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 670048 times)

Offline poynt99

  • TPU-Elite
  • Hero Member
  • *******
  • Posts: 3582
Re: Rosemary Ainslie circuit demonstration on Saturday March 12th 2011
« Reply #1530 on: June 21, 2011, 05:16:32 AM »
Out of interest, here is the P(t) and AVG[P(t)] for the load RL.

PRL(avg) ~ 15.9W dissipation.

.99

Offline poynt99

  • TPU-Elite
  • Hero Member
  • *******
  • Posts: 3582
Re: Rosemary Ainslie circuit demonstration on Saturday March 12th 2011
« Reply #1531 on: June 21, 2011, 05:30:13 AM »
M1 (Q2) traces for P(t) and AVG[P(t)].

PM1(avg) ~ 12.1W dissipation

Tally so far: 15.9W + 12.1W = 28W

.99

Offline Rosemary Ainslie

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 3968
Re: Rosemary Ainslie circuit demonstration on Saturday March 12th 2011
« Reply #1532 on: June 21, 2011, 06:35:59 AM »
Thanks Poynt.  Interesting to see that you put in the power dissipated at the load.  How did you work this out?  Also an average?   ;D

Anyway - for now, let's concentrate on the questions.

There are two parts in each oscillating cycle across the shunt.  The one shows a voltage reading moving above zero - to a positive voltage peak - and then collapsing back to zero.  The second shows a voltage reading moving from zero to below zero to a negative voltage peak - and then collapsing back to zero. Effectively it's a sinusoid.  Convention applies that current flow moves from the anode to the cathode.  The + terminal of the battery is the anode.  The - terminal of the battery is the cathode.  Therefore current flows from the anode to the cathode represented as the positive voltage across the shunt.  Likewise the current then reverses to  flow from the battery's cathode to the anode represented as the negative voltage across the shunt.  How is the 'positive' anode to cathode flow of current enabled through Q2?

Actually just start by answering that question.  I'll move on from there.

Thanks,
Rosemary 


Offline poynt99

  • TPU-Elite
  • Hero Member
  • *******
  • Posts: 3582
Re: Rosemary Ainslie circuit demonstration on Saturday March 12th 2011
« Reply #1533 on: June 21, 2011, 07:04:38 AM »
Thanks Poynt.  Interesting to see that you put in the power dissipated at the load.  How did you work this out?
PSpice has a handy "W" probe that you place on top of the device for which you want to see P(t).

Quote
Also an average?   ;D
To determine the effective power dissipated in a device, the average of P(t) is computed when vi(t) sampling is used.

Quote
How is the 'positive' anode to cathode flow of current enabled through Q2?
Q2 never turns OFF completely throughout the oscillation cycle. In the case where Q1 is present (and hence its body diode), some of the current path is through Q2 and some through Q1's body diode. When Q1 is removed, all the current path is through Q2. There is also the body diode of Q2; if it is ever forward biased (it never is in this case), it too provides a current path from Source to Drain.

.99

Offline Rosemary Ainslie

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 3968
Re: Rosemary Ainslie circuit demonstration on Saturday March 12th 2011
« Reply #1534 on: June 21, 2011, 07:28:33 AM »
@MrMag: You politely asked about Rosemary's background, and for some reason she bristled at you.

But over the years, she has revealed quite a lot. IIRC (and please correct me if I am wrong, Rosie) she has no post-secondary education, no mathematics education beyond simple algebra, certainly no calculus. Her "high school" was what we might call "alternative" here in the good old USA.
Golly.  I'm not sure that the English education system is correctly described as 'alternative'.  I think that anyone qualifying for the O levels and GCE's and M levels would be inclined to protest.  I was held back for a year as it was considered that I was just too emotionally immature to cut it so I wrote my M levels 'university entrance to SA universities' when I was 15.  I then went to university - only because I was too young to get a job. BUT when I was old enough to make my OWN decisions I LEFT UNIVERSITY.  That was after 2 years when I FINALLY turned 18.  And 1 year before my finals.  And from then until now I worked for myself - first in catering then in property development and finally in trading.  Since NONE of these endeavors included science they are also ENTIRELY irrelevant.   And since all of them require some measure of a functioning intelligence I think you can largely discount Poynt's assessment of me being an outright moron.  But since I still post here then even I'm inclined to doubt this.

