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 741446 times)

i_ron

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 1170
Re: Rosemary Ainslie circuit demonstration on Saturday March 12th 2011
« Reply #1005 on: April 30, 2011, 10:29:13 PM »
All the circuit diagrams were posted for this first simulation circuit that oscillated. What is it that you still don't understand about that version? I'd be glad to explain it. In fact, I am going to see about getting it also to work without the function generator.

.99

That would be most welcomed, something constructive.

Just that I see problems with what you have presented so far,
so an actual working circuit would clarify things considerably.

Ron




i_ron

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 1170
Re: Rosemary Ainslie circuit demonstration on Saturday March 12th 2011
« Reply #1006 on: April 30, 2011, 10:42:45 PM »
Have you read any of the last six pages,you seem to understand nothing about what is going on ???
of course you can show us your successful replication of this circuit and all that free energy you have ???

Unfortunately I understand harassment and bullying all too well, that is why I replied to your unkind post

An apology would be more in order, rather than to try to shift the focus of blame on to me. It won't work.

Ron

edit
 
« Last Edit: April 30, 2011, 11:47:57 PM by i_ron »

powercat

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 1091
Re: Rosemary Ainslie circuit demonstration on Saturday March 12th 2011
« Reply #1007 on: April 30, 2011, 10:56:24 PM »
Unfortunately I understand harassment and bullying all too well, that is why I replied to your unkind post

An apology would be more in order, rather than to try to shift the focus of blame on to me. It won't work. I accept your contract, on the condition I may refuse at a later date .

Ron


If you think I'm trying to harass and bully,then you must believe there is a big conspiracy out to get Rosie anyway she certainly seems to believe it  :o

I hope you can turn things around and successfully produce a circuit that does what she claims,
because Rosie desperately needs it.

If you haven't seen the videos from the last two years, here they are, some of these names you will recognise from this forum they are good and trusted members like yourself,unfortunately they had failed let's hope you succeed.
http://www.youtube.com/results?search_type=videos&search_query=Rosemary+Ainslie+circuit&search_sort=video_date_uploaded&suggested_categories=28&uni=3

poynt99

  • TPU-Elite
  • Hero Member
  • *******
  • Posts: 3582
Re: Rosemary Ainslie circuit demonstration on Saturday March 12th 2011
« Reply #1008 on: April 30, 2011, 11:29:29 PM »
In looking closer at the first circuit Hum and I were using in the simulation, I would not recommend anyone try it.

Yes it oscillates quite happily, but the problem is with the inductance we purposely introduce in the Gate. This causes a huge VGS voltage (+20V down to -30V) swing on the MOSFET Gate-to-Source, and we know that the VGS should never exceed +/- 20V for safety of the device. If anyone has any suggestions to fix this problem (I've already tried 20V zeners across G-S, and it kills the oscillation), let me know. **

Either circuit I have shown (-DC voltage source in Q2 Source leg, OR +DC voltage source in the Q2 Gate leg) works well and doesn't even approach +/-20V VGS.

If anyone sees a problem with either of the aforementioned circuits, let me know and I'll do my best to explain them. They do work, but it is possible I've missed something.

.99

**This is a prime example of the awareness required when designing with SPICE. You can design something that is beyond the allowable limits of the components you are using (i.e. they won't "blow up" in the simulation). The version of PSpice I am using has "Smoke Parameters", but I am not sure that this includes an excessive VGS voltage (I rather doubt it). So that is why I checked the VGS voltage. ;)

woopy

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 608
Re: Rosemary Ainslie circuit demonstration on Saturday March 12th 2011
« Reply #1009 on: April 30, 2011, 11:51:35 PM »
Hi I-ron

totally in accordance with you

I follow this thread intermitently because the Rose's results seems very interesting to me.

And i am very surprised of the agressivity of the detractors of the presented technology.

And most of all, the tremendous  package of  theory (good or not good ) in comparison with the very few real life testing and results in those last time.

Groundloop recently offers a very easy to replicate shematic  (5 mosfet and 4 resistors and some wiring wounded to a heating element )  seems not to be a very difficult and expensive experiment to realise . I think (with my very low electronic education ) i can do it (and probably will do it soon)

So to all the "könner " here, why don't you test it in real life and than bring back your results as Rose did .

