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 680199 times)

Offline Rosemary Ainslie

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 3968
Re: Rosemary Ainslie circuit demonstration on Saturday March 12th 2011
« Reply #1770 on: July 03, 2011, 07:06:35 AM »
Actually - I've just seen that there are something in the order of a million plus hits on my name in Google. Golly. There's way more interest than I realised. Thanks for pointing this out to me Fuzzy. It's AMAZING.  At least everyone's talking.

Gosh.  I had no idea.   :o

Regards,
Rosemary.

Offline powercat

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 1091
Re: Rosemary Ainslie circuit demonstration on Saturday March 12th 2011
« Reply #1771 on: July 03, 2011, 09:42:48 AM »

WHY?  Fuzzy's insults don't constitute proof of anything.  And I'm MORE than happy to do long
term tests.


Hey Mr Mag, Rosemary Ainslie is more than happy to long-term tests, can you repost that simple low-cost test of yours.

what a politician you truly are, you use fuzzy to support your arguments when he's not around,
but when he is around you tell people not to listen to him.  :D You're great at contradiction.

You attack anyone who disagrees with you, anyone that says your circut doesn't workor or indicate's measuring error, is then part of a conspiracy.

You can't tell me of any member on this forum that has produced excess energy with your circuit, because nobody has after two and half years of you being on this forum.

Guys remember it's that claim off excess energy that I have a problem with, if you are a supporter of Rosemary's claims and you don't believe the evidence against, then you can help her by showing us all your working circuit producing excess energy.

Interesting how none of the people here that support your claims have never shown their version of your circuit, they must be relying on blind faith,  some people really do believe anything politicians tell them.



 


Offline Rosemary Ainslie

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 3968
Re: Rosemary Ainslie circuit demonstration on Saturday March 12th 2011
« Reply #1772 on: July 03, 2011, 11:08:33 AM »
Groundloop - the caps were 2 x 40 volt 150 000 ? micro farad in parallel.  I hope I've got that right. 

Apparently the circuit leads were directly across the caps.  So, I guess the caps must have been in parallel to the batteries.

Which means that the test was a definite FAIL.  The caps DO NOT WORK.  What stuck me is that the waveform just COLLAPSES.  Unless we should have been using different caps?  Not at all sure.  Frankly I never thought that a cap would work.  I just don't know why it should.  Anyway.  That test, at least, is put to bed.

Kindest regards,
Rosemary

Offline Groundloop

  • TPU-Elite
  • Hero Member
  • *******
  • Posts: 1736
Re: Rosemary Ainslie circuit demonstration on Saturday March 12th 2011
« Reply #1773 on: July 03, 2011, 01:01:55 PM »
Groundloop - the caps were 2 x 40 volt 150 000 ? micro farad in parallel.  I hope I've got that right. 

Apparently the circuit leads were directly across the caps.  So, I guess the caps must have been in parallel to the batteries.

Which means that the test was a definite FAIL.  The caps DO NOT WORK.  What stuck me is that the waveform just COLLAPSES.  Unless we should have been using different caps?  Not at all sure.  Frankly I never thought that a cap would work.  I just don't know why it should.  Anyway.  That test, at least, is put to bed.

Kindest regards,
Rosemary

Rosemary,

Thanks for the information regarding the capacitors.

GL.

Offline Rosemary Ainslie

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 3968
Re: Rosemary Ainslie circuit demonstration on Saturday March 12th 2011
« Reply #1774 on: July 03, 2011, 04:09:53 PM »
Hey Mr Mag, Rosemary Ainslie is more than happy to long-term tests, can you repost that simple low-cost test of yours.
lol.  INDEED.  Let's see your proposals here.  If it's doable and it constitutes unequivocal proof - then I'm in.

...you use fuzzy to support your arguments when he's not around,...
Golly.  STILL wrong Cat. Fuzzy HIMSELF supports our claim.  Nothing to do with me.  He's got it all down on his Scribd file.  Here it is again.

http://www.scribd.com/doc/23455916/Open-Source-Evaluation-of-Power-Transients-Generated-to-Improve-Performance-Coefficient-of-Resistive-Heating-Systems

but when he is around you tell people not to listen to him.
And again.  I am happy that he references our work.  EVERYWHERE.  It all contributes to that escalating interest in our technology.  It's not MEANT to.  But it DOES. ;D

:D You're great at contradiction.
So?  Where's the contradiction? 