She is self-taught wrt physics in general and electronics in particular, and until she started posting here and on Energetic Forum, she had no idea what, for example, a capacitor was or what it was for.
This is also a lot of baloney.  I was VERY CAPABLY TAUGHT by the writings of Gary Zukov, Murray Gell Mann - and a list too long and too boring to include here.  AND most specifically - I was also taught by Dyson in that IMPECCABLE STUDY OF CONCEPTUAL PHYSICS.  SO.  I was taught DIRECTLY by the masters or by brilliant writers ABOUT the master - not through the fractured muddles of those who teach the MASTERS.  And my lack of knowledge as it pertains to ELECTRONICS PERSISTS.  I only USE circuit components in a VERY LIMITED APPLICATION to prove my thesis.  I STILL do not know how a capacitor works.  AND I wont know until I've finally taken one apart and worked it out for myself.  I cannot be accused EVER to taking anyone's word for it on any issue at all - unless I've also UNDERSTOOD the issues.  That's the downside in being me.

She believes that a scientific theory can be made up out of whole cloth and doesn't need to make testable predictions or be consistent with current knowledge... have you read her "zipon theory" which she says will replace QED? And yet it makes not a single numerical prediction....
FAR from NOT making a single numerical prediction it RELIES on a close analysis of mass/size ratios and a close analysis of the properties of charge.  It is ALL OF IT NUMERICAL.  And the most glaring prediction is that in the transfer of electric energy UNITY CAN MOST CERTAINLY BE EXCEEDED.  That you cannot understand it is also understandable.  At it's least you'll need a facility with concept.  And I certainly HOPE that the thesis will not REPLACE QED.  What a thought!  That would be a travesty of the highest order.  It REPLACES NOTHING.  Nor does it DISCOVER ANYTHING.  It simply resolves some very real anomalies - which is the broadly applied euphemism when our mainstream scientists can't answer questions.  lol. 

btw.  Here's that LINK
http://newlightondarkenergy.blogspot.com/2011/03/98-model.html

For a long time she referred to her "Patent" as if she had a... well... patent, or something. Unfortunately this "patent" turned out to be an APPLICATION for an international patent, which was never granted and which application was allowed to lapse. For a while, she posted a paper submission under IEEE header, that was REJECTED by IEEE.
ALSO NOT TRUE.  The paper was pubished on SCRIBD and withdrawn because FUZZY claimed it was his WORK.  And he's not capable of writing an articulate paragraph let alone that paper.  Nor can he dream up the parameters required for the tests he replicated and then CLAIMED was his own work.  lol.   Right now that paper is PUBLISHED on my blogspot and has enjoyed a VERY WIDE readership.

She has been pursuing this line of... er.... reasoning for years on many websites. I first started following her on the Naked Scientists forum years ago. She has been banned from NS, EF, and has had several "enforced breaks" from this forum.
For 'many years' read 3 years - and during the most of 1 of those 3 years I was pretty effectively SILENCED. 

Nobody, but nobody, has been able to charge up a battery "overunity" or show excess heat production using her circuits.
And this is also true - provided that you exclude Glen's replications, sundry tests that Aaron has done - The tests designed and accredited by BP (SA), ABB Research, SASOL (SA) SPESCOM - CISR - POWER ENGINEERS (part of the Alstom group) the directors of MTN SCIENCENTRE where it was demonstrated for a couple of weeks and a veritable HOST of independent engineers.  And latterly by 3 replicators here in CAPE TOWN.  But otherwise TK is SPOT ON.  Just read that  'Nobody but nobody' - as a double negative - which we all know - makes a positive.

I have, however, shown that the high-voltage spike produced by her circuit can be siphoned off and used to charge capacitors or EXTERNAL batteries. As can any inductive spike from any inductive collapse circuit, even a Joule Thief.

 ;D  More of those euphemisms TK.