I am a beginner but i need really good education and for me a good educator is somebody that stores real life experience in the pocket , all the rest is in my opinion ,  academic pleasure


good luck at all

laurent

Rosemary Ainslie

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 3968
Re: Rosemary Ainslie circuit demonstration on Saturday March 12th 2011
« Reply #1010 on: May 01, 2011, 12:33:38 AM »
Ok guys.  I really need to move on.  What I've done is this.  I can't take a photo of the set up as it is at the moment because my other computer has been rifled and doctored with a virus.  And that holds my photobucket software.  But what I have done is a whole lot of tests to see if I can explain this.  NOTA BENE ALL.  The ground of the signal generator is MOST CERTAINLY at the point marked B on the video.  In other words it's BEFORE THE CSR.  And by the way - it makes not an ounce of difference if it's there or if it's positioned as shown in our DEMO diagram. So.  Right now the CSR is precisely in series with and on the same rail as the negative terminal of the battery supply which then conforms to my circuit variation of 'a poynted revision' shown earlier.

Then.  I took the tests through an extreme range of duty cycle tests - most on - most off.  This shows the advantage of the oscillation as it relates to the temperature rise.  THEN I did a whole lot more tests to show the subtleties of the off set.  I took the temperature to 240 degrees and climbing.  But I started melting the plastic container - so I filled it with water.  It took the water temperature to plus/minus 80 degrees and climbing.  I think I'm dissipating upwards of 120 watts - but will only confirm this in the morning.  The test has been running for the last 4 hours.  And right now - on the highest frequency setting I'm FINALLY seeing evidence of battery voltage actually climbing.  So is the water temperature rising - and I'm not sure how much longer I can sit up.  I'm exhausted and there's nothing interesting on television to ease the boredom.

The point is this.  There is absolutely no difference in where we position the ground of the functions generator.  With the exception of a short 5 minutes where the offset started rising (it gets a mind of its own) there have been absolutely NO VALUES of the cycle mean - the mean - or the math trace showing anything other than a negative value.  And that's notwithstanding the clear evidence of dissipation of wattage in excess of 100 watts.  And I am FINALLY seeing a stable 'kick off' voltage over the batteries.  It needs a high frequency.

I'll do the downloads in the moring and walk you through the different settings as they relate to the temperature rise.

PLEASE DO NOT PAY ANY ATTENTION TO POYNTY's ENDLESS INNUENDOS AND HINTS AND INTERRUPTIONS.  He is talking a whole lot of nonsense.  When I've done those downloads - I will then walk you through my own take on what is happening.  You can take it on board - or not - as required.  And Peter and Ron - as ever.  Thanks for the interventions.  It gets rather lonely in this corner of mine. And I missed your post there woopy.  Thank you.  It's always heartening and frankly, was much needed.

I'm reasonably sure that there will be those readers here who will be delighted at this.  And by the same token there will be those who are not.  lol.

Kindest regards,
Rosie   

Just checked.  Water showing some really small bubbles.  We're at sea level but the temperature reading is now 104 degrees c.  Shouldn't it be boiling at this level?  Anyway - the voltage on the batteries now at 60 from an early 59.7.  I really need to turn it off.  I'll do the screen shot downloads first thing tomorrow.  I'm also not sure how much water in that container. I think it's about a litre.  I'll check this tomorrow as well.

edited.  Added comments and corrected the spelling - I hope. 
« Last Edit: May 01, 2011, 01:01:05 AM by Rosemary Ainslie »

poynt99

  • TPU-Elite
  • Hero Member
  • *******
  • Posts: 3582
Re: Rosemary Ainslie circuit demonstration on Saturday March 12th 2011
« Reply #1011 on: May 01, 2011, 12:41:11 AM »
The ground of the signal generator is MOST CERTAINLY at the point marked B on the video.  In other words it's BEFORE THE CSR.  And by the way - it makes not an ounce of difference if it's there of it's its positioned as shown in our DEMO diagram.

What is this in reference to? I certainly have not questioned the position of the ground for the function generator...has someone else? Could you please explain what it is you are trying to convey and why?

.99

poynt99

  • TPU-Elite
  • Hero Member
  • *******
  • Posts: 3582
Re: Rosemary Ainslie circuit demonstration on Saturday March 12th 2011
« Reply #1012 on: May 01, 2011, 01:47:01 AM »
The ground of the signal generator is MOST CERTAINLY at the point marked B on the video.  In other words it's BEFORE THE CSR.  And by the way - it makes not an ounce of difference if it's there or if it's positioned as shown in our DEMO diagram. So.  Right now the CSR is precisely in series with and on the same rail as the negative terminal of the battery supply which then conforms to my circuit variation of 'a poynted revision' shown earlier.
Regarding the CSR, that is incorrect. You may wish to review your own diagram of the as-built circuit (attached).

Where is the CSR (Rshunt) located in that circuit diagram Rose?

