Free Energy | searching for free energy and discussing free energy

Solid States Devices => solid state devices => Topic started by: hartiberlin on February 21, 2011, 12:14:05 AM

Title: Rosemary Ainslie circuit demonstration on Saturday March 12th 2011
Post by: hartiberlin on February 21, 2011, 12:14:05 AM
Rosemary Ainslie's team are preparing a demonstration to be held on Saturday March 12th 2011. 

They are inviting academics from South African universities to attend. 

They're hoping for accreditation of an anomaly on the switching circuit.  More on this is available on her blog at:

http://newlightondarkenergy.blogspot.com/


Please spread the word. 

They are hoping for widespread interest of this event from internet supporters of Over Unity concepts.   

A full report of the circuit and the components will be available after that demonstration.


Regards, Stefan.
Title: Re: Rosemary Ainslie circuit demonstration on Saturday March 12th 2011
Post by: TinselKoala on February 21, 2011, 03:59:45 AM
Rosemary, if you are reading here, please PLEASE learn to set your scope's timebase to display 3 or 4 full cycles ONLY. The "comb" that you are showing might look nice to you, but it is not very informative in any sense but to illustrate sampling artifacts and aliasing. If you display 3 or 4 full cycles, one may much more easily see phase relationships and other information from the displayed signal, and pixelization and aliasing won't show up as much.

Of course, if your intent is to obscure information, and if you still think Moire patterns caused by aliasing are showing you something significant, you have accomplished that in spades.

The parameter values displayed (the meaningless integral and the averages) will not be affected by the choice of a more appropriate horizontal  timebase setting. Also, the bottom trace isn't giving you a frequency parameter because your vertical scale on that trace is not set appropriately: there should be more amplification so the scope can latch onto the peaks to give a frequency parameter.

Good luck on your demonstration. I will be eagerly awaiting a report on how it went.
Title: Re: Rosemary Ainslie circuit demonstration on Saturday March 12th 2011
Post by: infringer on February 21, 2011, 06:14:49 AM
Rosie it takes a lot of determination to do what you are attempting go for it.

Women or not this ladies got balls!

We need more people to come up in opposition to our current laws and theories because with them we seem to be stuck from finding new energy sources. We have to be missing a whole hell of a lot cause there is much that we still do not understand.
Title: Re: Rosemary Ainslie circuit demonstration on Saturday March 12th 2011
Post by: powercat on February 21, 2011, 04:01:57 PM
Rosie coming back, Wow  :o  ;D  :D  :-*  ;)
Title: Re: Rosemary Ainslie circuit demonstration on Saturday March 12th 2011
Post by: Bob Smith on February 22, 2011, 12:49:37 AM
Great news!
All the best, Rosie :)

Bob
Title: Re: Rosemary Ainslie circuit demonstration on Saturday March 12th 2011
Post by: Rosemary Ainslie on February 22, 2011, 03:06:57 AM
Many thanks guys.  Much appreciated. 

I would be very glad if you could just spread the word.  I'm hoping that this will generate some widespread interest on the internet - mainly to ensure that this event doesn't get lost for want of attention.

Great to be back here - but I have very little time to post.

Kindest regards,
Rosie
Title: Re: Rosemary Ainslie circuit demonstration on Saturday March 12th 2011
Post by: vonwolf on February 22, 2011, 07:39:38 PM
Hi Rose;
  Its hard to keep up with you, I'm looking forward to seeing you Demo. I refused to join the other forum poynt started because I knew it would be just more of the same but I finally broke down and joined because it was the only place I could find you.
   Then Boom you quit and I don't blame you one bit, now I have your blog so I guess thats the best we can do for now. Its got to be hard with all the negativity every one throws at you its so predictable it's almost a new form of entertainment.
   I hope you are now working with open minded people and the demo will finally quiet your detractors but I'm sure they will find a flaw in how your results are obtained, they can't help them self's. Then you have the other's who will try to claim the technology as there own if they can't find fault in you measurements its so predictable its almost funny.
   Well keep up the good fight and let me know if you find a non hostile forum not every one wants to see you fail you can count me a one.
    Good luck Pete
Title: Re: Rosemary Ainslie circuit demonstration on Saturday March 12th 2011
Post by: Rosemary Ainslie on February 22, 2011, 09:40:17 PM
Hi Rose;
  Its hard to keep up with you, I'm looking forward to seeing you Demo. I refused to join the other forum poynt started because I knew it would be just more of the same but I finally broke down and joined because it was the only place I could find you.
   Then Boom you quit and I don't blame you one bit, now I have your blog so I guess thats the best we can do for now. Its got to be hard with all the negativity every one throws at you its so predictable it's almost a new form of entertainment.
   I hope you are now working with open minded people and the demo will finally quiet your detractors but I'm sure they will find a flaw in how your results are obtained, they can't help them self's. Then you have the other's who will try to claim the technology as there own if they can't find fault in you measurements its so predictable its almost funny.
   Well keep up the good fight and let me know if you find a non hostile forum not every one wants to see you fail you can count me a one.
    Good luck Pete

Thanks very much Pete.  Your support means a lot.  I have considerably more faith in our academics.  They're more inclined to give an unbiased assessement.  Poynty's forum is only there to deny new physics.  And EF.com promotes flimflam.  Our academics - thank God - are simply trying to establish the facts from the experimental evidence.  And no-one's going to argue that evidence.  But it certainly needs to be carefully evaluated.  And they're well able to do this.  I cannot tell you how much in love I am with our own academy.  I just hope that when the 'facts are out that they'll be given due tribute for their impeccable adherence to science - whichever way the results fall.  They at least are looking at the experimental evidence.  But it's all so scarey.  And this subject is just so contentious.  I can assure you of one thing.  Academics are an entirely different animal to our forum researchers.  They may attack the science.  But they don't presume to attack the scientist.  Such a pleasure. And they're just so clever.  It's been an enormous learning curve for me.

Kindest and best as ever,
Rosie
Title: Re: Rosemary Ainslie circuit demonstration on Saturday March 12th 2011
Post by: jbignes5 on March 01, 2011, 07:55:33 PM
Thanks very much Pete.  Your support means a lot.  I have considerably more faith in our academics.  They're more inclined to give an unbiased assessement.  Poynty's forum is only there to deny new physics.  And EF.com promotes flimflam.  Our academics - thank God - are simply trying to establish the facts from the experimental evidence.  And no-one's going to argue that evidence.  But it certainly needs to be carefully evaluated.  And they're well able to do this.  I cannot tell you how much in love I am with our own academy.  I just hope that when the 'facts are out that they'll be given due tribute for their impeccable adherence to science - whichever way the results fall.  They at least are looking at the experimental evidence.  But it's all so scarey.  And this subject is just so contentious.  I can assure you of one thing.  Academics are an entirely different animal to our forum researchers.  They may attack the science.  But they don't presume to attack the scientist.  Such a pleasure. And they're just so clever.  It's been an enormous learning curve for me.

Kindest and best as ever,
Rosie

 I know we have bucked heads before Rosemary but I would like to extend the olive branch and say good luck.

 I to know exactly what you are talking about in the EF.com reference. I agree with you. After checking on the owner of the forum I found out some pretty amazing stuff about him and why he does what he does on that supposed public forum. He is after all a school taught salesman and nothing more. He is more an agent for a few guys selling products that they leech from that community. Everything else is a lie.

 I am glad you came here to spread your wings and fly. At least here there is little to hold you back from what you are doing in your area. Again good luck to you on your showing.

 P.S. After getting several of my post deleted about the proof of the lies he banned my account and IP. It was nothing more then the proof of his deceits and was further pushed from another user who is a founder of an organization which utilizes that forum as well. Those posts were deleted as well in an earlier incident.. Go figure...
Title: Re: Rosemary Ainslie circuit demonstration on Saturday March 12th 2011
Post by: happyfunball on March 12, 2011, 07:03:12 PM
It's 8 PM Sat in S Africa, assuming the demo is underway and/or concluded.
Title: Re: Rosemary Ainslie circuit demonstration on Saturday March 12th 2011
Post by: Poit on March 12, 2011, 10:56:59 PM
Many thanks guys.  Much appreciated. 

I would be very glad if you could just spread the word.  I'm hoping that this will generate some widespread interest on the internet - mainly to ensure that this event doesn't get lost for want of attention.

Great to be back here - but I have very little time to post.

Kindest regards,
Rosie

If you truly have a over unity device then your problem isn't trying to get people interested, it would be quite the opposite. Any genuine over unity device would also be a guaranteed crowd gather device too lol
Title: Re: Rosemary Ainslie circuit demonstration on Saturday March 12th 2011
Post by: happyfunball on March 13, 2011, 12:16:49 AM
Report on the demo:

http://newlightondarkenergy.blogspot.com/
Title: Re: Rosemary Ainslie circuit demonstration on Saturday March 12th 2011
Post by: ltseung888 on March 13, 2011, 12:55:18 AM
Congratulation to Rosie and team on a successful demonstration.

Academics will now ask: Is the Rosie Circuit an OPEN system bringing-in energy from the environment?  In Aaron’s words: OPEN system in non-equilibrium thermodynamics?

Or would they look at my classical explanation of “energy is brought-in” at resonance via the ordered pulsing?
Title: Re: Rosemary Ainslie circuit demonstration on Saturday March 12th 2011
Post by: happyfunball on March 13, 2011, 03:25:53 AM
Congratulation to Rosie and team on a successful demonstration.

Academics will now ask: Is the Rosie Circuit an OPEN system bringing-in energy from the environment?  In Aaron’s words: OPEN system in non-equilibrium thermodynamics?

Or would they look at my classical explanation of “energy is brought-in” at resonance via the ordered pulsing?

Whatever happened to your lead-out wheel? Powering any light bulbs these days?
Title: Re: Rosemary Ainslie circuit demonstration on Saturday March 12th 2011
Post by: TinselKoala on March 13, 2011, 04:48:58 AM
Well... congratulations on getting such a comprehensive report out so very quickly. One almost wonders whether the report had been prepared in advance of the actual demonstration.

There are many problems with this report, but I'll just point out one serious one. The "Control Experiment" where DC power at various power levels was applied, and stable temperatures plotted, is a proper control experiment. But it wasn't used properly, unfortunately.
In an EXPERIMENT, a researcher varies one or more "independent variables" and measures the effect of this variation on "dependent variables". In the present case the Independent variable of interest is the POWER SUPPLY, whether DC or the Ainslie circuit, and one dependent variable of interest is the time-temperature curve that results from each supply. We are presented with data from the DC circuit supplying power at various levels, and we should be supplied with a graph from the Ainslie circuit supplying power at the same levels... but we aren't. Nor are we shown anything like a graph of supply voltage versus time for the Ainslie circuit, nor are we shown any evidence AT ALL that the batteries are actually being recharged. Get two sets of batteries, use one set to heat up the load at DC power to a certain temperature and hold it. Use the second set of batteries to power the Ainslie circuit to achieve the SAME time-temp profile as in the DC case. Run both circuits for a given time. Then disconnect the batteries and run a load test... not a "Voltage" test, but a real battery load test, putting a constant load on them and timing how long it takes to run down.

These tests are easy, obvious, and are ACTUAL tests of the Ainslie conjectures. However, you don't see them being performed. At least, not since I did them, nearly two years ago now.

As a paper reporting an experiment, there are some major areas that need revision. As an experiment itself, it needs to be severely redesigned in order ACTUALLY to test any well-formed hypothesis that might be constructed from Rosemary's conjectures.
Title: Re: Rosemary Ainslie circuit demonstration on Saturday March 12th 2011
Post by: Omnibus on March 13, 2011, 06:42:09 AM
Congratulation to Rosie and team on a successful demonstration.

Academics will now ask: Is the Rosie Circuit an OPEN system bringing-in energy from the environment?  In Aaron’s words: OPEN system in non-equilibrium thermodynamics?

Or would they look at my classical explanation of “energy is brought-in” at resonance via the ordered pulsing?