Other than that, she seems like a benign little old lady from South Africa, who would be better off making tangerine marmalade in her kitchen, than messing with MOSFETS.
It's true.  I make a very good marmalade.  I LOVE cooking.

BTW, I have repeatedly challenged the Rosie supporters to apply the same output power calculations they like to use on her circuit, to my TinselKoil, and report the COP that they find.
I don't think anyone cares enough about anything you claim TK. We all know you as a propagandist.  And once propaganda is seen for what it is - then it rather loses its edge. 

Rosie

Added a link to what TK refers to as my 'ZIPON' theory.  ENJOY.  lol.
« Last Edit: June 21, 2011, 08:22:10 AM by Rosemary Ainslie »

Offline Rosemary Ainslie

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 3968
Re: Rosemary Ainslie circuit demonstration on Saturday March 12th 2011
« Reply #1535 on: June 21, 2011, 11:32:57 AM »

Q2 never turns OFF completely throughout the oscillation cycle. In the case where Q1 is present (and hence its body diode), some of the current path is through Q2 and some through Q1's body diode. When Q1 is removed, all the current path is through Q2. There is also the body diode of Q2; if it is ever forward biased (it never is in this case), it too provides a current path from Source to Drain.

.99

Not sure what you mean by 'forward biased'.  If the body diode is positioned that the anode is against the anode of the battery - as it IS and as it's shown in your schematics in your 'replacement' of Q1 - then it does indeed provide a path from the source to the drain.  Correctly you should be putting that body diode across Q2 with that same 'forward bias' as you put it.  And it will certainly PREVENT a discharge of positive current from the anode to the cathode of the battery.  The question is how does it allow a current flow from the drain to the source?  Because there's evidently a flow in this direction.

Now.  Back to my question.  What in the circuit enables that 'positive' current flow through Q2?  You really just need to give a simple answer here Poynty.  One assumes that there is a path because the current is most decidedly positive.  WHERE DOES IT FIND THAT PATH? 

It goes from the + at the battery terminals - then it flows to the Gate of Q2? or WHAT? on it's way back to the negative terminal of the battery.

Regards again,
Rosie

Offline poynt99

  • TPU-Elite
  • Hero Member
  • *******
  • Posts: 3582
Re: Rosemary Ainslie circuit demonstration on Saturday March 12th 2011
« Reply #1536 on: June 21, 2011, 02:38:53 PM »
Not sure what you mean by 'forward biased'.
With reference to a diode, "forward biased" means that the anode of the diode is at least 0.7V higher in potential than the cathode. When forward biased, a current path is formed in the direction from anode to cathode.

Quote
Now.  Back to my question.  What in the circuit enables that 'positive' current flow through Q2?  You really just need to give a simple answer here Poynty.  One assumes that there is a path because the current is most decidedly positive.  WHERE DOES IT FIND THAT PATH? 

It goes from the + at the battery terminals - then it flows to the Gate of Q2? or WHAT? on it's way back to the negative terminal of the battery.

Regards again,
Rosie
The normal flow of current through a N-channel MOSFET is from Drain to Source, as long as the Gate is sufficiently potentialized to turn the MOSFET on to a degree. The Drain to Source current path is created when the MOSFET is "ON". The degree to which the MOSFET is "ON" is determined in general by the Gate to Source voltage.

.99

Offline Rosemary Ainslie

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 3968
Re: Rosemary Ainslie circuit demonstration on Saturday March 12th 2011
« Reply #1537 on: June 21, 2011, 04:28:39 PM »
With reference to a diode, "forward biased" means that the anode of the diode is at least 0.7V higher in potential than the cathode. When forward biased, a current path is formed in the direction from anode to cathode.
The normal flow of current through a N-channel MOSFET is from Drain to Source, as long as the Gate is sufficiently potentialized to turn the MOSFET on to a degree. The Drain to Source current path is created when the MOSFET is "ON". The degree to which the MOSFET is "ON" is determined in general by the Gate to Source voltage.

.99
OK.  SO.  Assume that the drain to source is clockwise - positive as it relates to ground.  Correspondingly source to drain is negative - counter clockwise - negative as it relates to ground.  Now.  Look at the body diode.  That's only polarised to allowed a counter cockwise flow.  And the signal at the gate of Q2 is what?  Negative?  As you've shown it? -5v's? 