Unless you have physically re-configured the apparatus, the Rshunt is still where it is as shown on the attached diagram, i.e. not in series with the battery as you believe.

btw, the function generator ground is supposed to be connected to point B in the diagram. Was it connected somewhere else all this time? Nonetheless, where the function generator ground is connected has no bearing on the electrical connections to the CSR shunt resistor array. You may also wish to review the snapshot of the underside of the perf-board as a reality check.

EDIT: I've looked at the video captures I have and it is clear that the function generator ground lead was connected to the ground BUS, which is in fact point B (it always was). So what is all the fuss over this function generator ground connection?

EDIT2: For clarity, I have added the function generator ground to the as-built circuit diagram. See attached.

.99
« Last Edit: May 01, 2011, 02:32:22 AM by poynt99 »

poynt99

  • TPU-Elite
  • Hero Member
  • *******
  • Posts: 3582
Re: Rosemary Ainslie circuit demonstration on Saturday March 12th 2011
« Reply #1013 on: May 01, 2011, 02:18:46 AM »
I am sure there is no need for your arrogant demanding queries.
Ron, do I have a quarrel with you? If not, kindly back off sir.

Quote
Why don't you mock up the circuit in real hardware and report your actual findings here?
Perhaps you might take the trouble to ask if this is already in the works before assuming it isn't. I'm waiting for some MOSFETs to arrive, as I could not locate my spare. btw, why haven't you posted your build and test results?

Along these lines, I would very much like to hear your thoughts on what you believe is going to be different in the actual results vs. the simulation results?

Quote
I am sure you could manage this in one post rather than the endless stream of drivel you post?

Ron
Have I missed your technical contributions in this thread?

If you have already covered all the material (or "drivel" as you put it) I've put forward in this thread, then could you please provide a few links so that I may save myself some time and effort, and just reference your work directly?

Thanks,
.99

i_ron

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 1170
Re: Rosemary Ainslie circuit demonstration on Saturday March 12th 2011
« Reply #1014 on: May 01, 2011, 04:59:53 AM »
snip
I'll do the downloads in the moring and walk you through the different settings as they relate to the temperature rise.

PLEASE DO NOT PAY ANY ATTENTION TO POYNTY's ENDLESS INNUENDOS AND HINTS AND INTERRUPTIONS.  He is talking a whole lot of nonsense.  When I've done those downloads - I will then walk you through my own take on what is happening. 

Good work Rosemary!

Look forward to the morning.

I can't help but draw a parallel between your device and cold fusion.
Pons and Fleischmann announced over twenty years ago now and were promptly shot down by their critics. MIT put the "final nail" in their coffin.

 Yet the E-Cat, the first commercial cold fusion device now numbers 94 and is running in 4 countries

http://freeenergytruth.blogspot.com/2011/04/97-e-cats-in-operation-right-now.html

All the nay sayers and agenda workers effort was for naught!!!

I predict a better future for you too, Rosemary, will keep the old fingers crossed!

Warm wishes

Ron



Rosemary Ainslie

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 3968
Re: Rosemary Ainslie circuit demonstration on Saturday March 12th 2011
« Reply #1015 on: May 01, 2011, 08:08:46 AM »
So sorry all.  I've overslept - and we've got a gathering of the clan again as it's Sunday - so I'm busy until this afternoon.  If I can make an early departure will do so.  However.  I should have enough time then to do the necessary.

Watch this space.   ;D

If I sound excessively smug it's because the offset switch held for as long as it did.  That was a first.   Then the 'hammer head' oscillation shape has gone - so it was never due to a replacement MOSFET as I thought earlier.  It must simply have been something in the other Functions Generator.  And the final point is that it's now been taken to 'BOILING POINT'.  That's a first.  I only managed this because there was none of that 'slipping'.  What happens is that the 'input' voltage during the 'on' time just keeps climbing and climbing the minute I give it a positive swing adjustment.  BUT LAST NIGHT IT HELD - except for a brief interval.  The temperature was very high - but none of that scarey 'runaway' effect.

Perhaps I'm getting some much needed assistance from our Good Lord.  God knows I need it. 

Take care everyone.  And beware the forum 'LURKER'.   ;D 

Rosie

Sorry Ron.  I skipped what I thought were simply posts from Poynty and have now seen your own good wishes.  There is absolutely NO QUESTION that what is happening on this circuit is, to say the least, anomalous.  And yes.  I've also been following the 'cold fusion' news.  But Pons and Flieishman were somehow persuaded to demonstrate a 'flop'.  They'll need me DEAD before I oblige.  I am decidedly NOT an academic.  So I'm out of harm's way when it comes to peer pressure.  And unlike them - there are more than just a 'handful of students' as mookie claimed, who are very aware of this technology.  Let's hope we'll broaden the range of witnesses to include those academicians.  And - if I can get my head around it - I'll try and get you all a schematic that you guys are more comfortable with.  Poor knowledge of good circuit design - is my only weakness.  lol.  I wish!  ::) But I'm rambling.  And I've got to run.  BRB


edited the word 'decidedly' - I think it had too many 'e's, lol.  And I don't think I should have said BRB (be right back) but - perhaps - BBL (be back later).  Love all this internet 'speak'.  Soon we'll be able to do without any whole words at all.   ;D 
« Last Edit: May 01, 2011, 04:13:52 PM by Rosemary Ainslie »