Lawrance, I know you've been pushing this idea with the tuning forks for some time but it isn't at all obvious that resonance leads to OU in your case. When you consider the energy balance from the beginning to the end of the main for vibrating as well as the mutual bouncing back and forth of energies between all forks (each one becomes a source once it stars vibrating, right?) the balance is unity when you include the losses. You're observing each one isolated from the rest and are not including the tie variation of energy of each one. That isn't the way they behave in reality. Resonance isn't a mechanism for OU.
Title: Re: Rosemary Ainslie circuit demonstration on Saturday March 12th 2011
Post by: poynt99 on March 13, 2011, 06:46:03 AM
TK,

Have you seen the battery voltage wave forms? They are nutsoid! There is no way to get a proper power in measurement with a battery voltage wave form oscillating like that. It should be nice and solid, with perhaps some sagging and ripple, but not with 60V or so of sinusoidal swing at Fo.

.99
Title: Re: Rosemary Ainslie circuit demonstration on Saturday March 12th 2011
Post by: ltseung888 on March 13, 2011, 01:29:33 PM
TK,

Have you seen the battery voltage wave forms? They are nutsoid! There is no way to get a proper power in measurement with a battery voltage wave form oscillating like that. It should be nice and solid, with perhaps some sagging and ripple, but not with 60V or so of sinusoidal swing at Fo.

.99

I back up Rosie 100% in this case.  I have seen and have hundreds of waveforms measured across the battery having large swings.  That seemed to happen near resonance and pseudo resonance conditions for many different circuits.

You may not believe in resonance bringing-out electron motion energy.  But with the success of Rosie, many others will follow. ;D
Title: Re: Rosemary Ainslie circuit demonstration on Saturday March 12th 2011
Post by: neptune on March 13, 2011, 05:16:35 PM
Dear Rosemary , congratulations on your successful demo . There are still unanswered questions , but to me , it looks like a fait accompli . Not a lot of development work will be needed here to develop useful device . If you can make 40 watts of heat , 1Kw is just a case of scaling up . Or it could be made to run a light bulb with an inductive filament . The pulse driver circuit can be cheap , and eventually , special Mosfets can be developed to optimise the effect .A door has been opened to a whole host of possibilities . Nd the icing on the cake is that it is open source . Renewed hope is given to all those working on back EMF type devices . Rosemary , I hope you quickly receive the rewards you so richly deserve .
Title: Re: Rosemary Ainslie circuit demonstration on Saturday March 12th 2011
Post by: Rosemary Ainslie on March 13, 2011, 05:32:50 PM
Dear Rosemary , congratulations on your successful demo . There are still unanswered questions , but to me , it looks like a fait accompli . Not a lot of development work will be needed here to develop useful device . If you can make 40 watts of heat , 1Kw is just a case of scaling up . Or it could be made to run a light bulb with an inductive filament . The pulse driver circuit can be cheap , and eventually , special Mosfets can be developed to optimise the effect .A door has been opened to a whole host of possibilities . Nd the icing on the cake is that it is open source . Renewed hope is given to all those working on back EMF type devices . Rosemary , I hope you quickly receive the rewards you so richly deserve .

 :) Thanks Neptune.  It's definitely scalable.  Just for those who can - hurry up with applications.  We'll try and do our bit at this end.  For any theorists out there - just note the implications.  It seems that a continual negative signal at the gate is what's required.   Not sure how much it would cost to apply this - BUT.  Once you've got it I think we've got something that will just keep going.   It's all small steps - but in the right direction.   And I think that research and more research it about all the reward we all need.  Just keep the questions going.  We've lots to learn 

Kindest regards,
Rosemary

BTW - note that upwards of 44 watts is the actual heat - and then we have to work fast to keep it low.  It wants to climb.  We just dare not measure it at its full potential because the scopes can't take those extreme voltage spikes.  But we've taken the temperature to above 210 degrees centigrade with the zero wattage loss to the battery.  But it gets too hot too quick.  VERY promising.  And that with just 4 batteries.  Those spikes exceed 40 volts across the shunt - at fast frequencies.  The current is HUGE.  The secret - I think - is in that amazing oscillation.  It just pumps the current around the circuit.
Title: Re: Rosemary Ainslie circuit demonstration on Saturday March 12th 2011
Post by: Rosemary Ainslie on March 13, 2011, 05:53:43 PM
And Harti, btw

We'll post a youtube video of the proceedings sometime soon.  I'll send you the link and post it here.

Thanks guys,
Rosemary
Title: Re: Rosemary Ainslie circuit demonstration on Saturday March 12th 2011
Post by: Omnibus on March 13, 2011, 06:14:54 PM
TK,

Have you seen the battery voltage wave forms? They are nutsoid! There is no way to get a proper power in measurement with a battery voltage wave form oscillating like that. It should be nice and solid, with perhaps some sagging and ripple, but not with 60V or so of sinusoidal swing at Fo.

.99

It depends where these traces are positioned. Perhaps you could post here an example. The I and V curves may not be sine waves and may be of weird shape and yet the Pin and Pout can be established very precisely by averaging the instantaneous IiVi powers over one period to get the Pin and the instantaneous Ii^2R powers to get Pout. Only in some limited cases that approach can be suspect. That's why it would be good if you could post graphs of these transients.
Title: Re: Rosemary Ainslie circuit demonstration on Saturday March 12th 2011
Post by: infringer on March 13, 2011, 06:47:15 PM
So what you are claiming is no wattage loss to the battery...

I believe this should say that basically the same tests that Tinsel Kola has asked for have already been done correct me if wrong?

I don't know for fact 100% mathematically weather this is overunity or not but I will say that as the tests stand this device could improve even our most energy efficient electric water heaters!

Which no matter how you peer into this peer review is a step in the correct direction!
Title: Re: Rosemary Ainslie circuit demonstration on Saturday March 12th 2011
Post by: neptune on March 13, 2011, 08:30:51 PM
There are people on here who have forgotten more than I will ever know . However it seems to me that it would be very easy to prolong the ringing or oscillation of the circuit by using a simple make before break switch to disconnect the mosfet driver during the off period and substitute a couple of AAA cells to maintain the negative condition on the fet .As the tests show more energy going back to the battery than is leaving it , why not try substituting capacitors . That would confound the naysayers more than the most expensive test equipment in the world . If there is some magic about lead acid batteries , such that it has to be lead acid , then substitute the lowest amp-hour batteries that will do the job . That way , the overunity will be apparent in a shorter time . A capacitor test would be cheap and easy , and prove everything beyond doubt .Elsewhere on this forum is a discussion on a chip that efficiently converts heat to electricity .A marriage made in heaven? New Energy technology discoveries are being claimed daily now . But this is Super Special , because it is open source and lends itself to the do-it- yourself workshop .. It also proves that when the world is in deep doo-doo , the best man for the Job is a Woman .
Title: Re: Rosemary Ainslie circuit demonstration on Saturday March 12th 2011
Post by: evolvingape on March 14, 2011, 01:42:15 PM
Hello Everyone,

TinselKoala wonders...

Quote:

“Well... congratulations on getting such a comprehensive report out so very quickly. One almost wonders whether the report had been prepared in advance of the actual demonstration.”

I was wondering the same myself and blog entry #88 begins:

http://newlightondarkenergy.blogspot.com/

Quote:
“Wednesday, March 9, 2011
88 - nearly there
Dear Reader,

Just a short note to let you know that the report is nearly finalised. Hopefully we can get this ready and printed for tomorrow. I need to send a couple of copies out for preview to a few people and then - hopefully by Saturday - we'll have the finished product.”

So yes, the report was probably finished by Thursday and was going to be published after the demonstration, which now appears to be a publicity stunt to make people pay attention to the report. It most assuredly does not have results “from” the demonstration if it was prepared in advance!

So lets have a look at the report...

Of note here to me is “5 MOSFET transistors in parallel”

All of the circuit components specifications are given EXCEPT:

Function Generator and 6x12V batteries – Raylite Silver Calcium.

This is very strange, why would you omit the specifications of such vital circuit components and yet provide the others ?

For example, the Raylite batteries sold by Battery Centre list this page for Raylite Silver Calcium cells:

http://www.batterycentre.co.za/fnbSpec02/b-spec.asp?id=3

and this page for the features and benefits of this technology:

http://www.batterycentre.co.za/SilverCalciumBattery.htm

So which model of 12V silver calcium cell did Battery Centre give you ? It will say the model number on the casing ;)

Anomalies 4.2 gets interesting:

4.2 When the offset of the function generator is adjusted (see Figure 3), the falling edge of the pulse results in a burst oscillation mode. Parasitic inductance is a well-known consequence of MOSFETs placed in parallel. It is undesirable for switching applications and is therefore, traditionally, factored out of the circuitry. On this application we have enabled that oscillation to the limit of the function generator’s slowest switching speed at 2.7 minutes or 6.172mHz. No material or evident variation or decay of that resonance through that entire period, is observed (see Figure 4). This results in a measured increase of recharge at the battery supply as well as sustaining the temperature over the resistor. It would be desirable to extend this period of oscillation to see whether decay in this oscillation, eventually takes place. These results may warrant further research, as the implications are that the current flow may be perpetuated through this self-oscillation.

And figure 4 text:

Fig 4: Evidence of ringing for a period of 2.7 minutes. No evident variation in amplitude of oscillation. Channel 1: Rshunt, Channel 2: batteries, Channel 3: gate, Channel D: math trace - product of Channels 1 & 2.

So, you freely admit that parasitic inductance is a well known consequence of MOSFET's connected in parallel, that this is undesirable for switching applications, and are traditionally factored out of the circuitry.

What you fail to mention is parasitic capacitance, which when combined with parasitic inductance forms resonant circuits that lead to ringing and EMI.

Don't believe me ?

http://www.en-genius.net/site/zones/rlcZONE/technical_notes/rlct_072108

and here is the PDF download:

http://www.en-genius.net/includes/files/rlct_072108.pdf

Estimating Parasitic Inductance and Capacitance
by Ted Rees, Intersil Corporation

There are many electronic design cases where parasitic inductance and/or parasitic capacitance are significant elements that restrict circuit performance. Parasitic inductance and capacitance are defined as the inductance and capacitance primarily of the traces that connect components together. Given an applied voltage, the parasitic inductance limits the rate at which the current can change. Given an applied current, the parasitic capacitance limits the rate at which the voltage can change. Taken together, the parasitic components form resonant circuits that lead to ringing and EMI. Frequently the physical size of the parasitic elements is so small that they can not be easily measured, so it's useful to be able to calculate approximately how much parasitic capacitance and inductance are associated with a specific layout.

Maybe you should contact Ted Rees and ask him to evaluate your circuit :)

Then we have your statement in Fig.4 about evidence of ringing for 2.7 minutes, which also happens to be:

“On this application we have enabled that oscillation to the limit of the function generator’s slowest switching speed at 2.7 minutes or 6.172mHz.”

So when we also combine this with:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Amplitude

and note that you never refer to what Amplitude you are measuring, and paying particular attention to the section:

Ambiguity

In general, the use of peak amplitude is simple and unambiguous only for symmetric periodic waves, like a sine wave, a square wave, or a triangular wave. For an asymmetric wave (periodic pulses in one direction, for example), the peak amplitude becomes ambiguous. This is because the value is different depending on whether the maximum positive signal is measured relative to the mean, the maximum negative signal is measured relative to the mean, or the maximum positive signal is measured relative to the maximum negative signal (the peak-to-peak amplitude) and then divided by two. In electrical engineering, the usual solution to this ambiguity is to measure the amplitude from a defined reference potential (such as ground or 0V). Strictly speaking, this is no longer amplitude since there is the possibility that a constant (DC component) is included in the measurement.

Correct me if I am wrong but I believe you are running a DC circuit...

It looks like you have not considered or addressed any of the issues mentioned above.

Ok, so lets look at something you have considered:

You claim infinite COP. This basically means you have achieved overunity and can produce more energy from a process than you have put in to “enable” it.

