first waveform that I found.  So it's not optimised.  But it's still interesting.  I also kept it on that LONG cycle - just to remind you all about it.  Very chuffed with this result.  Seems like we may have lost that embarrassment of riches and have something approximating the actual wattage delivered/dissipated.  Be nice if we can get these two numbers to tally. 

But the voltage definitely does not 'flatline' with small ripples as Poynty predicted.  In fact it's EXACTLY the same shape as before. 

I'll also do a dump and give you those results.  I'll factor in the inductance/impedance and I'll do one without.  You'll see a marked improvement in performance when we compensate for this. 

Anyway.  That's just about depleted my own energy levels.

Rosemary 

Offline cHeeseburger

  • Newbie
  • *
  • Posts: 46
Re: Rosemary Ainslie circuit demonstration on Saturday March 12th 2011
« Reply #527 on: April 09, 2011, 12:14:24 AM »
Ok Guys.  I'm exhausted.  I'll do the upload tomorrow.  But Poynty's right.  The probes across directly across the battery definitely reduce the battery voltage - by quite a bit.  But no ripples.  The same basic shape - as before with the same antiphase relationship to the shunt voltage.

Math trace still negative.  Actually what I'm hoping is that with the reduced battery voltage we'll get something closer to the fact.  The previous left us with a HUGE surplus that I simply could not reconcile with the wattage dissipated.  I didn't have time to fine tune and just settled for the first waveform that I found.  So it's not optimised.  But it's still interesting.  I also kept it on that LONG cycle - just to remind you all about it.  Very chuffed with this result.  Seems like we may have lost that embarrassment of riches and have something approximating the actual wattage delivered/dissipated.  Be nice if we can get these two numbers to tally. 

But the voltage definitely does not 'flatline' with small ripples as Poynty predicted.  In fact it's EXACTLY the same shape as before. 

I'll also do a dump and give you those results.  I'll factor in the inductance/impedance and I'll do one without.  You'll see a marked improvement in performance when we compensate for this. 

Anyway.  That's just about depleted my own energy levels.

Rosemary

Nice work, Rosemary.  So what turned out to be the elusive problem that took days to find?  Just curious.  Also, a few observations/questions:

1)  I assume you still have a hefty length of wiring in between the batteries.  Two things might interest you here.  First, find the ratio of how much the battery voltage measurement was reduced in peak amplitude by putting the probes at the end battery terminals.  Then compare that ratio (maybe 1/2 or 1/3) to the ratio between the total wire length and the wire length of what remains between the batteries.  I believe you'll find a strong if not exact correlation there.

Next, take your scope and look directly across the terminals of ANY ONE battery excluding ALL battery wiring.  I believe you'll see that there is only a very small ripple left.

2)  Please describe exactly how you will "factor in the inductance/impedance" when you do your "dump". 

Thank you,

Cheeseburger

Offline poynt99

  • TPU-Elite
  • Hero Member
  • *******
  • Posts: 3582
Re: Rosemary Ainslie circuit demonstration on Saturday March 12th 2011
« Reply #528 on: April 09, 2011, 02:29:41 AM »
A direct measurement across the terminal pairs of each battery will produce very little ripple.

"RIPPLE" is anything other than the expected DC voltage. The ripple in the current Ainslie circuit will of course always have the same "shape" no matter where it is measured in the battery line, but the ripple amplitude will diminish in accordance with how close the measurement is taken to the battery terminals.

The difference being, 60VDC with ~200V of ripple, vs. 12VDC (each battery) with perhaps 350mV of "ripple".

.99

Offline cHeeseburger

  • Newbie
  • *
  • Posts: 46
Re: Rosemary Ainslie circuit demonstration on Saturday March 12th 2011
« Reply #529 on: April 09, 2011, 04:25:26 AM »
A direct measurement across the terminal pairs of each battery will produce very little ripple.

"RIPPLE" is anything other than the expected DC voltage. The ripple in the current Ainslie circuit will of course always have the same "shape" no matter where it is measured in the battery line, but the ripple amplitude will diminish in accordance with how close the measurement is taken to the battery terminals.

The difference being, 60VDC with ~200V of ripple, vs. 12VDC (each battery) with perhaps 350mV of "ripple".

.99

In general, this is correct, that the "ripple" will vanish down to the true ripple resulting from current flowing through the batteries and the battery internal resistance.  Technically and specifically, though, the true battery ripple voltage is just like the voltage on a shunt resistor and can be predicted by Ohm's Law and will be exactly in phase (ripple peak at current minumum and vice versa).