You attack anyone who disagrees with you, anyone that says your circuit doesn't work or or indicates measuring error, is then part of a conspiracy.
NOT AT ALL.  I welcome discussion.  What I tend to attack is 'opinion' when it's as ill founded as your own.

You can't tell me of any member on this forum that has produced excess energy with your circuit, because nobody has after two and half years of you being on this forum.
STILL WRONG.  Here's that link AGAIN. 

http://www.scribd.com/doc/23455916/Open-Source-Evaluation-of-Power-Transients-Generated-to-Improve-Performance-Coefficient-of-Resistive-Heating-Systems

This is a document on Fuzzy's SCRIBD FILE.  In it he CLAIMS TO HAVE REPLICATED OUR EARLIER NOW, RATHER OBSOLETE, CIRCUIT. 

Guys remember it's that claim off excess energy that I have a problem with, if you are a supporter of Rosemary's claims and you don't believe the evidence against, then you can help her by showing us all your working circuit producing excess energy.
This is redundant.  WE HAVE FUZZY'S OWN CLAIM TO HAVE REPLICATED.  IT'S ON HIS SCRIBD FILE.  Two links given above.  And guys.  PLEASE.  Don't waste your time on that circuit.  This new one is WAY, WAY better. 

Interesting how none of the people here that support your claims have never shown their version of your circuit, they must be relying on blind faith,  some people really do believe anything politicians tell them.
I know of NO-ONE who supports our claim.  How UTTERLY ABSURD!  It's NOT a matter of belief of disbelief.  It's a question of weighing the scientific evidence.  I am NOT out to win a popularity contest.  I would HATE to have 'followers' who 'support me' or NOT.  That doesn't feature.  It simply isn't the issue.  We have MEASUREMENTS that are unequivocal.  THAT'S what needs to be discussed.  That's it.  What you're implying is that we're lying about these measurements.  Frankly I'm not clever enough to lie about those measurements.  I'd have to know a lot more about the workings of a LeCroy before I could manage to fudge its results.  I'm not sure that anyone could manage that.  I'm reasonably sure it's tamper proof.  But NOTA BENE.  I am NOT ALONE in making the claim.  Just check out the report.  Then we must all be collaborating in promoting some kind of elaborate hoax?  Golly.  I'm not clever enough to manage that either.

Rosemary

Offline Rosemary Ainslie

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 3968
Re: Rosemary Ainslie circuit demonstration on Saturday March 12th 2011
« Reply #1775 on: July 03, 2011, 04:20:20 PM »
Cat, Fuzzy, MaNag - has it not yet occurred to you guys to wonder why it is that I so patiently and repeatedly answer your posts?  Why I take the trouble?  It would be so easy to simply walk away from here.  I read somewhere on these threads that 'if you're going to wrestle with pigs - you'll both get dirty.  But the pig will enjoy it'.  Something like that.  Well.  I know that it does my 'name' no good.  But I'm not interested in my name.  And it does nothing to advance my popularity.  But I'm not interested in my popularity.  Here's what it achieves.  You guys are actually giving me an almost infinite variety of ways to attest to the truth of the claim - precisely because you keep challenging it.  And I WONT TIRE of defending it.  EVER.  There's a mission involved here.  And I'm equal to it - while I've still got some kind of life in me.  More than equal to it.

So.  Really.  From the bottom of my heart.  Thank you.

Rosemary

Offline poynt99

  • TPU-Elite
  • Hero Member
  • *******
  • Posts: 3582
Re: Rosemary Ainslie circuit demonstration on Saturday March 12th 2011
« Reply #1776 on: July 03, 2011, 04:29:10 PM »
With the actual capacitor value:

Capacitor start voltage = 37.6V @ 17:47:47
Capacitor end voltage = 32.0V @ 17:48:32
Voltage drop over the 45 seconds = 5.6V
Capacitor = 2x 150,000uF, 40V, in parallel

Evidently the circuit functioned normally for a short period, and there was no recharge.

The energy used then is: 1/2 x 300,000uF x (37.62 - 322)
= 58.46J, and the average power supplied over the 45 seconds = 1.3W.