You so far seem very reluctant to even discuss using little batteries to conclusively prove your thesis. Using 12V Lead Acid type batteries with massive Amp Hour capacity is quite frankly ridiculous in an application that has such relatively little power draw requirements.

Were you to hook up some much smaller Amp Hour batteries in series then it would very soon become obvious whether the current returning to the batteries was greater than the current being drawn from them. Leave the circuit running constantly for months and months and if it keeps going then there is a good chance you have achieved what you have claimed.

Using 6off 12V minimum 40 Amp hour batteries measured at 20 hour Rate in series only serves to hide the actual processes occurring by making the energy involved in the circuit operation significantly small in comparison to the total energy source available for the system.

If you are reluctant to prove your circuit works as you claim using this method of performing all the calculations within the system itself rather than from theoretical assumptions then there is another option.

Keep your 6 off 12V huge amp hour batteries and simply add on more circuits and more circuits and more circuits and more circuits and more circuits... you get the idea...

If your claims are correct then you have achieved exponential energy growth and you can provide power for the entire world off 6 car batteries.

I currently believe the reason you have not performed either of these two fool proof methods of proving your technology is because you cannot. It is so obvious to do these tests that to avoid even discussing the possibility is a massive red flag.

Furthermore, I fully expect you to completely ignore my questions and requests for clarification and proof based on your previous writings and replies and ignorings of others who have requested same.

However your complete disregard for the scientific method, obvious conclusive proofing methods, and theoretical cherry picking of what fits your thesis is evidence that you will see me as a negative detractor and refuse to engage me on those grounds.

I want to believe in you and your work, but the evidence you have presented prohibits that possibility at present, until you have openly and conclusively addressed the concerns of the community, and provided proof!

RM :)

P.S. Its a bit rich ltseung888 to hijack Rosie's thread, post your work here, direct everyone to discuss it on your own forum, and then request that everyone leaves this thread to Rosie. You that desperate for traffic ? Surely your work demands attention, not begs for it... ??





Title: Re: Rosemary Ainslie circuit demonstration on Saturday March 12th 2011
Post by: Pirate88179 on March 14, 2011, 01:43:47 PM
Thank you, I may try that.  I always love to try to learn something new.

Bill
Title: Re: Rosemary Ainslie circuit demonstration on Saturday March 12th 2011
Post by: Omnibus on March 14, 2011, 01:51:05 PM
Remember what craze there was about WM2D. Here this is a similar situation but in electricity. WM2D turned out to be very useful for certain things although for other it has subtle flaws. I think PSpice is more sophisticated because it was paid for by the government initially then business had picked it up and today it's a major tool in every major university where theory of electricity is being taught. I learned that recently and I was astounded how many important things are only kept withing certain communities. Same was my experience with LaTeX. A friend was telling me for years to start using it but somehow it did not seem appealing initially. Now that's the main editor I'm using and you can see that actascientiae.org/v is LaTeX enhanced (lack of LaTeX is a major deficiency here in the OU.om forum). Now, speaking of PSpice, I was amazed to observe that it has only been mentioned occasionally in this forum despite the vigorous discussions taking place regarding electrical devices.
Title: Re: Rosemary Ainslie circuit demonstration on Saturday March 12th 2011
Post by: Pirate88179 on March 14, 2011, 03:11:16 PM
Omni:

I am no genius.  Having said that, the only thing that makes me somewhat dubious about ANY electronics program is....who programed it and using what data?  Sure, I am sure most work 99% of the time using "known" values and simulations.  But what about the guy, like me, or anyone else, that hooks stuff up backward, or uses a diode instead of a resistor or any other happy mistake?  I have to freely admit here that most of the things I have done here on OU (documented on Youtube) have been sort of happy mistakes.  The same way nylon was discovered and about 100 other things.

I am not putting this software down as, I have said, I have never seen it nor played with it.  I am just concerned that if, back in the day, some aeronautical genius wrote flight software back in 1902, it might have shown the the Wright's plane could never leave the ground.  No fault to the programmer, he only input what was known at the time.

I will check it out though as I am sure that software knows much more than I do at present.

Bill
Title: Re: Rosemary Ainslie circuit demonstration on Saturday March 12th 2011
Post by: Omnibus on March 14, 2011, 03:23:02 PM
@Pirate88179,

I disagree. That bodies heavier than air can fly is immediately obvious. Look at the birds. Birds have flown for centuries in the air and they are heavier than air. That achievement of Wright brothers that is pushed so hard to justify suppressed innovations is a no good example. It is foreseeable and I believe it has been foisted on the public exactly by the powers that be that suppress the really important controversial achievements. Manipulations are subtle, you know, and sometimes the most plausible are the nastiest.
Title: Re: Rosemary Ainslie circuit demonstration on Saturday March 12th 2011
Post by: Pirate88179 on March 14, 2011, 03:45:04 PM
Well, we can disagree then.  I have read the studies of the early scientists of aerodynamics of that period and...it was a foregone conclusion that a heavier than air machine could never fly.  I agree with you about the birds...all they had to do was look out the window.

Same with the "sound barrier."  the leading aerodynamists (not all of them but the majority) prior to Oct. 14th, 1947 thought that air loads would go to infinity when reaching the speed of sound.  They could, and did, prove it mathematically on their blackboards but yet chuck Yeager went through it with no problems.

I have omitted the famed bumblebee example because that one, supposedly was never true.

Physicians stated without a doubt that the 4 minute mile could NEVER be broken by man.  Physically impossible.

Anyhow, it is these exceptions that concern me with software in general.  But, I am reasonably sure that any of my projects would be covered with great accuracy.  I was thinking more about the next guy.

Bill
Title: Re: Rosemary Ainslie circuit demonstration on Saturday March 12th 2011
Post by: Rosemary Ainslie on March 14, 2011, 04:01:27 PM
Evolvingape,

Always intrigues me how people choose their avatars.  I think the term is nominative determinism.  Something like that.  I wish you well in this reach.

You keep on and on about batteries.  Perhaps you could take the trouble to read the para under discussion.  What was meant here is that while we have evidence of 'retained' potential difference over an extended period - I have NEVER seen a charge beyond it's starting point.  Yet the instantaneous wattage analysis indicates that the batteries should have been cooking.  I have no idea how to resolve this.  We STRESS that in the report.  HOWEVER.  Nor is it something that can be evaluated by any of us.  It needs a chemist to do a proper analysis.  All I know is that if you take any current from any plug - rectify it that the negative moves to one application and the positive to another - then one could apply a signal at the gate to each half of the input sinewave in antiphase - and we could, theoretically, bill our utility suppliers.  That's the point.  Either there is some measurements error - or there's an anomaly that also requires some resolution.  With the utmost respect to your own expertise - I think we need the expert advice of chemists to establish the recharged condition of the batteries.  I have not tested the batteries over an extended period - because, frankly, it is NOT the object of the demonstration nor of the report.  I have been seduced - in the past - to doing battery draw down comparisons to prove out performance over rated capacities.  And it made not a blind bit of difference.  Quite apart from which it's a tedious series of tests and controls to prove it.  And even proven - it is regardless NOT considered conclusive - or certainly NOT by mainstream.  And their opinion matters rather more than your own.   

Your comments regarding the parasitic oscillation are noted - but are also spurious.  Parasitic oscillation is NOT associated with a resonance that so perfectly reinforces itself.  Usually one expects enough variation to have the one phase cancel out the other - in some kind of waveform pattern that also generates a variation to the amplitudes.  Nor does one expect oscillation to be sustained with such high levels of current flow.  The intention - in using more FETs was to test whether the full potentials in that spike were, perhaps, being blocked by some resistance in the Zener diode.  Clearly it was.  And clearly there is some exploitable advantage to sustaining this oscillation.  And it is easily managed.  But it does appear that it requires the body diode of the MOSFETS because this condition is not managed with diodes simply placed across a single transistor.  Again.  We are only pointing to an anomaly.

The report was prepared in order to show the repeatable evidence of previously recorded effects.  I'm not sure how you can possibly object to this.  It's the most honest means we have of duplicating an experiment in line with the claims.

Finally - as mentioned in the report.  We have two options.  Either there is something wrong with the established measurements protocols applied to this kind of circuit.  Or we've got an alternate energy supply.  My hope is that the second alternative will be considered because - as far as I can tell - it's the only way to generate a similar waveform. 

Rosemary

 :)

BTW - and for the record.  The report was printed prior to the demo and then distributed at the demo. 






Title: Re: Rosemary Ainslie circuit demonstration on Saturday March 12th 2011
Post by: ltseung888 on March 14, 2011, 04:14:37 PM
Yes, notice how Lawrence never assigns a velocity value to the moving pistons but yet extrapolates numbers from the different collisions?  This reminds me of the initial problems I had with his pendulum experiments.  he never accounted for the initial input energy to the moving pendulum but gave all sorts of output numbers to its movement.

I like Lawrence and I am not making fun but, I am no scientists and yet with my engineering background I can usually spot some major flaws in this theory.  The JT circuits he is using for OU experiments on OUR and other places, are no where near the level of the art that we in the JT topic developed and yet, even though ours are far more efficient, he says his shows OU.  Then ours must be really good then.

I am just a fan of reality and not against anything that shows promise.  I have always admired Lawrence's tenacity and he has my respect for that.  But, you can't leave out one side of an equation and then use the figures as being real.

Bill

Dear Bill,

Please check the spreadsheets.  The piston velocity was assigned to be 100 units for the model.  With spreadsheets, you can change and play with the initial value.

Rosie can now do the following:

1.   Inform the South African Academics that her circuit is an OPEN system in non-equilibrium thermodynamics (Aaron’s terminology).  Let the Academics wonder what is non-equilibrium thermodynamics. Or

2.   Inform the South African Academics that her circuit is an OPEN system that brings-in electron motion energy at resonance.  Ask the Academics to examine the tuning fork example.  That example uses Newtonian Mechanics to conclusively demonstrate that a pulsing order of molecular motion can be produced by the vibrating piston.  That pulsing order can do useful work such as pulse-push other identical tuning forks.  The energy comes from the kinetic energy of the air molecules.  The Academics will hotly discuss the issue (behind closed doors usually.)

3.   Smile and wait for the “Official Report” from the Academics.  Let the Academics fight Newtonian Mechanics with Newtonian Mechanics.  That may take time.  She can (and we shall help) promote it to other Academics.  But Rosie and team have already put a flag on this new territory of Bring-in Energy.  God bless her and team.
Title: Re: Rosemary Ainslie circuit demonstration on Saturday March 12th 2011
Post by: Rosemary Ainslie on March 14, 2011, 04:34:00 PM
Hello Lawrence,

I need to put on record that your 'tuning fork' experiment does not - in any way - resolve the resonance that is evident on our circuit.  Perhaps you see a difference?  I think I may have pointed this out in the previous post.

However.  Your good wishes are much appreciated and I'll inform the team.  I would be happier if you would acknowledge, more freely, your reliance on the hard work that preceded your own variation of the Joule Thief circuits.  It seems to be lacking in your posts.  I'm not sure that there is sufficient tribute paid to this.  And I'm not sure that your thesis is strictly as comprehensive as you seem to imply.  Resonance is a very interesting phenomenon.  And it is clearly under exploited.  But this has been mentioned - and even shown - in a huge variety of tests - even on this forum.  In fact, I think the true precursor to this knowledge is Tesla.  I'm not sure that you've got a monopoly here.  And I'm not sure that your thesis is sufficient explanation.  I'm being blunt because I feel this needs saying.

But having said that - I think your efforts towards promotion of your circuit are deserving of every respect.  It's hard work.  I know that only too well.  And your dedication to OU causes is exemplary.

I personally, was absolutely surprised by this resonance.  I expected an improvement.  I never expected it to show itself in this way. 

Kindest regards,
Rosemary
Title: Re: Rosemary Ainslie circuit demonstration on Saturday March 12th 2011
Post by: ltseung888 on March 14, 2011, 07:33:08 PM
Hello Lawrence,

I need to put on record that your 'tuning fork' experiment does not - in any way - resolve the resonance that is evident on our circuit.  Perhaps you see a difference?  I think I may have pointed this out in the previous post.