So.  WHAT path does the current flow when it's generated from the CEMF when it flows clockwise? Because it really DOES flow clockwise for 50% of each of those sinusoidal waveforms.

Thanks
R

Offline poynt99

  • TPU-Elite
  • Hero Member
  • *******
  • Posts: 3582
Re: Rosemary Ainslie circuit demonstration on Saturday March 12th 2011
« Reply #1538 on: June 21, 2011, 04:48:07 PM »
And the signal at the gate of Q2 is what?  Negative?  As you've shown it? -5v's? 
The voltage at the Gate wrt the Source (called VGS), has about a +5V potential (minus some drop across the 2 Ohm resistor). The VGS is also modulated up and down by the oscillation.

Quote
So.  WHAT path does the current flow when it's generated from the CEMF when it flows clockwise? Because it really DOES flow clockwise for 50% of each of those sinusoidal waveforms.
The current paths are a combination of the Q2 D-S channel, and through the Q1 body diode and wire down to ground.

.99

Offline Rosemary Ainslie

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 3968
Re: Rosemary Ainslie circuit demonstration on Saturday March 12th 2011
« Reply #1539 on: June 21, 2011, 05:03:59 PM »
The voltage at the Gate wrt the Source (called VGS), has about a +5V potential (minus some drop across the 2 Ohm resistor).
That's not what you show in your schematic.  I'll post it again.  You show -5 volts.  Are you saying that you're actually applying a positive or +5 volt signal at the gate of Q2?

The VGS is also modulated up and down by the oscillation.
I've looked at those voltages very carefully.  When you say 'up and down' are you implying that the voltage across the gate ALSO crosses ZERO during the oscillation phase?

The current paths are a combination of the Q2 D-S channel, and through the Q1 body diode and wire down to ground.
This explains NOTHING.  The question is this.  WHERE EXACTLY is the path in your Q2 - sans Q1 schematic - that allows a POSITIVE cycle of each half of that sinusoidal waveform??

R
here's that schematic again.
added.

Offline Rosemary Ainslie

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 3968
Re: Rosemary Ainslie circuit demonstration on Saturday March 12th 2011
« Reply #1540 on: June 21, 2011, 05:37:15 PM »
Do you see where I'm going with this Poynty?  Here are the options.  The signal at Q2 HAS to be positive else the positive flow from the battery cannot have a path.  So.  Why do you show this as a negative or -5V's.  Do you see now why I did NOT realise that you were referring to the voltage applied to the gate?  You need to explain this.  Are your schematics WRONGLY configured?

Regards,
R
I'm in a panic that you won't see this.  So.  For PERFECT CLARITY.  If the applied voltage at the Q2 is postive as it relates to the source voltage - then it's negative as it relates to the drain voltage.  Therefore.  Counter clockwise current flow is permitted.  Clockwise current flow is BLOCKED. IS THIS RIGHT?

Offline poynt99

  • TPU-Elite
  • Hero Member
  • *******
  • Posts: 3582
Re: Rosemary Ainslie circuit demonstration on Saturday March 12th 2011
« Reply #1541 on: June 21, 2011, 05:43:53 PM »
Quote
The voltage at the Gate wrt the Source (called VGS),

Do you know what that means? If so, please explain it, otherwise this discussion can not progress.

.99

Offline Rosemary Ainslie

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 3968
Re: Rosemary Ainslie circuit demonstration on Saturday March 12th 2011
« Reply #1542 on: June 21, 2011, 05:51:36 PM »
Do you know what that means? If so, please explain it, otherwise this discussion can not progress.

.99

NO POYNTY.  You're ducking the issue.  Here's what you wrote.

'The voltage at the Gate wrt the Source (called VGS), has about a +5V potential (minus some drop across the 2 Ohm resistor). The VGS is also modulated up and down by the oscillation.'

If the voltage WRT the SOURCE is +5V then is the voltage WRT the DRAIN -5V? 