.99

Offline Rosemary Ainslie

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 3968
Re: Rosemary Ainslie circuit demonstration on Saturday March 12th 2011
« Reply #1777 on: July 03, 2011, 04:35:47 PM »
With the actual capacitor value:

Capacitor start voltage = 37.6V @ 17:47:47
Capacitor end voltage = 32.0V @ 17:48:32
Voltage drop over the 45 seconds = 5.6V
Capacitor = 2x 150,000uF, 40V, in parallel

Evidently the circuit functioned normally for a short period, and there was no recharge.

The energy used then is: 1/2 x 300,000uF x (37.62 - 322)
= 58.46J, and the average power supplied over the 45 seconds = 1.3W.

.99

Poynty?  As I understand it Joules relates to the energy dissipated as work.  And that resistor of ours was measuring over 150 degrees centigrade.  Ambient at  about 16 degrees centigrade.  Surely that's got to be factored in?  Somewhere?  Temperature over ambient indicated 33 watts dissipated or thereby.  The downside of this value is that the temperature was still climbing fast.  We never tested it to the duration. Frankly, if I'd known that you could determine the actual energy dissipated over this period I'd have kept closer record.

Regards,
Rosemary

Added.

Offline poynt99

  • TPU-Elite
  • Hero Member
  • *******
  • Posts: 3582
Re: Rosemary Ainslie circuit demonstration on Saturday March 12th 2011
« Reply #1778 on: July 03, 2011, 04:39:24 PM »
Groundloop - the caps were 2 x 40 volt 150 000 ? micro farad in parallel.  I hope I've got that right. 

Apparently the circuit leads were directly across the caps.  So, I guess the caps must have been in parallel to the batteries.
If the battery voltage was 60V, then it is highly unlikely the batteries were connected throughout the test. 40V capacitors would not cope too well with 60V across them (they tend towards explosion under these conditions), and hopefully your assistant knew this. Perhaps he had only 3 batteries connected in order to charge the capacitor to about 36V.

Quote
Which means that the test was a definite FAIL.  The caps DO NOT WORK.
The circuit did work (oscillate) until the voltage dropped to a certain level.

Quote
What stuck me is that the waveform just COLLAPSES.  Unless we should have been using different caps?  Not at all sure.  Frankly I never thought that a cap would work.  I just don't know why it should.
It stopped oscillating because the circuit is not optimized to work at lower voltages. It's a matter of tweaking the circuit.

Quote
That test, at least, is put to bed.
Actually, no.

.99

Offline Rosemary Ainslie

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 3968
Re: Rosemary Ainslie circuit demonstration on Saturday March 12th 2011
« Reply #1779 on: July 03, 2011, 04:45:02 PM »
If the battery voltage was 60V, then it is highly unlikely the batteries were connected throughout the test. 40V capacitors would not cope too well with 60V across them (they tend towards explosion under these conditions), and hopefully your assistant knew this. Perhaps he had only 3 batteries connected in order to charge the capacitor to about 36V.
Yes it was only connected to 3 batteries.  No he is NOT MY ASSISTANT.  GOLLY.  He's a professional engineer.

The circuit did work (oscillate) until the voltage dropped to a certain level.
Yes.  It did.  Momentarily. 

It stopped oscillating because the circuit is not optimized to work at lower voltages. It's a matter of tweaking the circuit.
He's satisfied that it won't continue to oscillate.  And I'm happy to rest on his advices.

Rosemary

Offline poynt99

  • TPU-Elite
  • Hero Member
  • *******
  • Posts: 3582
Re: Rosemary Ainslie circuit demonstration on Saturday March 12th 2011
« Reply #1780 on: July 03, 2011, 05:14:42 PM »
Yes it was only connected to 3 batteries.  No he is NOT MY ASSISTANT.  GOLLY.  He's a professional engineer.
Yes.  It did.  Momentarily. 
He's satisfied that it won't continue to oscillate.  And I'm happy to rest on his advices.

Rosemary
How does this constitute a valid scientific test when the voltage used is half, or a little better than half of what is used from the batteries (i.e. 36V vs. 60V)?

Alternatively, if those two 150,000uF capacitors were charged to 30V each then put in series, you would have 60V as a starting voltage. That would be a true comparison to how the circuit is operated when powered by the batteries.

Then, if the 60V across the two series capacitor holds, then there is recharge. If the voltage continuously drops until the oscillation ceases, then there is no recharge back to the source.