Rosemary Ainslie

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 3968
Re: Rosemary Ainslie circuit demonstration on Saturday March 12th 2011
« Reply #1016 on: May 01, 2011, 03:48:19 PM »
Ok guys.  Here are those test results. 

TEST
Difference in temperature rise between the extreme 'on' and 'off' settings of the duty cycle to the limit of the functions generator's capacity.

FIRST SETTING = longest on
SCRN.0336.JPG
DATE 2011/04/30
TIME 20.55.43
DUTY CYCLE 81.18% ON.

RESULTS
TEMPERATURE RISE +/- 20 degrees C greater ambient = plus/minus 2.5 watts.
MORE WATTAGE RETURNED TO V BATT THAN DELIVERED therefore INFINITE COP


SECOND SETTING = shortest on
SCRN.0339.JPG
DATE 2011/04/30
TIME 21:07:44
DUTY CYCLE 18.82% ON.

RESULTS
TEMPERATURE RISE +/- 49.8 degrees C greater ambient = plus/minus 8 watts.
MORE WATTAGE RETURNED TO V BATT THAN DELIVERED therefore INFINITE COP


poynt99

  • TPU-Elite
  • Hero Member
  • *******
  • Posts: 3582
Re: Rosemary Ainslie circuit demonstration on Saturday March 12th 2011
« Reply #1017 on: May 01, 2011, 04:04:27 PM »
One thing we may conclude form this test, is that MORE power and energy is dissipated in the load as the oscillation period increases, agreed?

Could you please explain why the oscillation does not occur during the time period the function generator is ON? This is clearly seen by your first test with the 81.18% duty cycle ON.

.99

poynt99

  • TPU-Elite
  • Hero Member
  • *******
  • Posts: 3582
Re: Rosemary Ainslie circuit demonstration on Saturday March 12th 2011
« Reply #1018 on: May 01, 2011, 04:33:00 PM »
Rose,

There has been at least one member here who has expressed an interest in replicating your apparatus. At this time however, you have not yet given assurance that any one circuit diagram posted in this thread is "the right one", despite several requests (including from Stefan), and several offered to choose from, including one of your very own edited to add Q2-Q5 with their true connections.

So for the benefit of the readers and those interested in replicating, I pose these two questions for you:

1) Do you want your apparatus replicated by others?

If the answer is "YES", then:

2) Is the attached circuit diagram (an edited version of your own) an accurate depiction of the apparatus used in the video demonstration?

A simple "YES" or "NO" will be great.

.99

Rosemary Ainslie

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 3968
Re: Rosemary Ainslie circuit demonstration on Saturday March 12th 2011
« Reply #1019 on: May 01, 2011, 05:10:40 PM »
What followed on from here is a series of shots to show the results from a minor adjustment to the offset. The first screen shot shows the limit of that adjustment.  There was a second adjustment during the test procedure to re-adjust the offset to return the positive back to this position.  I'll down load a few of these because I actually took 15 downloads showing the same thing, essentially, with an ever but slow increase in the rise of temperature.  It rose from 66.9 degrees C to it's final temperature of 240 degrees C.  That's when I put it in water.  And then it took the water up to 80 degrees centigrade where it pretty well stabilised.  I'll post in the time it took when I've checked the time on those downloads. 

Also, NOTA BENE guys, the voltage across the batteries that I mentioned in my earlier post is wrong.  But just note that the battery voltage both climbs and falls - on these slower frequencies.  This is most clearly evident at the very slowest fequency which is when we get that delicious oscillation that just goes on forever. 

Also.  I've not posted all the downloads - 15 in all - as they're too repetitive. I downloaded a screen shot at certain intervals just to relate it to temperature rise.  I think I'll post three as that should be fairly representative.  So.  The first is to show the 'offset' detail.  And two others - at the beginning and near the end - when I had to immerse it in water.   Again.  The water temperature then stabilsed after an hour or so - at a little over 80 degrees centigrade.

ADDED
ALSO Please note.  The actual level of oscillation across the CSR reduced at those higher wattage levels.  But it did nothing to stop the temperature rise. The offset was pretty well stable but I think it may have ended up fractionally 'higher' than the start of these tests.