However.  Your good wishes are much appreciated and I'll inform the team.  I would be happier if you would acknowledge, more freely, your reliance on the hard work that preceded your own variation of the Joule Thief circuits.  It seems to be lacking in your posts.  I'm not sure that there is sufficient tribute paid to this.  And I'm not sure that your thesis is strictly as comprehensive as you seem to imply.  Resonance is a very interesting phenomenon.  And it is clearly under exploited.  But this has been mentioned - and even shown - in a huge variety of tests - even on this forum.  In fact, I think the true precursor to this knowledge is Tesla.  I'm not sure that you've got a monopoly here.  And I'm not sure that your thesis is sufficient explanation.  I'm being blunt because I feel this needs saying.

But having said that - I think your efforts towards promotion of your circuit are deserving of every respect.  It's hard work.  I know that only too well.  And your dedication to OU causes is exemplary.

I personally, was absolutely surprised by this resonance.  I expected an improvement.  I never expected it to show itself in this way. 

Kindest regards,
Rosemary

Dear Rosemary,

Thank you for your speedy reply.  Congratulations to you and team. 

As I mentioned multiple times, I do not regard myself as an inventor.  I regard myself as an instrument in the Divine Revelations.  I may not have acknowledged openly and sufficiently the hard work and achievement of other inventors.  There are far too many to quote and they all labored towards a worthy cause.  Most of them struggled with insufficient resources.  I hereby thank them openly for their gallant efforts.

The first Divine Revelation is that the tuning fork setup is an OPEN system bringing in kinetic energy of air molecules at resonance.

The first key phrase is OPEN – meaning that energy can flow in and out.  In the case of the tuning fork setup, this is obvious.  The second key phrase is bringing-in – meaning that we are using existing, available energy.  The last key phrase is resonance – this is where all our hard work comes in.  The hunting for resonance is still somewhat an art than a science. 

It is a matter of applying the concept to electrical resonance (LCR) circuits.  My gut feel is that your circuit has the elements of LCR resonance – almost all circuits do.  It requires much tuning to get to the sweet spot or resonance condition.  The effort is not easy and I salute you and team for doing such a wonderful job and openly demonstrating it to the Academics and the World.  Just think resonance and I shall provide the full Newtonian Theoretical backup.

The real debate is not in the Open Forums.  The real debate is behind closed doors at the top Academic Institutions.  Your efforts will not be in vain.

May God bless you and team.  Amen.

Title: Re: Rosemary Ainslie circuit demonstration on Saturday March 12th 2011
Post by: markdansie on March 14, 2011, 08:31:55 PM
Hi Rosemary
Congradulations with your efforts.
I have to agree with TK re the assumptions made with the battery measurements.
Also enguaging with the resident villiage idiot or clown does not do your credability anygood.. he is a harmless, self deluded enthusiest.
Mark
Title: Re: Rosemary Ainslie circuit demonstration on Saturday March 12th 2011
Post by: WilbyInebriated on March 15, 2011, 12:09:47 AM
I have to agree with TK re the assumptions made with the battery measurements.
you agree with assumptions???  wow... how scientific of you, i didn't know you went through such trouble.  ::)

Also enguaging with the resident villiage idiot or clown does not do your credability anygood.. he is a harmless, self deluded enthusiest.
Mark
engaging, village, credibility and finally enthusiast. i assume you are referring to tk with this sentence... or perhaps yourself, seeing the 3rd grade spelling in your post. :) furthermore, engaging anyone in conversation or otherwise has nothing to do with credibility, and suggesting such is a logical fallacy.
Title: Re: Rosemary Ainslie circuit demonstration on Saturday March 12th 2011
Post by: evolvingape on March 15, 2011, 01:19:38 AM
Hello Rosemary,

Thankyou for your reply,

I will not pay you the discourtesy that you have paid me and cherry pick the statements that I want to answer and ignore the rest. I will attempt to answer all your questions and wonderings and I will stand by what I have said.

Furthermore, reply #42 in this thread, made by yourself, says in part:

“You keep on and on about batteries. Perhaps you could take the trouble to read the para under discussion. What was meant here is that while we have evidence of 'retained' potential difference over an extended period - I have NEVER seen a charge beyond it's starting point. Yet the instantaneous wattage analysis indicates that the batteries should have been cooking. I have no idea how to resolve this. We STRESS that in the report. HOWEVER. Nor is it something that can be evaluated by any of us. It needs a chemist to do a proper analysis. All I know is that if you take any current from any plug - rectify it that the negative moves to one application and the positive to another - then one could apply a signal at the gate to each half of the input sinewave in antiphase - and we could, theoretically, bill our utility suppliers. That's the point. Either there is some measurements error - or there's an anomaly that also requires some resolution. With the utmost respect to your own expertise - I think we need the expert advice of chemists to establish the recharged condition of the batteries. I have not tested the batteries over an extended period - because, frankly, it is NOT the object of the demonstration nor of the report. I have been seduced - in the past - to doing battery draw down comparisons to prove out performance over rated capacities. And it made not a blind bit of difference. Quite apart from which it's a tedious series of tests and controls to prove it. And even proven - it is regardless NOT considered conclusive - or certainly NOT by mainstream. And their opinion matters rather more than your own. ”

The Para 4.2 under discussion actually states:

“When the offset of the function generator is adjusted (see Figure 3), the falling edge of the pulse results in a burst oscillation mode. Parasitic inductance is a well-known consequence of MOSFETs placed in parallel. It is undesirable for switching applications and is therefore, traditionally, factored out of the circuitry. On this application we have enabled that oscillation to the limit of the function generator’s slowest switching speed at 2.7 minutes or 6.172mHz. No material or evident variation or decay of that resonance through that entire period, is observed (see Figure 4). This results in a measured increase of recharge at the battery supply as well as sustaining the temperature over the resistor. It would be desirable to extend this period of oscillation to see whether decay in this oscillation, eventually takes place. These results may warrant further research, as the implications are that the current flow may be perpetuated through this self-oscillation.”

I did take the trouble to read para 4.2, I even took the trouble to reproduce it here. What it was meant to say, and what it did say are two entirely different things. To imply that my ability to read and understand the statement in question is in error, when your correction of what it is was meant to say in no way resembles what it did say is not an error on my part, I feel.

You state:

“the instantaneous wattage analysis indicates that the batteries should have been cooking. I have no idea how to resolve this.”

You have been told how to resolve this and have completely ignored the suggestions. Hook the circuit up to self run and if the batteries cook then your “analysis” was correct. If the batteries lose charge over time then the circuit is drawing power to operate. This is so very simple.

You state:

“Nor is it something that can be evaluated by any of us. It needs a chemist to do a proper analysis.”

This is complete nonsense! No chemist is ever used to establish state of charge of a battery cell. State of charge is established by doing a load test under controlled conditions. This is such a simple procedure that millions of qualified electrical engineers are capable and equipped to perform this test tomorrow.

Furthermore TK eloquently explained exactly how to do this in reply #14 in this thread:

“There are many problems with this report, but I'll just point out one serious one. The "Control Experiment" where DC power at various power levels was applied, and stable temperatures plotted, is a proper control experiment. But it wasn't used properly, unfortunately.

In an EXPERIMENT, a researcher varies one or more "independent variables" and measures the effect of this variation on "dependent variables". In the present case the Independent variable of interest is the POWER SUPPLY, whether DC or the Ainslie circuit, and one dependent variable of interest is the time-temperature curve that results from each supply. We are presented with data from the DC circuit supplying power at various levels, and we should be supplied with a graph from the Ainslie circuit supplying power at the same levels... but we aren't. Nor are we shown anything like a graph of supply voltage versus time for the Ainslie circuit, nor are we shown any evidence AT ALL that the batteries are actually being recharged.

Get two sets of batteries, use one set to heat up the load at DC power to a certain temperature and hold it. Use the second set of batteries to power the Ainslie circuit to achieve the SAME time-temp profile as in the DC case. Run both circuits for a given time. Then disconnect the batteries and run a load test... not a "Voltage" test, but a real battery load test, putting a constant load on them and timing how long it takes to run down.

These tests are easy, obvious, and are ACTUAL tests of the Ainslie conjectures. However, you don't see them being performed. At least, not since I did them, nearly two years ago now.

As a paper reporting an experiment, there are some major areas that need revision. As an experiment itself, it needs to be severely redesigned in order ACTUALLY to test any well-formed hypothesis that might be constructed from Rosemary's conjectures.”

I am not the only one saying this, and I am not the only one being ignored. More massive red flags. This test is so simple and so commonplace that I am simply staggered that you think you can deceive an educated community in this manner.

Furthermore, you state:

“I have not tested the batteries over an extended period - because, frankly, it is NOT the object of the demonstration nor of the report. I have been seduced - in the past - to doing battery draw down comparisons to prove out performance over rated capacities. And it made not a blind bit of difference. Quite apart from which it's a tedious series of tests and controls to prove it. And even proven - it is regardless NOT considered conclusive - or certainly NOT by mainstream. And their opinion matters rather more than your own. ”

If testing the batteries is not in any way important to you I am confused as to how you feel you can  confidently state in Para 6: Discussion:

“The results of this demonstration are consistent with the previous reported test results related to this circuitry. The difference here is that there is an extended period of self-induced oscillation following the falling edge of the gate drive signal. This appears to enhance the circuit performance to what is now measured with what appears to be an infinite co-efficient of performance. This value has been carefully measured, but it is preferred that the circuit and all its effects be carefully evaluated by experts.”

An infinite co-efficient of performance... no evidence whatsoever, despite claiming it has been carefully measured, and no intention of providing said evidence even though your target audience is knowledgeable that such tests in electrical circuits are not only common but easily and conclusively performed. The fact that these tests are used daily to perform COP<1 measurements is irrelevant as they will also show COP>1.

You state:

“Your comments regarding the parasitic oscillation are noted - but are also spurious. Parasitic oscillation is NOT associated with a resonance that so perfectly reinforces itself. Usually one expects enough variation to have the one phase cancel out the other - in some kind of waveform pattern that also generates a variation to the amplitudes. Nor does one expect oscillation to be sustained with such high levels of current flow. The intention - in using more FETs was to test whether the full potentials in that spike were, perhaps, being blocked by some resistance in the Zener diode. Clearly it was. And clearly there is some exploitable advantage to sustaining this oscillation. And it is easily managed. But it does appear that it requires the body diode of the MOSFETS because this condition is not managed with diodes simply placed across a single transistor. Again. We are only pointing to an anomaly.

So...

You claim my observation of parasitic oscillation (which you have previously never even mentioned) is noted but spurious. You also state that you are only pointing to an anomaly. May I suggest that it is premature of you to assume that parasitic oscillation is not the cause of your anomaly before scientifically calculating and predicting the parasitic oscillation you would expect to see in your circuit. I have provided you with the information to perform said calculations. May I also suggest that you consider a constant signal with no loss of amplitude (despite your deliberate lack of clarity on what amplitude you are actually calculating) could be a product of an overlooked component of a DC circuit signal as implied by ambiguity.

I would also like to point out that I am not attacking you, I am simply attacking your scientific method of evidence for making your assumptions. Does that make me an Academic ? :)

You seem not to care about the opinions of individuals in this community as much as you care about the opinions of the Academic community, who will not give you the time of day. I would like to point out that the people that gravitate here, on the whole, care about the Truth, the Proof and Replication, not about continuance of the paycheck and public recognition.

As a fellow OU researcher I respect you. Never forget this. Any professional disagreements we may have are purely that, they are not personal.

As for my Avatar... well that's my business... and has no place in the forefront of our scientific discussion.

Answers to all of the questions regarding component specifications currently outstanding and your intention of conforming to the scientific method in future, to present respectable evidence that can be peer reviewed would be appreciated.

On a final note I would appreciate an accurate quote of where I objected to your report in respect of your previously documented claims of repeatable evidence. I made no such objection, and was merely commenting on the fact that your report could not possibly have included results from the demonstration considering it was prepared and distributed before the event.