.99

Offline Rosemary Ainslie

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 3968
Re: Rosemary Ainslie circuit demonstration on Saturday March 12th 2011
« Reply #1781 on: July 03, 2011, 05:31:10 PM »
How does this constitute a valid scientific test when the voltage used is half, or a little better than half of what is used from the batteries (i.e. 36V vs. 60V)?
Where do you get 60 volts?  We used 3 batteries only.  The caps were in parallel to the batteries.

Alternatively, if those two 150,000uF capacitors were charged to 30V each then put in series, you would have 60V as a starting voltage. That would be a true comparison to how the circuit is operated when powered by the batteries.
I presume you mean 'when  powered by caps?  Anyway.  Here's the thing.  I'm now rather sorry we didn't run that test at least until the shunt voltage flat lined.  The fact is that the resistor temp was climbing and that always makes me nervous.  But without the oscillation the chances are that the temperature would have dropped.  To my shame I didn't even make a record of it.  And I hear you Poynt.  We probably didn't put enough effort into the test.  I've spoken to my friend.  We'll try and redo that test next week.  Maybe on Friday.  And this time I'll take better measurements.  But you must remember that the idea is to keep that oscillation.  But then again.  I suppose there was still a kind of oscillation.  Perhaps it does just need tweaking.  It's just that I am SO SICK AND TIRED OF THESE EXPERIMENTS.  I need to move on.

Sorry I missed this second bit.
Then, if the 60V across the two series capacitor holds, then there is recharge. If the voltage continuously drops until the oscillation ceases, then there is no recharge back to the source.
I get it.  We'll try this again.

Regards,
Rosie

Offline poynt99

  • TPU-Elite
  • Hero Member
  • *******
  • Posts: 3582
Re: Rosemary Ainslie circuit demonstration on Saturday March 12th 2011
« Reply #1782 on: July 03, 2011, 05:38:17 PM »
Where do you get 60 volts?  We used 3 batteries only.  The caps were in parallel to the batteries.
60V (and also at times 72V) as used when powering the circuit from the batteries before this capacitor test. One would think you would want to compare the circuit operation with the same starting voltage in both cases, i.e. 60VDC.

.99

Offline Rosemary Ainslie

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 3968
Re: Rosemary Ainslie circuit demonstration on Saturday March 12th 2011
« Reply #1783 on: July 03, 2011, 05:50:39 PM »
60V (and also at times 72V) as used when powering the circuit from the batteries before this capacitor test. One would think you would want to compare the circuit operation with the same starting voltage in both cases, i.e. 60VDC.

.99

Are you getting sniffy again?  Here's the point.  I was trying to see if we could sustain an oscillation using only caps.  I CAN sustain an oscillation at 36 volts PROVIDED that the OFFSET IS adjusted to allow AMPLE CURRENT FLOW during the ON time of each period.  That's how we set it because he determined that the 2 caps would be required.  BUT.  We'll TRY THIS AGAIN.  I've already told you.

You've no IDEA what a waste of time I consider this test.  I don't even care if those caps KEEP the circuit oscillating or the current flowing. If it runs for an hour - you'll all want 2 hours.  If it runs for 2 hours you'll want 2 days.  And so it goes. 

Rosemary.

Offline Groundloop

  • TPU-Elite
  • Hero Member
  • *******
  • Posts: 1736
Re: Rosemary Ainslie circuit demonstration on Saturday March 12th 2011
« Reply #1784 on: July 03, 2011, 06:22:44 PM »
Are you getting sniffy again?  Here's the point.  I was trying to see if we could sustain an oscillation using only caps.  I CAN sustain an oscillation at 36 volts PROVIDED that the OFFSET IS adjusted to allow AMPLE CURRENT FLOW during the ON time of each period.  That's how we set it because he determined that the 2 caps would be required.  BUT.  We'll TRY THIS AGAIN.  I've already told you.

You've no IDEA what a waste of time I consider this test.  I don't even care if those caps KEEP the circuit oscillating or the current flowing. If it runs for an hour - you'll all want 2 hours.  If it runs for 2 hours you'll want 2 days.  And so it goes. 

Rosemary.

Rosemary,

Actually, it is a very good test. It will show if it is possible to build a practical implementation
of your circuit running from a mains power supply (that have electrolytic capacitors) for water
heating purposes. Based on your first capacitor test I already see a possibility for just that.

I think your goal also must be developing this circuit so that people actually can use it to save
power when heating a water tank. Let us say that you get a COP 3 or something and the
product can be cheap enough so that you get your money back in a year time, then after
that you will save a lot of money each year.

GL.