The so-called "ripple" voltage that appears across the inductance of the wires, however, is not a function of Ohm's Law and is purely a function of the di/dt rate of change of current...NOT the magnitude or direction of the current itself and NOT the actual battery voltage, either..

It is therefore nonsensical to feed any of that signal into the scope as a power input voltage argument to be multiplied in real time with the equally and oppositely skewed di/dt signals coming from the inductive shunt.

I sure wish Rosemary would take my advice and consult with her Tektronix Applications engineer on this whole matter.  Maybe his or her advice would be accepted.

Humbugger
« Last Edit: April 10, 2011, 09:04:57 AM by cHeeseburger »

Offline Rosemary Ainslie

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 3968
Re: Rosemary Ainslie circuit demonstration on Saturday March 12th 2011
« Reply #530 on: April 09, 2011, 05:27:13 AM »
A direct measurement across the terminal pairs of each battery will produce very little ripple.

"RIPPLE" is anything other than the expected DC voltage. The ripple in the current Ainslie circuit will of course always have the same "shape" no matter where it is measured in the battery line, but the ripple amplitude will diminish in accordance with how close the measurement is taken to the battery terminals.

The difference being, 60VDC with ~200V of ripple, vs. 12VDC (each battery) with perhaps 350mV of "ripple".

.99

I must say I wondered at this Poynty.  Your first depiction of a 'ripple' is the kind of waveform that I've seen on one of those really sophisticated 'clamp amp' meters where one can do a spreadsheet dump.  This pretty well flatlines at battery averge, but has a kind of really small hiccup at the switching transitions.  Yet more evidence that one cannot apply 'AVERAGING' as that, effectively is what that ameter does.  You actually showed this from one of your sims.  At that stage of your argument, you also stated that the kind of oscillation we're seeing is ENTIRELY due to the inductance on the wire.  You see if, by 'ripple' you also meant that really robust oscillation across the battery then this is definitely NOT the classical use of the term.  I'll post a Wiki definition hereunder.  But I do concede that you subsequently posted a sim showing - more or less - what we're seeing now.  But as this is also more or less what I've always been seeing - then I'm also happy that current definitely IS going through the battery as you ALSO at first denied.  And that's the WHOLE of my point.

So.  Let's try this AGAIN.  It is NOW evident that the battery voltage is indeed both returning current to and being delivered from the battery.  What this indicates - at the risk of stating the bleeding obvious - is that the battery is also DISCHARGING and then RE-CHARGING.  This voltage is at 180 degrees anti phase to the voltage across the current sensing resistor.  It is the explicit advantage of that phase shift that INVARIABLY brings the instantaneous analysis of power delivered/dissipated - to COP something far, far, greater than 1.

I'm curious to know when you and your 'dogs' get to address this point - Poynty.  Because when you do - then, and only then, will I be inclined to believe there's some integrity left in your ENDLESS DENIAL of these results.

Rosemary

WIKI DEFINITION OF RIPPLE - somewhat at variance with your own.

The most common meaning of ripple in electrical science, is the small unwanted residual periodic variation of the direct current (dc) output of a power supply which has been derived from an alternating current (ac) source. This ripple is due to incomplete suppression of the alternating waveform within the power supply.

ADDED

another edit.  included the word 'current' or Poynty et al would accuse me, yet again, of not knowing whereof I speak.  Golly.  I need to be really, really, careful.
« Last Edit: April 09, 2011, 07:33:15 AM by Rosemary Ainslie »

Offline Rosemary Ainslie

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 3968
Re: Rosemary Ainslie circuit demonstration on Saturday March 12th 2011
« Reply #531 on: April 09, 2011, 05:44:20 AM »


The difference being, 60VDC with ~200V of ripple, vs. 12VDC (each battery) with perhaps 350mV of "ripple".

.99

NO POYNTY.  NEVER HAVE I SEEN 350mV of ripple.  Admittedly I'm restricted to measuring 2 - THEREFORE 24 volts - AT LEAST - else the probes don't span that battery width - but there's  CLEAR SCALABLE value here and there it's ALWAYS SOMETHING CONSIDERABLY MORE THAN milivolts.  Try DOUBLE the battery supply voltage with a reduction to 1/3 the battery voltage.  At 12 volts supply that would result in a range of plus/minus 24 to 8 volts.  At 24 volts it would be between 48 and 16.  And so it goes.  NO RIPPLE - NO mV OSCILLATIONS.