With Respect,

RM :)
Title: Re: Rosemary Ainslie circuit demonstration on Saturday March 12th 2011
Post by: Rosemary Ainslie on March 15, 2011, 04:34:02 AM
Dear Evolvingape,

I spent an hour answering your post and found myself halfway through and growing increasingly bored.  Please feel free to regard the draw down as a critical test criteria.  It is an aspect of the test that I will not - under any circumstances engage in - without having a chemist on the team. 

Just one quick point.  Here's the reference under discussion.  I'm not sure how you got sidetracked.
 
Some mention must be made of those aspects of the tests that have not been thoroughly explored. The first relates to the battery recharge. It is a truth that the batteries used in these experiments have been used on a regular basis for over 5 months. During that time they have been continually subjected to both light and heavy use and they have never shown any evidence of loss of voltage. Nor have they been recharged by a conventional battery recharger. However there has not been a close analysis of the electrolytic condition of the batteries, before, during or even after their use. This will require a fuller study by our chemistry experts. - from our report under 'discussion'.

Kindest
Rosemary
Title: Re: Rosemary Ainslie circuit demonstration on Saturday March 12th 2011
Post by: Rosemary Ainslie on March 15, 2011, 04:47:10 AM
Thanks Lawrence - for your well wishes.  I trust that, in time, you'll be able to explain your thesis better.  And indeed, we need reminders that ALL our efforts are needed.  It must, surely, help this drive to clean green.

Mark - thanks for your qualified tribute.  I do not share your opinion though, on who or who not, is a clown.

WILBY - NICE TO SEE YOU AROUND.
Rosemary  :)


edited
Title: Re: Rosemary Ainslie circuit demonstration on Saturday March 12th 2011
Post by: markdansie on March 15, 2011, 05:24:49 AM
Hi Rosemary,
I respect your opinion but sugest you go read some of the persons posts over the last few years..like UFO's comming to the olympics and many of the other hundreds of claims.
As for the argument with the batteries that is a big red flag ..use a cap charged to a certain level perhaps and if that does not drop voltage then you have a winner. Until then your results do not have any validity. A chemist is not needed just someone who knows how to do a load test on a battery.
You have to remove all doubt.
All the best
Mark
Title: Re: Rosemary Ainslie circuit demonstration on Saturday March 12th 2011
Post by: chrisC on March 15, 2011, 05:45:46 AM
Hi Rosemary
Congradulations with your efforts.
I have to agree with TK re the assumptions made with the battery measurements.
Also enguaging with the resident villiage idiot or clown does not do your credability anygood.. he is a harmless, self deluded enthusiest.
Mark

Your are correct Mark. He is indeed! From pendulums to Tong wheels to JT variant circuit and now the new hobby horse is kinetic motion in tuning forks! What a deluded clown.

Oh, who can forget about the flying saucer landing at the (2008) Beijing Olympics and the Obama White House lawn. Yawn...

cheers
chrisC
Title: Re: Rosemary Ainslie circuit demonstration on Saturday March 12th 2011
Post by: Rosemary Ainslie on March 15, 2011, 08:17:14 AM
Hi Rosemary,
I respect your opinion but sugest you go read some of the persons posts over the last few years..like UFO's comming to the olympics and many of the other hundreds of claims.
As for the argument with the batteries that is a big red flag ..use a cap charged to a certain level perhaps and if that does not drop voltage then you have a winner. Until then your results do not have any validity. A chemist is not needed just someone who knows how to do a load test on a battery.
You have to remove all doubt.
All the best
Mark

No Mark. I could never do that.  Not me nor any member of the team.  Doubts will always persist.  Frankly I do not think that the battery 'gains' charge.  It simply retains it.  But I'm certainly NOT considering this technology ONLY as it applies to batteries.  The theoretical implications are that it can apply to a grid supply.  That's the challenge.  The battery assessments can only be competently managed by experts.  All we can do is measure that voltage.  And - as it is - even that is in doubt.  LOL.  We're using instruments that not even God would argue against - yet there are those of you who doubt it.  Doubt is the inevitable consequence of any such claims.  And history is the only way this doubt will be addressed.  So.  Let history tell us the truth.  But - at its least - let's get this researched properly.  Let history get a chance at evaluating all this.  Right now - with this much denial - there's not goingto be much chance of it.

Rosemary
Title: Re: Rosemary Ainslie circuit demonstration on Saturday March 12th 2011
Post by: poynt99 on March 15, 2011, 02:32:20 PM
The instruments God would not argue against, have never been the issue Rose.

The perfect measuring instrument is only as good as the hands that use it.

.99
Title: Re: Rosemary Ainslie circuit demonstration on Saturday March 12th 2011
Post by: ltseung888 on March 15, 2011, 03:40:44 PM
The instruments God would not argue against, have never been the issue Rose.

The perfect measuring instrument is only as good as the hands that use it.

.99

Doubts will be there until hundreds of similar results are demonstrated.  But….if classical Newtonian Mechanics proves that her results are possible, that will help her cause.

I never expect the simple tuning fork experiments and computer model using only Newtonian Mechanics – Conservation of momentum and Conservation of energy – can show that kinetic energy of air molecules can be brought-in at resonance.  I regard that as a Divine Revelation.

You do not believe in resonance can bring-in environmental energy.  That belief blinded you.  That belief led you to think that you are the only one in the World who can use an oscilloscope.  May God open your eyes. Amen.
Title: Re: Rosemary Ainslie circuit demonstration on Saturday March 12th 2011
Post by: evolvingape on March 15, 2011, 03:44:19 PM
Hello Rosemary,

A quote from Reply #42, made by yourself in this thread, March 14, 2011, 04:01:27 PM

“Your comments regarding the parasitic oscillation are noted - but are also spurious. Parasitic oscillation is NOT associated with a resonance that so perfectly reinforces itself. Usually one expects enough variation to have the one phase cancel out the other - in some kind of waveform pattern that also generates a variation to the amplitudes. Nor does one expect oscillation to be sustained with such high levels of current flow. The intention - in using more FETs was to test whether the full potentials in that spike were, perhaps, being blocked by some resistance in the Zener diode. Clearly it was. And clearly there is some exploitable advantage to sustaining this oscillation. And it is easily managed. But it does appear that it requires the body diode of the MOSFETS because this condition is not managed with diodes simply placed across a single transistor. Again. We are only pointing to an anomaly.”

So what does spurious mean ?

http://www.thefreedictionary.com/spurious

“Lacking authenticity or validity in essence or origin; not genuine; false.”

Your Blog entry for March 14, 2011:

http://newlightondarkenergy.blogspot.com/
91 - yet again
Dear Reader,

I am reminded, again and again, of the sad but predominant need to decry and deny any good news related to this technology of ours. My only comfort is that truth cannot - forever - be suppressed.

All I would like to draw your attention to - which is the sole reason that we held that demonstration - is that what is known of in the trade as 'parasitic oscillation' is a very exploitable event. This is very easily verified. You need to put those MOSFETS in parallel - then let the system do its thing. If nothing else comes from this - then at least, to those who experiment at all - just test this for yourselves. We have, traditionally, been throwing away a potential in back electromotive force - that actually needs to be encouraged. Parasitic oscillation is - self-evidently - the need for all that energy to manifest as current flow. And for this you need to 'widen the throat' - so to speak - the 'path' to allow it to flow. For those who've grasped the implications. The circuit now acts as a booster converter - without the attendant energy expense.

We have tested this to 30 amps. I have every reason to believe that with more FETs we could have accommodated even more current. And then, the theoretical implication is that this should obviate those extremes spikes at the transitional phases - when we go into heavy duty mode. And then too it should just comfortably osciallate. This is what requires advancement, research. Let's just look at all that potential. It will, most certainly, put paid to all those equivalence requirements applied to electromagnetic energy transfer - that has dogged our theoreticians for way too long. They're nonsense. Certainly NOT applicable to electric energy.

And. Dear God. What harm to test this? And what harm to view that test? What harm? Anywhere? Just look again at the crisis of nuclear energy. Just look at the catastrophes that result from using such dangerous technology. Look at the political crises escalating around the globe as result of abuses related to energy rights. The crisis of pollution. The crisis and risks to the continuation of our species.

At the risk of referencing something where I'm ill equipped to comment - while God may have given us supremacy over all things - I wonder if he would not prefer it that we were a little less prodigal and a little less self-serving - in our use of all that abundance. And I wonder then - that with the small inclusion of some transistors to some of our circuitry then the indications are that - at its least - we can do away with some of those toxic energy supplies. Not a bad thing at all.

I wonder at the malice that keeps dogging my best efforts. I am only trying to do my best in the interests of clean green. I'm increasingly aware of the need to silence me and to discredit the technology. It is a fact that the latest reach - that lastest entire distortion of the events at the demonstration - was by a nuclear physicist. Let him go public with his name as he is, so publicly yet so vicariously, able to distort the facts.

Kindest regards,
Rosemary

So... Let me get this straight...

You are now claiming that what you are seeing in this circuit is what is known in the trade as “parasitic oscillation” ?

May I suggest that it is not only the nuclear physicist that is engaged in distortion of the facts.

Thanks Rosemary, I have not laughed that hard in ages, I almost fell off my chair!  ;D

RM :)
Title: Re: Rosemary Ainslie circuit demonstration on Saturday March 12th 2011
Post by: Rosemary Ainslie on March 15, 2011, 03:46:23 PM
The instruments God would not argue against, have never been the issue Rose.

The perfect measuring instrument is only as good as the hands that use it.

.99

Poynty

Let me know when you discover an error in the USE of our DSO's.  Also.  Let me know when you're ready to talk about the results and not the assumed errors.  Then I'll be happy to engage with you fully.  Until then - I'm afraid you're tarnished with the same bias that pollutes your members on your forum.  Their criticisms and concerns are laughably immoderate and utterly irrelevant.  And they're voiced in the desperate hope that they can yet quieten all this escalating interest.  We are talking here about results that have been demonstrated and witnessed.  And I took NO ACTIVE PART in that demonstration.   

And now you accuse them of not being able to find their way around a DSO?  Are you projecting your own inabilities here?

Rosemary
Title: Re: Rosemary Ainslie circuit demonstration on Saturday March 12th 2011
Post by: Rosemary Ainslie on March 15, 2011, 04:04:10 PM
Hello evolvingape

Thanks for the comprehensive quote from my blog.  Delighted that it also served to amuse you.  Personally I've always enjoyed a good laugh.

Kindest regards,
Rosemary
Title: Re: Rosemary Ainslie circuit demonstration on Saturday March 12th 2011
Post by: powercat on March 15, 2011, 04:13:55 PM
 ;D Hi Rosie
good to see you are still fighting your corner, any news on the promised video ?
Good luck as always
cat
Title: Re: Rosemary Ainslie circuit demonstration on Saturday March 12th 2011
Post by: Rosemary Ainslie on March 15, 2011, 04:28:37 PM
;D Hi Rosie
good to see you are still fighting your corner, any news on the promised video ?
Good luck as always
cat

Cat,  always a pleasure.  Yes.  We're still downloading.  It was done in high def and the files are HUGE.  Also, it has to be labelled and edited which I can't do.  It's all adding to the delays.  But sit tight.  Maybe finished by Friday.

Kindest regards,
Rosie
Title: Re: Rosemary Ainslie circuit demonstration on Saturday March 12th 2011
Post by: Rosemary Ainslie on March 15, 2011, 08:22:08 PM
Guys,  it's on my mind and I hope you'll get this.

The fact is that the spike that is generated from BEMF is well known.  According to mainstream it's the energy that is stored in the circuit materials as a result of the input of energy from a supply source.  Our circuits are designed that this voltage can induce a current flow with a counter clockwise path through the Zener diode.  What we found was that the sum of the energy that was returned from the circuit and the energy dissipated at the resistor also exceeded the amount of energy first supplied by the source.  In effect, the counter clockwise path through the battery supply also served to recharge it - thereby taking our co-efficient of performance to a value greater than 1.  This was variously hotly contended - denied or replicated.  Take your pick.  They all resulted and they generated varying degrees of indifference - denial and abuse.  Most attempts at explaining this simple event was cloaked and hidden in utter obscurity.  And, predictably, notwithstanding some scholarly presentation of the results - the entire event faded from view.