And don't get sniffy with me. That 'this discussion is going nowhere' bit.  I'm asking some very appropriate questions and I very much doubt that you'll be able to answer them.  I hope to be proved wrong.
Again
R

Offline poynt99

  • TPU-Elite
  • Hero Member
  • *******
  • Posts: 3582
Re: Rosemary Ainslie circuit demonstration on Saturday March 12th 2011
« Reply #1543 on: June 21, 2011, 06:21:56 PM »
If the voltage WRT the SOURCE is +5V then is the voltage WRT the DRAIN -5V? 
No.

I admit I am losing patience with you and I prefer not to get into another arduous discussion that results in you still not understanding anything I am trying to convey.

.99

Offline MrMag

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 754
Re: Rosemary Ainslie circuit demonstration on Saturday March 12th 2011
« Reply #1544 on: June 21, 2011, 06:35:49 PM »
Thanx for the info TK and thank-you Rose for the clarification of the comments.

I was held back for a year as it was considered that I was just too emotionally immature to cut it so I wrote my M levels 'university entrance to SA universities' when I was 15.  I then went to university - only because I was too young to get a job. BUT when I was old enough to make my OWN decisions I LEFT UNIVERSITY.  That was after 2 years when I FINALLY turned 18.  And 1 year before my finals.

That's pretty good Rose. To bad you didn't decide to stay until you were finished. That was pretty stupid to just quit with only one year left before your degree. I'm also not sure that you have fully grown out of the emotional immaturity bit.


Since NONE of these endeavors included science they are also ENTIRELY irrelevant.   And since all of them require some measure of a functioning intelligence I think you can largely discount Poynt's assessment of me being an outright moron.  But since I still post here then even I'm inclined to doubt this.

Yes, interesting but I agree irrelevant. I was wondering more about a technical background or training. I hope Poynt didn't call you an outright moron. It's hard too believe that he has. Because if he did, why would he be putting in all the time and energy to try to help you understand the circuit.

This is also a lot of baloney.  I was VERY CAPABLY TAUGHT by the writings of Gary Zukov, Murray Gell Mann - and a list too long and too boring to include here.  AND most specifically - I was also taught by Dyson in that IMPECCABLE STUDY OF CONCEPTUAL PHYSICS.  SO.  I was taught DIRECTLY by the masters or by brilliant writers ABOUT the master - not through the fractured muddles of those who teach the MASTERS.  And my lack of knowledge as it pertains to ELECTRONICS PERSISTS.  I only USE circuit components in a VERY LIMITED APPLICATION to prove my thesis.  I STILL do not know how a capacitor works.  AND I wont know until I've finally taken one apart and worked it out for myself.  I cannot be accused EVER to taking anyone's word for it on any issue at all - unless I've also UNDERSTOOD the issues.  That's the downside in being me.

If you have learned by the writings of these people by reading their books, wouldn't you consider it self taught? It is a little confusing that you won't know how a capacitor works until you take one apart, but you believe in the writings of Zukov, Mann and others. Isn't a capacitor a little easier to understand then some of their statements. I really think your reaching here. It's the same as saying that I have a good understanding of magic and wizardry since I've read all of the Harry Potter books.


ALSO NOT TRUE.  The paper was pubished on SCRIBD and withdrawn because FUZZY claimed it was his WORK.  And he's not capable of writing an articulate paragraph let alone that paper.  Nor can he dream up the parameters required for the tests he replicated and then CLAIMED was his own work.  lol.   Right now that paper is PUBLISHED on my blogspot and has enjoyed a VERY WIDE readership.

Just because you uploaded a couple of documents I wouldn't necessarily say that you published some papers. You make it sound as if they/it has been accepted which I don't think it has.

For 'many years' read 3 years - and during the most of 1 of those 3 years I was pretty effectively SILENCED. 

I really don't think you were SILENCED because of your alleged discovery. I would guess that it was probably because of your unprofessional attitude and slanderous remarks to and about people.

  ;D  More of those euphemisms TK.

What part of his comment is a euphemism and why do you say that it is.

It's true.  I make a very good marmalade.  I LOVE cooking.

No offense, but maybe this is your true calling.