What's happened to all that integrity?  It's a sad day when you have to invent facts to duck an open admission of error.

Again,
Rosemary   


PS

BTW - I'm definitely getting onto a better ratio between dissipated and delivered.  DEFINITELY that probe positioning is more accurate.  BUT we're still at COP INFINITY.  That's going to be a hard one to 'crack'. 

 :)
« Last Edit: April 09, 2011, 06:15:44 AM by Rosemary Ainslie »

Offline Rosemary Ainslie

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 3968
Re: Rosemary Ainslie circuit demonstration on Saturday March 12th 2011
« Reply #532 on: April 09, 2011, 06:39:11 AM »
So Guys - to get back to this point.  You will recall that my advices were to change the probe positioning.  Neptune - I think it was - told me how to do this.  Much needed as I'm VERY SLOW on the uptake.  In any event.  I've now done this.  Recall too, how Poynty said that this result would then be 'DEFINITIVE'.  He was denying that the current flow from the shunt even REACHED the battery - let alone moved through it to recharge it.  All that energy was claimed to be the result of 'spurious' measurements of inductance on the wires.  They were right - in part.  There's a definite drop in voltage.  And frankly this is a welcome result.  I could not get near to balancing that wattage dissipated/delivered number that I was looking for.  In fact, so embarrassed was I by these results that I simply omitted them from my report.  So.  For that I am MOST grateful.  I think Harti also endorsed this requirement.  Most grateful guys.

BUT.  And this is the point.  We still have that really robust oscillation.  We also now KNOW that it is recharging the battery.  Therefore CORRECTLY the amount of energy that is delivered to the battery is still GREATER than the amount of energy first delivered BY the battery.  And that's EXACTLY what's needed to prove that we can 'recycle' a current.

This - for those of you who are still wondering - is EXACTLY THE POINT where we deviate from classical prediction.  The assumption has always been that the actual energy delivered from a supply is PRECISELY the same energy that this then DISSIPATED as heat or work.  It's expected to be LOST.  Where my thesis is at variance is RIGHT HERE.  The thesis requires that the energy delivered from a supply returns to the supply.  That energy is measured as imbalance or potential difference.  It results in a depletion of that imbalance or that potential difference.  By the same token - the energy that is then induced on the circuit components is also POTENTIAL DIFFERENCE.  That too needs to return to it's source to deplete that imbalance or that potential difference.  But they're two different energy supplies returning to their own energy supply sources.  In effect, inductive and resistive components have the material properties required to become energy supply sources - all on their own.  And this potential is actually endorsed in Einstein's mass/energy equivalences.  It's just that on inductive/conductive material that energy potential is also electromagnetic energy. 

The fact that this is right is also WHY my threads and my thesis are invariably 'attacked'.  Because once this fact is understood - widely - then you will also ALL realise how easy it is to defeat those thermodynamic laws as it relates to the transfer of electric energy.  And that is actually the object of ALL THAT CRITICISM against me, our technology here - and our hopes to getting this accepted by mainstream.  It's going to put paid to the need for all that grid power.  And God alone knows how they'll justify the use of petrol driven cars - when an electric car can also enjoy precisely this advantage.  So.  Day and night - certainly for as long as they can - the Cheeseburgers and their kind will try and silence us - or embarrass me - or whatever they can manage to avoid the general spread of these truths. 

Luckily - I'm still hanging in here.  Just wish more of you would see this.  I assure you that Hamburger et al - MOST CERTAINLY DO.

Kindest regards,
Rosemary

Offline cHeeseburger

  • Newbie
  • *
  • Posts: 46
Re: Rosemary Ainslie circuit demonstration on Saturday March 12th 2011
« Reply #533 on: April 09, 2011, 06:51:04 AM »
Why not do a science experiment Rosie?  Try measuring the voltage right across one of the interconnecting wires between your batteries.  Don't even include a single battery, just look at the voltage across the wire itself.  You'll be amazed to find that pure AC voltage (resulting from di/dt) is the same peak to peak amplitude as the AC part of the voltage you get when you look across a single pair of batteries with that very same wire between them.  Plus 24 Volts DC.

Humbugger

P.S.  You seem to think I'm against free energy, Rosemary.  You might be surprised to learn I use an electric car (100% not hybrid) that gets most of its charging from solar panels on my roof for getting around town.  I love the idea of free energy and have done lots of work to help bring free energy to remote locations in India for pumping deep-well water with solar panels.