Then despite some serious allegations against my rights to progress this at all - I was invited to develop this in a CPUT laboratory.  The thinking was this.  We'd start with a conventional typical element - resistor  and then systematically vary the resistor to realise the optimised value of the inductance - then thinking that this would need to be increased.  So.  We start of with minimal inductance and work upwards.  The surprise was to find that this element actually gave better results than any we'd previously tested.  The trick, apparently, was to reduce and not increase the inductance.  That was the first surprise.  We could generate a significant 100 degrees C with - surprise, surprise, a zero discharge of energy from the supply.

Also interesting was that this result was NOT frequency dependent.  But, invariably, the circuit would generate it's own resonating frequency - at a little over 50% on - which, in line with previous findings - also overrode the duty cycle setting.  The difference was this.  Before we had a result that invariably 'cost' the battery - albeit only a small fraction.  This time there was clear evidence that the battery was now the happy beneficiary of more energy than was first measured to be supplied.

However, there was still no clear evidence of what exactly was going on.  Also apparent was that while the technology was scalable - at approximately a 20 degree rise for every battery added - there was an upper limit determined by the amperage that the zener could manage.  So.  The next test was to up the ante by putting those MOSFETs in parallel.  I went for the full monty - at about 30 amps - thinking that this would still keep the battery voltage in line with the DSO's voltage tolerances.  That was when I recorded our 'first surprise' in my blog.  What was immediately apparent was there was an antiphase relationship of voltage on the source and ground rail - that spoke volumes.  When the drain voltage peaked - the source voltage was at it's lowest.  And when the drain voltage 'troughed' the source voltage was at its highest.  In effect, the returning energy trumped the output - every time - and all the way through each cycle.  Also.  The resonance - that was always restricted to a long spike and some ringing - now 'flattened out' and for a brief period gave a resonating waveform where there was clear early indications of absolute re-inforcement at each phase and stage.  But also apparent was that this resonance actually only occured when the signal at the gate defaulted to negative.  In effect - it was a negative triggering - and that's where the benefit had been hiding. 

Now.  If you think about it.  Under usual circumstances, the initial spike that then generates the back EMF - occurs at the moment that the switch applies a positive signal at the gate and when the circuit is, effectively closed.  But this then rings flat and out and does not appear again until the next cycle.  What was now evident was that the discharge of current from this spike has only one path to discharge - through a Zener diode that can barely tolerate 6 amps.  So what does it do if there is more than 6 amps worth of potential difference in that voltage spike?  It can only discharge this as heat over the sundry components including that poor punished diode.  Now.  With a wider path established through those MOSFET's and their zeners - all in parallel - then the current flow is enabled to the full potential of that voltage spike. 

But.  And here's the thing.  The value of that stored potential difference - that was first established by the flow of current from the battery supply - is now developed on the circuit from the collapsed voltage at the spike.  This generates a positive potential difference or a potential 'clockwise' flow of current from the circuit material.  And there is no resitriction to the flow of energy from the battery as, now, the signal at the gate is negative.  A negative will not repel a positive.  And THERE is the benefit.  Both negative and positive voltages now have a path to discharge their voltage - in either a clockwise or an anticlockwise direction to an extent or at a value that is commensurate - not with the initial discharge from the supply - but with the potentials in the circuit material itself.  What is intriguing is this.  There are two entirely different voltages - resulting in two entirely different current flow paths - and they never vary - the one from the other - in their periodicity.  It's as steady as a heart beat.  And always - I have never seen this vary - there is more energy in the anti clockwise direction than the clockwise.  And - in either direction - the beneficiary is to the heat on the resistor and to the retained charged condition of the battery supply.

And this is how subtle is the tuning.  It can be tuned to retain the 'off' time to that period that is precisely as long as is required to ensure that the advantage is to the battery.  Then.  One can increase the offset so that current is actually discharged from the battery during that short 'on' time.  The spike is then HUGE.  And the subsequent ringing - or resonance rather -  triggered during the 'off[ time is also then correspondingly increased.  Now we have a condition where the energy dissipated at the resistor is greater than is allowed under conventional power delivery.  It's acting with all the advantage of a booster converter.  And yet ther is no discharge from the supply.  That's where this technology goes from adequate to super efficient.

Which brings me back to the point of this post with apologies for its length.  I feel I'm testing all kinds of tolerances here.  That oscillation - that resonance - is adjustable to whatever value is required to ensure that there is a zero discharge from the supply.  And the beauty of those wonderful DSOs is that they enable that fine tuning.  The math function does an immediate calculation of the instantaneous voltage.  And when this crosses into the negative value then one knows that the best tuning has been reached.  I am not sure how this can be managed without that sophisticated measuring instrument.  It's possibly going to be problematic. 

But try it out for yourselves.  If and where you use one MOSFET try two - or more.  And set the gate signal to negative to enable that closed path condition in both directions.  You will see the benefit for yourselves.  It's so much more reliable than our previous tests.   And the results are also that much more conclusive.  I am well aware of the fact that my presentations are usually met with a parade of those who know better and see some need to prove this wrong.  It is not wrong.  And it's too important to second guess.   

Rosemary
 :)

edited  Sorry for the typos.  My eyes just not good enough to edit it out tonight.  I'll try tomorrow.
Title: Re: Rosemary Ainslie circuit demonstration on Saturday March 12th 2011
Post by: markdansie on March 15, 2011, 10:35:13 PM
so have you had any thoughts how you can close loop this and provide any usable energy?
PS why not use Caps rather than Batteries
Mark
Title: Re: Rosemary Ainslie circuit demonstration on Saturday March 12th 2011
Post by: infringer on March 16, 2011, 03:13:52 AM
Mark,

Would this not make a super efficient water heater ?

Welding or soldering electronics ?

How about very cheap electric heat that could run off of stored solar power?

I could go on but this does need more looking into from a COE standpoint if this works even remotely close to what is proposed to it could mean a lot for the world.

Is free energy the only objective "Overunity" well while the name says that I tend to think a little outside of the box I'll tell you if you could do things at a lesser and lesser cost it makes renewable energy more likely to be exploited and used which in turn decreases the grip of big oil, and makes everyone's life easier until that pie in the sky of OU is discovered.

These are all stepping stones .... Hell why not try it you may like the results.

I would try it myself if I had every component on hand or knew some more specifics but I see a lot of uses for a closed loop if it works as proposed or even close to it.
Title: Re: Rosemary Ainslie circuit demonstration on Saturday March 12th 2011
Post by: Rosemary Ainslie on March 16, 2011, 05:12:33 AM
Hello Mark - and Infringer.  It is a closed loop - already.  But infringer, you're spot on.  I see a single solar panel as desirable as it would supply a stored energy that could trickle charge to the batteries.  I think that a high voltage source also needs to be stable at a given value notwithstanding the roller coaster voltage values when it gets into oscillation mode.  We tested this on batteries with huge capacities.  And it would be nice to know that we could use something a little more modest.  I've not tried this on anything other than the batteries disclosed in the report.

Now.  The next point - which may - I hope - bend your minds.  I referenced this simple fact.  During the period when the gate signal is negative - is the time that we induce this crazy oscillation.  This much is evident.  The current path is first anticlockwise - indicating that it comes from the circuit to the supply source.  Then.  The current path reverses and goes from the battery to the the circuit.  How is it that there is no resitriction to the flow of this current from the battery?  I have not heard anyone ask this.  The assumption is made that the flow from the supply can only happen when the gate is positive.  Surely?  What I'm hoping is that those that are more insightful here - will see what I'm referencing.  Current may, indeed, have properties of charge. 

I'll try this again.  The applied signal at the gate is positive.  It allows a kind of bridge to the applied voltage from the battery supply that the current can flow from the supply - through the circuit and back to the negative terminal.  We all know that.  Now we apply a negative signal at the same point.  And this still allows the unrestricted flow of current from the battery supply through the circuit.  Not only that but the flow of that current is really strong.  That's the point - I think - where this circuit gets interesting.  To my way of seeing this - if the current from the battery supply has a distinctly 'positive' charge - evidenced in a clockwise directional flow - then there is, self-evidently - nothing at the gate to prevent its flow when the gate signal reverses to negative.  And this is the point where I suspect there may yet be some consessions to the concept of current having two distinct charge potentials.  If so.  Then - with apologies for all these 'ifs' - if current flow comprises electrons - then it could NEVER 'swap' directions and charges as an electron is a monopole.  An electron would either be repelled or attracted at the 'gate'.  Here we have a condition where the charge is not restricted - at all.  On the contrary.  Therefore is there the proposal that this may be proof that our current - whatever else it is - is NOT the flow of electrons.  Wrap your minds around this possibility and I assure you that you'll then need to talk 'unkown energy supply sources' or 'aether energy' or dark energy.  I do hope you'll see the point here. 

You guys have been looking for the 'secret' to all that abundant energies.  I think on a deep but subliminal level we all know it's out there.  Compulsively interesting.  But ever elusive.  But I also think that you expect it to announce itself with some kind of definitive 'tan tan tara'.  I'm reasonably satisfied that it has never been considered as the properties of that well known electromagnetic interaction.  All have presumed that this is based on the flow or movement of electrons.  Never proven - but always assumed.  What is here suggested is that it's in the actual material of charge which has NOTHING to do with the atoms.  It's a force field that operates outside the atom.  And - if this is so, then all we need to do is use all that current potential way more efficiently.  And the best way to do this is to let that current 'just do it's thing'. 

So.  It's rather prosaic in its fundamentals.  Just the well known electromagnetic interaction.  Yet it's strangely and entirely different - in its actual fundamental constructs.  That, I hope, is what this oscillation proves.  Please note, Infringer.  That crazy oscillation only needs some small inductive value on the circuit materials - and a continually applied negative charge at the gate - and the indications are that we have - dare I say it - PERPETUAL current flow.  That thing that is only, under known circumstances, enabled in REALLY cold conditions.  And what's really interesting - is that this puts paid to the idea that current flow will COST anything at all. 

Kindest regards,
Rosemary
Title: Re: Rosemary Ainslie circuit demonstration on Saturday March 12th 2011
Post by: Rosemary Ainslie on March 16, 2011, 05:21:05 AM
so have you had any thoughts how you can close loop this and provide any usable energy?
PS why not use Caps rather than Batteries
Mark

Mark - we have a booster converter type thing going on where the applied voltage can be greatly reduced to get precisely as much energy as is required.  We can cook the resistor at just about any value.  And the cost of this is zero loss of charge from the battery supply.  Are you serious?  Surely this is usable?

Rosemary
Title: Re: Rosemary Ainslie circuit demonstration on Saturday March 12th 2011
Post by: TheCell on March 16, 2011, 08:47:21 AM
Hello

JR Hempel made an attempt to measure current in 2 ways:
1) Amps measured with clamp meter
2) Amps measured hot-wire ammeter
(http://www.practicalphysics.org/go/Experiment_698.html)

with 1) you measure both cold and normal current flow
with 2) you measure only current flow (this flow that causes heat)
Adjust them both to show the same value when applied to a normal power supply.
IMHO 2) measures RMS , if so ,choose a clamp meter that also does.

If there are differences between the 2 measuring methods you are dealing with cold current.
Title: Re: Rosemary Ainslie circuit demonstration on Saturday March 12th 2011
Post by: markdansie on March 16, 2011, 09:01:43 AM
@Infinger and Rosemary
yes I can see the device as is is very usefull even as a heat generator. Just a matter of engineering and scaling for different applications.
However and this is me being picky pain in but, i would much prefer to see a cap used as power source or at least some credible way to measure the battery (volts does not cut it)
That's my only beef at this stage and that why i get paid the big bucks sometimes
If you noted my past posts I have always encouraged you or given some unsolicited advice.
mark
Title: Re: Rosemary Ainslie circuit demonstration on Saturday March 12th 2011
Post by: Rosemary Ainslie on March 16, 2011, 10:24:40 AM
Hello

JR Hempel made an attempt to measure current in 2 ways:
1) Amps measured with clamp meter
2) Amps measured hot-wire ammeter
(http://www.practicalphysics.org/go/Experiment_698.html)

with 1) you measure both cold and normal current flow
with 2) you measure only current flow (this flow that causes heat)
Adjust them both to show the same value when applied to a normal power supply.
IMHO 2) measures RMS , if so ,choose a clamp meter that also does.

If there are differences between the 2 measuring methods you are dealing with cold current.
I'm not sure which 'THE CELL' has posted here.  I do not know what cold current is.  It's one of those vague terms that somehow has crept into esoteric science.  We do not measure with any ammeters at all.  We infer the current flow from the voltage measured across the resistors.  But thanks for the advice in any event.  I think we need to apply classical protocols or we'll never cut it with mainstream.

And again, Mark - I really need you to get this.  I do not care AT ALL what supply is being used.  It's the theoretical implications of the measurements and the consequent waveform that is of interest.  And this is NOT, absolutey not, restricted to a battery supply.  Why do you guys keep going on about this.  Think power source.  Think plugs.  It is NOT REQUIRED that this is only supplied by a battery.  Nor would the replacement of the batteries with caps change anything at all whether or not it worked.  It's irrelevant.  We are not discussing the electrolytic condition of the batteries.  We're only talking about the applied energy to a circuit and some means of optimising the output from that supply.  That's it.  The numbers stack.  If they're wrong - then strangely, they seem to be giving exploitable benefits notwithstanding.  And no-one has faulted the measurements nor the protocols.   

Anyway.  Hope you get this.
Rosemary
Title: Re: Rosemary Ainslie circuit demonstration on Saturday March 12th 2011
Post by: neptune on March 16, 2011, 11:56:16 AM
The advantage of being a numbskull like me is that I get to ask questions that my learned friends would not dare . I have never yet used Mosfets . I understand that a positive voltage has to be applied to the gate to switch the mosfet on and allow current to flow from drain to source . Looking at data on  the net I deduce it needs about 7.5 volts positive on the gate to fully switch on . Am I right? . The gate is driven by the 555 timer which has a square wave output . Question . If the 555 is driven by a12 volt supply . the output switches between zero and a positive voltage Question WHAT IS THAT VOLTAGE? Or does it switch between a pos voltage and a neg voltage . If it does NOT then how can the gate ever become negative ? Question . If we set up the circuit and tune it , why can we not then just disconnect the 555 circuit and substitute a small battery to keep the gate negative ?
           Applications? too many to mention .Imagine a small portable heater . Hand crank a small generator to charge the caps , or plug into the car cigarette lighter for 30 seconds . I bet that would be useful in Japan right now or if youwere trapped in a car in a snowdrift , or as a night heater for truckers .Or for camping/ life off the grid . A few peltier cells to supply current for lighting . Could some one please answer my idiotic questions?
Title: Re: Rosemary Ainslie circuit demonstration on Saturday March 12th 2011
Post by: Omnibus on March 16, 2011, 01:13:49 PM
The advantage of being a numbskull like me is that I get to ask questions that my learned friends would not dare . I have never yet used Mosfets . I understand that a positive voltage has to be applied to the gate to switch the mosfet on and allow current to flow from drain to gate . Looking at data on  the net I deduce it needs about 7.5 volts positive on the gate to fully switch on . Am I right? . The gate is driven by the 555 timer which has a square wave output . Question . If the 555 is driven by a12 volt supply . the output switches between zero and a positive voltage Question WHAT IS THAT VOLTAGE? Or does it switch between a pos voltage and a neg voltage . If it does NOT then how can the gate ever become negative ? Question . If we set up the circuit and tune it , why can we not then just disconnect the 555 circuit and substitute a small battery to keep the gate negative ?
           Applications? too many to mention .Imagine a small portable heater . Hand crank a small generator to charge the caps , or plug into the car cigarette lighter for 30 seconds . I bet that would be useful in Japan right now or if youwere trapped in a car in a snowdrift , or as a night heater for truckers .Or for camping/ life off the grid . A few peltier cells to supply current for lighting . Could some one please answer my idiotic questions?

Why should anybody care to answer your questions since you never bother to post feedback? I answered your question in the other thread but you never told me if my answer made you understand what you were asking me or there still are hanaging ends.
Title: Re: Rosemary Ainslie circuit demonstration on Saturday March 12th 2011
Post by: Rosemary Ainslie on March 16, 2011, 01:37:50 PM
The advantage of being a numbskull like me is that I get to ask questions that my learned friends would not dare . I have never yet used Mosfets . I understand that a positive voltage has to be applied to the gate to switch the mosfet on and allow current to flow from drain to gate . Looking at data on  the net I deduce it needs about 7.5 volts positive on the gate to fully switch on . Am I right? . The gate is driven by the 555 timer which has a square wave output . Question . If the 555 is driven by a12 volt supply . the output switches between zero and a positive voltage Question WHAT IS THAT VOLTAGE? Or does it switch between a pos voltage and a neg voltage . If it does NOT then how can the gate ever become negative ? Question . If we set up the circuit and tune it , why can we not then just disconnect the 555 circuit and substitute a small battery to keep the gate negative ?
           Applications? too many to mention .Imagine a small portable heater . Hand crank a small generator to charge the caps , or plug into the car cigarette lighter for 30 seconds . I bet that would be useful in Japan right now or if youwere trapped in a car in a snowdrift , or as a night heater for truckers .Or for camping/ life off the grid . A few peltier cells to supply current for lighting . Could some one please answer my idiotic questions?

Hi Neptune.  We used a functions generator to drive the FETs.  But I've just checked.  It's very doable to get the negative signal to the gate with a 555.  You'll need to get someone else to show you how.  I have no idea how its done.

Your applications are good.  I actually think it would take between 72 and 96 volts from a battery supply to get your hot water cylinders off grid.  That may be considered as well.

Rosemary
Title: Re: Rosemary Ainslie circuit demonstration on Saturday March 12th 2011
Post by: evolvingape on March 16, 2011, 04:07:58 PM
Hello Rosemary,

In Reply #68 made by you today, you state:

“I think we need to apply classical protocols or we'll never cut it with mainstream. “

http://www.thefreedictionary.com/protocols

1. The plan for a course of medical treatment or for a scientific experiment.

Your absolutely right, unless you apply a logical plan via the scientific method you will never cut it with mainstream or anyone else with the ability to think for themselves.

You state:

“I do not care AT ALL what supply is being used. It's the theoretical implications of the measurements and the consequent waveform that is of interest. And this is NOT, absolutey not, restricted to a battery supply. Why do you guys keep going on about this.”

Well mainstream does care about what power supply is being used, and I think you will find a lot of people who occupy this forum will care too. Until you have accurately established the state of your power supply before, during and after the experiment you have no basis to draw any theoretical conclusions at all. That is why we keep going on about this, and I am beginning to wonder why you refuse to perform such simple and commonplace procedures. As it currently stands your results have no validity whatsoever.

You state:

“We do not measure with any ammeters at all. We infer the current flow from the voltage measured across the resistors.”

Volts x Amps = Watts

You refuse to easily measure one parameter and simply calculate it from the other(s)? Any scientist worth his salt would always check his theoretical calculations and verify them with actual measurements whenever possible. Indeed, this is actually the basis of the scientific method itself.

You state:

“Nor would the replacement of the batteries with caps change anything at all whether or not it worked. It's irrelevant. We are not discussing the electrolytic condition of the batteries. We're only talking about the applied energy to a circuit and some means of optimising the output from that supply. That's it. The numbers stack.”

Erm... no, the replacement of Batteries with Caps is not irrelevant at all. Batteries have a stored potential, Caps have an applied potential. Caps would very quickly show whether your circuit is running down or not and consuming power. 6 car Batteries would hide this extremely well even over lengthy testing periods.

Of course we are discussing the electrolytic condition of the batteries, because they are part of the system that you are making theoretical assumptions from. A chemist can only have limited options for checking a battery cell.

They will perform a hydrometer test to check the specific gravity of the electrolyte, they will visually check the plates and electrolyte for sulphation, and then they will...

perform a controlled load test...

because a load test is THE ONLY WAY to confirm the charge storing potential state of the cell!

You are using maintenance free sealed cells so a chemist will ONLY be able to perform a load test because otherwise he would have to destroy the environment of the cell to check the other parameters and therefore invalidate his own tests.

If you were using lead acid cells you could at least measure the voltage under load of each individual 2V cell of the 6off 2V (12V) battery.

This is why we keep going on about this... to constantly avoid the question and attempt misdirection is hugely suspicious and displays a huge lack of understanding of the basics of the technology that you feel you can make theoretical assumptions from and claim infinite COP.

You state:

“If they're wrong - then strangely, they seem to be giving exploitable benefits notwithstanding. And no-one has faulted the measurements nor the protocols.”

So far the only exploitable benefits that have been demonstrated are the fact that you can take 6 car batteries and heat a small wire with them, while producing a parasitic oscillation on an oscilloscope. Hopefully the demonstration video will show more than this :)

I feel I have to point out that your statement that no-one has faulted the measurements or the protocols is demonstrably wrong! If you doubt this obvious fact then I suggest you go back to page 1 of this thread and read it through from the beginning. If you arrive back here and still have the opinion that no-one has faulted the measurements or protocols then you are in denial.

This needed to be said, so I hope you “get this”.

RM :)





Title: Re: Rosemary Ainslie circuit demonstration on Saturday March 12th 2011
Post by: neptune on March 16, 2011, 04:38:36 PM
@Omnibus .Sorry I did not post feedback in other threads .This was because my questions were answered satisfactorily  , and I wanted to avoid cluttering the threads ,so thanks anyway . So we are all in this together , and , to recap , my questions are .
1 What positive voltage is needed on the gate of the Mosfet to fully switch it on ?
2 The output of the 555 timer is a square wave , what is the voltage difference between the 2 output states .
3 The 2 output states are a positive voltage and zero volts [ or is it a positive voltage and a negative voltage] ?
4 Rosemary says that the oscillation occurs when the gate is negative . If true , why not get oscillation occurring and switch in a small battery in place of the 555 circuit , and keep the oscillation going . There would be no drain on this battery due to the high gate impedance.
5 What else , other than a signal from the 555 timer could cause the gate to go negative?
Title: Re: Rosemary Ainslie circuit demonstration on Saturday March 12th 2011
Post by: markdansie on March 16, 2011, 06:36:00 PM
@evolvinggape
"Erm... no, the replacement of Batteries with Caps is not irrelevant at all. Batteries have a stored potential, Caps have an applied potential. Caps would very quickly show whether your circuit is running down or not and consuming power. 6 car Batteries would hide this extremely well even over lengthy testing periods."

So well put. This has been the failing of many experiments. I have even seen others even fool themselves when using a power supply. That's why many people I know prefer to use caps.
Mark





Title: Re: Rosemary Ainslie circuit demonstration on Saturday March 12th 2011
Post by: Rosemary Ainslie on March 16, 2011, 08:44:44 PM
Mark and evolvingape

I am reminded how destructive is membership on these forums to any emerging technology.

Here's the problem.  I have a thesis that proposes that the forces are actually magnetic fields in varying dimensions - being one, two or three dimensional.  And in the field they exist outside our own timeframe.  But that's not pertinent to the discussion.  And it's certain to be far outside your own interests.  But the whole idea of this circuit was intended to prove that thesis.  The idea is that any amalgam - any three dimensional object - comprises an atomic and/or molecular structure that is bound by discrete packages of one dimensional fields.  They're extraneous to the atom.  And they simply interact with the atomic energy levels which is here proposed to comprise two dimensional magnetic field.  So.  These small one dimensional fields simply bind those atoms and molecules into a crystalline structure. 