The little beach-house I'm putting together down in Mexico will be entirely off-grid and use wind plus solar and maybe even tidal currents to produce energy.  The roof will collect warm rainwater from the daily downpour that lasts about an hour most every day.  I'm working on the details of an all-electric boat as well, for getting free nutritional energy from fish and spiny lobster...every day.

Believe me, I'm all for ditching big oil, big nuclear, big pharma, big agra...all of it.  I hate the system of slavery that takes us all away from nature and satisfying our needs as directly and self-reliantly as possible.
« Last Edit: April 10, 2011, 09:07:22 AM by cHeeseburger »

Offline Rosemary Ainslie

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 3968
Re: Rosemary Ainslie circuit demonstration on Saturday March 12th 2011
« Reply #534 on: April 09, 2011, 08:37:37 AM »
golly guys.  I've just had the batteries catch fire.  Connecting leads vaporised.  How's that for proof of energy.  I was careless with one of those connections - I think.  Not actually sure what happened.  I'll test their voltage again when I've settled my nerves a bit. 

Good heavens.  I've heard about this happening.  Never actually seen it.

Regards,
Rosemary

Offline cHeeseburger

  • Newbie
  • *
  • Posts: 46
Re: Rosemary Ainslie circuit demonstration on Saturday March 12th 2011
« Reply #535 on: April 09, 2011, 08:59:08 AM »
golly guys.  I've just had the batteries catch fire.  Connecting leads vaporised.  How's that for proof of energy.  I was careless with one of those connections - I think.  Not actually sure what happened.  I'll test their voltage again when I've settled my nerves a bit. 

Good heavens.  I've heard about this happening.  Never actually seen it.

Regards,
Rosemary

You might want to throw in a few well-placed fuses, maybe 10 Amps rated, in your battery wiring there Rosemary.  DC arcing can be very dangerous and your batteries hold enough juice to do some real damage.

Humbugger

Offline nul-points

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 995
    • Doc Ringwood's Free Energy blog
Re: Rosemary Ainslie circuit demonstration on Saturday March 12th 2011
« Reply #536 on: April 09, 2011, 10:24:41 AM »
hi Rosemary

...battery caught fire?

no - you must be imagining it**!!!!   ;)   LOL

hope you & equipment all ok!


(** Poynt99 will simulate your circuit again later...  i'm sure he'll be able to assure you that your battery could not possibly catch fire)


thought you might be interested in the following link about recent discoveries relating to magnetic 'current' (if you haven't already seen it):

http://www.sciencenews.org/view/generic/id/69822/title/Magnetricity_behaves_like_electricity


PS  it would be helpful (and responsible!) to people attempting replications of your system to make them aware of any other issues which you've found which have resulted in damage to components and/or equipment


kind regards
np

http://docsfreelunch.blogspot.com
 

Offline twinbeard

  • Full Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 130
Re: Rosemary Ainslie circuit demonstration on Saturday March 12th 2011
« Reply #537 on: April 09, 2011, 10:54:09 AM »
Hi Rosemary,

I can't remember if you were using vented or sealed batteries, but let me share a little insight.  I have a 640W solar array on my roof.  It charges 1600Ah of vented lead acid L-16 batteries.  Once a month, the charge controller will bump up the voltage and boil the batteries a little bit, cleaning sulfation off the plates in the process.  Consequently, once a month, I need to add a total of a gallon or so of distilled water to the 24 individual cells.

This was designed to run a specially optimized computer network in off-grid situations.  There is a little headroom left after the load is applied... 2A of continuous use worth, on average.  When I started building pulse motors and other aetheric based power devices, I used this free source of energy as my dipole to work from.  After about a year of such research, I am noticing that I need 2 gallons per month to top off the batteries.  Further, I am noticing that battery voltage stays higher than ever after sundown, and for longer.  Mind you, these batteries are pushing 6 years old, and I have never configured them to be charged by the radiant pulses... only to supply the source dipole.

One of my pulse motors in particular can push the voltage of smaller batteries too high.  If you leave a small SLA on for too long... bye bye battery.  I suspect the same "boiling" is happening until there is no viable electrolyte left.

What really tipped me off to what was happening, and what is obviously happening with your circuit was when I paralleled a 20V 1F capacitor with the 12V bus on my bench, which is paralleled by 30 feet or so of #14 AWG to the battery bank described above.  This particular cap was made for car audio, and has a digital voltmeter built into it.  I also have a remote display for the solar charge controller, that shows the voltage at the battery terminals.  To my surprise, with several pulse motors running, the cap showed a higher voltage than the batteries.  It occured to me that energy was essentially radiating in all directions possible out of those circuits, including back into the source dipole.  It took some head scratching to figure out just what was going on.  Now, I just smile, and add that extra gallon of water to the batteries every month.  I hope that helps;)

Cheers,
Twinbeard.

golly guys.  I've just had the batteries catch fire.  Connecting leads vaporised.  How's that for proof of energy.  I was careless with one of those connections - I think.  Not actually sure what happened. e I'll test their voltage again when I've settled my nerves a bit. 

Good heavens.  I've heard about this happening.  Never actually seen it.

Regards,
Rosemary

Offline evolvingape

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 478
Re: Rosemary Ainslie circuit demonstration on Saturday March 12th 2011
« Reply #538 on: April 09, 2011, 11:59:41 AM »
I could not get near to balancing that wattage dissipated/delivered number that I was looking for.  In fact, so embarrassed was I by these results that I simply omitted them from my report.

Well right there is a damning statement direct from your own lips. You could not get the number you were looking for from the results so you omitted those "spurious" results from your report. This is generally considered amongst scientists with integrity to be "rigging the results to fit an agenda". Now we have proof you were knowingly and deliberately engaged in this. Thankyou.


What's happened to all that integrity?  It's a sad day when you have to invent facts to duck an open admission of error. 


golly guys.  I've just had the batteries catch fire.  Connecting leads vaporised.  How's that for proof of energy.  I was careless with one of those connections - I think.  Not actually sure what happened.  I'll test their voltage again when I've settled my nerves a bit. 

Good heavens. I've heard about this happening.  Never actually seen it.


OK... So your using the fact that your sealed maintenance free silver calcium batteries caught fire as "proof of energy". Yes Rosemary, a battery contains energy ;)

I have seen this lots of times in these types of batteries, it is not uncommon. Normally it is not caused by incompetent wiring, as the people who work on these batteries know what they are doing, as it's dangerous! These batteries are perfectly capable of catching fire in a standard DC circuit that is COP<1.

So what "proof of energy" are you implying ?

Oh yeah, you have typed lots of words and completely ignored Cheeseburgers perfectly valid questions in reply #527. Why ?

RM :)


Offline Rosemary Ainslie

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 3968
Re: Rosemary Ainslie circuit demonstration on Saturday March 12th 2011
« Reply #539 on: April 09, 2011, 12:17:35 PM »
hi Rosemary

(** Poynt99 will simulate your circuit again later...  i'm sure he'll be able to assure you that your battery could not possibly catch fire)

thought you might be interested in the following link about recent discoveries relating to magnetic 'current' (if you haven't already seen it):

http://www.sciencenews.org/view/generic/id/69822/title/Magnetricity_behaves_like_electricity


PS  it would be helpful (and responsible!) to people attempting replications of your system to make them aware of any other issues which you've found which have resulted in damage to components and/or equipment


kind regards
np

http://docsfreelunch.blogspot.com

Hello nul-points.  I'm going to photograph the damage to my crocodile clips.  It's wild.  Gave me a bit of a heart attack.

I've read that article.  But thanks for reminding me.  Magnetic fields are the entire foundation of the thesis.  But - theory is not of much interest here.  But nor does it matter.  Just as long as the experimental evidence is taken into account.

The thought of Poynty duplicating my test is laughable.  I'm inclined to predict he'll possibly find a loss.  Curious to see what scope he uses - or if he's going to measure everything with a DMM.  Anyway - we'll see.

It seems that Hamburger did NOT put up that blogspot to invite comments against me.  Greatly encouraged.  I know that he always tells the truth.  If I can find a link about this I'll repost it.  His general integrity and honesty is something I've dealt with in the past.  I am now getting the general impression that he actually rather likes me.  He just hides it well.  Golly.  What a relief.  :o ::)

Take care nul-points
Kindest regards,

 ;D
Rosemary

btw - regarding a list of the possible dangers in this apparatus of ours.  The biggest hazard is leaving me alone with all those switches.  Fortunately I'd just disconnected the scope probe.  and the lead to the apparatus.  I think I must have disconnected something wrongly - or touched something.  Just don't know.  BUT I'll see if I can prepare a schedule of what to look out for.  Just know it's pretty  comprehensive list because I'm hopelessly myopic.