The proposal - as it relates to the transfer of electric energy or to the electromagnetic interaction - is that provided that material is conductive and/or inductive then it is able to induce its own potential difference which is the manifest voltage measured across circuit components.  These fields have unbound from their previous 'holding pattern'.   But this voltage - which is an imbalanced field condition - relies on the amount of mass of those fields.  And this, in turn, is determined by the number of atoms that it binds.  Effectively - the more the mass - the more the fields - the more energy is then brought into play in that electromagnetic interaction.

Now it seems that you are all satisfied that if I were to eliminate the batteries then I would also  thereby prove something? Exactly what?  I take away the source of all those magnetic fields and somehow I must then get this to operate in terms of the prediction in that thesis?  I've tried to get an analogy to this before because it's also MileHigh's favourite complaint.  My answer was something like this.  It's like saying I see you can run.  But can you run without legs?  Or I see you can fly - but can you fly without wings?  I absolutely require all that mass - both in the batteries and in the circuit material.  And if the supply was from a plug source - I would still require all that applied voltage and it would still need to be returned to the plug.  It is the value or the amount of those imbalanced voltages that, I believe, generates that oscillation - or that resonance.   What is valid is to test this on smaller batteries.  Feel free - but then you also may need to reduce the size of the resistor to get that oscillation.  I'm not sure.  But it's possible.  You'll need to scale it from all aspects.

Again.  I am absolutely indifferent to the source itself.  I only require  that voltage and the actual material property of that voltage which I propose is particulate and bipolar.  The results are non classical - for a reason.  The concepts that predicted this result are non classical.  While the measurements are standard - the thing that is actually being tested is not.  But - surprisingly - NOR does that conflict with known science.  It simply conflicts with what has been assumed is the property of current flow.   And, while there's been a great deal ASSUMED about this - there has never been definitive proof of it.  The proposal here is that current flow DOES NOT comprise the flow of electrons.

Rosemary
Title: Re: Rosemary Ainslie circuit demonstration on Saturday March 12th 2011
Post by: nul-points on March 16, 2011, 09:00:11 PM
i have to concur with the other members who say that the issue of the power source is of key importance here

*IF* there is an energy anomaly in this setup (and this has yet to be established - hopefully by inspection of suitably comprehensive test results) then it will be absolutely necessary to identify the cause and mechanism by which this occurs

one strand of investigation will be to confirm which elements of the system are necessary and sufficient to cause the effect


one possibility (as suggested by Bedini & followers) is that under certain pulsing conditions, a battery can be made to operate as a kind of 'negative resistor' and store more energy than it supplies

if *THIS* is true then Mark's suggestion of using capacitors would not be a sufficient test to confirm OU here because capacitors, as has been mentioned, operate mainly electrically, not chemically


if Rosemary were to repeat her tests using capacitors as the energy source (albeit scaled down due to smaller energy capacity of capacitors compared to the batteries), the results will show one of two things:

A) Rosemary's 'effect' still occurs - therefore the 'magic' is in the circuit/components;

(also, as a result, more people in different disciplines, will be prepared to believe that something unusual has occurred and that it's not just due to the extensive battery energy involved in the original tests)


B) the energy in the capacitors just depletes - with or without parasitic oscillation;

this would disprove Rosemary's assertion** that it doesn't matter what supplies the electrical energy
(eg "I am absolutely indifferent to the source itself"; it can be "wall-plug", "battery";... etc)

in this case, attention must therefore focus back on the batteries - are they a necessary part of an anomaly?  ...or are they just masking the eventual depletion of energy?

in this case, a new test protocol must be developed which enables Rosemary (or others) to establish EXACTLY what is the role played by the batteries in this 'effect'


so, Rosemary - people are only asking you to do the same thing we'd all need to do in the same circumstance - run additional, different tests which answer some real, nagging questions at the back of any good engineer's mind ("have i accounted for all possible conventional explanations?")

ok - said my piece - let's see what the present test results show

all the best
np

http://docsfreelunch.blogspot.com/ (http://docsfreelunch.blogspot.com/)
 
Title: Re: Rosemary Ainslie circuit demonstration on Saturday March 12th 2011
Post by: neptune on March 16, 2011, 09:20:26 PM
I am somewhat disappointed that there is no one on here that is able to answer my questions about the 555 timer circuit that I asked in my last post . I do expect Rosemary to answer as it is not her field of expertise . These questions are at the very heart of this device .
Title: Re: Rosemary Ainslie circuit demonstration on Saturday March 12th 2011
Post by: FatBird on March 16, 2011, 09:48:20 PM
Neptune, Please repeat your question about the 555 & I will try to answer it for you.


.
Title: Re: Rosemary Ainslie circuit demonstration on Saturday March 12th 2011
Post by: nul-points on March 16, 2011, 10:18:34 PM
I am somewhat disappointed that there is no one on here that is able to answer my questions about the 555 timer circuit that I asked in my last post . I do expect Rosemary to answer as it is not her field of expertise . These questions are at the very heart of this device .

1) - usually several volts (depends on actual device used);
     were there any side-effects on the drive-level due to multi MOSFETs being used in parallel?

2), 3) i think we're waiting to see some close detail waveform data from Rosemary to confirm this - or is this now available to us somewhere?

4) need to establish first if the oscillation sustains with true disconnection of SigGen - and with what remnant DC bias connection (eg. resistive/capacitive connection to ground) - again, need close view of one or two driving pulses

5) other possible causes of negative voltage on the gate could be, say, voltage spikes caused by inductive or capacitive coupling to high-voltage or current pulses nearby

hope this helps
np

http://docsfreelunch.blogspot.com/ (http://docsfreelunch.blogspot.com/)
Title: Re: Rosemary Ainslie circuit demonstration on Saturday March 12th 2011
Post by: neptune on March 16, 2011, 10:18:41 PM
@FatBird , thanks . My questions are
1 The output of the 555 timer circuit is a square wave ,what is the voltage difference between these 2 states .
2 Is it true  that the 2 states are a positive voltage and zero volts , or is it a positive voltage and a negative voltage .
3 What positive voltage is necessary on the gate of the Mosfet to turn it completely on .  is it about 7.5 volts ?
4 If the output of the 555 toggles between pos volts and zero , can you see any way in which the Mosfet gate can become Negative?
Rosemary talks about the desired oscillation occurring when the gate is negative , and this has happened for up to 2 or 3 seconds .If this is the case , one could at that point disconnect the 555 from the gate and replace it with a small battery giving a negative potential , and the oscillation might continue indefinitely .What do you think ?
Title: Re: Rosemary Ainslie circuit demonstration on Saturday March 12th 2011
Post by: neptune on March 16, 2011, 10:21:40 PM
@Nul-points . You replied whilst I was typing . Thanks for replying , your info is very helpful
Title: Re: Rosemary Ainslie circuit demonstration on Saturday March 12th 2011
Post by: FatBird on March 16, 2011, 10:46:52 PM
1.  The V out depends on the supply voltage.  Example, if you used a 12 V supply, the Output V would be about + 11.5 Volts.

2.  The Output High is a Positive V.  The Low is about + .2 V, which is Ground for all practical purposes.

3.  Depends on the Mosfet.  An approximate average full turn on V for a 5 Amp, 200 V Mosfet is about 1 V.

4.  No, EXCEPT if her circuit had an inductance that would RING (oscillate).  In that case the ringing can indeed drop negative.
    If I remember right, her load resistor is wire wound.  If so, then it could ring negative.

Neptune asks = If this is the case , one could at that point disconnect the 555 from the gate and replace it with a small battery
                     giving a negative potential , and the oscillation might continue indefinitely .

5.  Probably so, but the circuit switching arrangement would be tricky & involved.
.
Title: Re: Rosemary Ainslie circuit demonstration on Saturday March 12th 2011
Post by: cHeeseburger on March 16, 2011, 10:49:13 PM
Hello All...Newbie here.

I've been following Rosemary's work on her blog page lately and I've noticed a couple of things that seem strange to me.

First, I can't find anywhere that she says what her measurements of input power or voltage or current actually are.  Never once is a number actually given for any of these values, as far as I can tell.  All the scope traces I've seen her present show an input (battery) voltage with over a hundred volts of AC at over 1MHz on it.  That can't be right.  There must be some large inductances or long wires being used in the battery circuit.  No decent battery would have such a high impedance on its own as to allow such a large AC voltage swing.  She says her batteries are brand new and very high quality types.

Second, she recently showed her latest circuit and parts values.  I noticed that the shunt being used to measure the battery current flow is made up of several quite long ceramic wirewound resistors.  She states the combined inductance as being 130nH or something like that and 0.25 Ohms combined parallel resistance.  With an oscillation frequency of over 1MHz, the inductance is the predominating part of the shunt impedance (by a huge margin) and the shunt impedance will be adding a large phase shift and showing much larger voltages across it than a pure 0.25 Ohm resistor would.

So, when the wildly oscillating AC "battery voltage" is multiplied (sample by sample) within her oscilloscope math by the phase-skewed voltage across her inductive shunt, the results will be totally unrelated to the actual DC-equivalent average power. 

Measurements made on this deeply-flawed basis could quite easily show a negative (reflected) power being returned to the battery when such was not actually the case at all.  Or they could easily show zero (or close to zero) power being drawn when, in reality, significant power was being drawn out of the battery.

I would suggest that a simple low-pass filter be applied on both the shunt voltage measurement and the battery voltage measurement in order to find the actual DC equivalent input power.  This will eliminate the false readings associated with the phase shifts and inductive parasitics in the circuitry and reveal quickly the actual DC net power flow either out of or into the battery.

This has been suggested to Rosemary many times by many folks on several forums but, so far, she refuses to do it and has ignored all such advice.  Adding fifty cents worth of R and C to form a simple first-order low-pass filter and then just measuring the results with a DMM is all that is needed. 

It's much easier than trying to change the batteries to smaller ones or run using a capacitor or DC power supply.  It could be done in five minutes at almost no cost and would give results that are far more ACCURATE AND TRUSTWORTHY than doing math on 8-bit scope traces which are wildly swinging around with huge imposed AC voltages far beyond what would appear across any decent battery or a pure resistive shunt.

This technique has been used for decades and is well-known to any engineer who has tried to make accurate DC-equivalent power measurements on circuits that have pulsed or high frequency AC current draw.  Multiplying phase-skewed values derived across inductive shunts and batteries hooked up with long wires and no bypass capacitors has no chance of ever yielding accurate DC-equivalent power numbers.

Doesn't anyone else here know this?  I have not seen it pointed out or heard similar suggestions on this forum.

cHeeseburger - to go!  (Hold the lettuce)

P.S.  Hooking two or more MOSFETS directly in parallel is well known to cause parasitic oscillations that are, in fact, difficult to get rid of when they are unwanted.  Rosemary is using a function generator and has liberally applied DC offset voltages to the pulse output and tweaked that offset to enhance the oscillations, so using a 555 timer circuit will probably not work the same way at all.  Anyone desiring to replicate should forget all about the earlier Rosemary Ainslie COP 17 schematics and use the latest circuit shown in her blog report.  Don't forget to use at least ten feet of wire to hook up the batteries!  And NEVER add any bypass caps ANYWHERE!  Oh...and use a long twisted pair of small-guage wires to run from the signal generator to the MOSFET gates.  That extra inductance and impedance mismatch can get a solid oscillation going even with a single MOSFET.
Title: Re: Rosemary Ainslie circuit demonstration on Saturday March 12th 2011
Post by: markdansie on March 17, 2011, 12:41:22 AM
@cheeseburger
Your modifications for testing as you suggest the logical way to go. I have spoken to a few other engineers who did not have ideas too distant from yours. I guess myself and others were dumbing it down to try and point out that nothing can be claimed to support her hypothesis if many of the variables or red flags are not eliminated especially the power supply.
@rosemary
In many ways you are just subjecting yourself to peer review here as you would have to in mainstream. We are in many ways much kinder. Please do not bring in emotional comments as there is no room for sentiment in scientific methodology and process.
However option B for you is adopting the "Ignorance is Bliss" stance.
No one is attacking you here...but many more qualified than me are speaking volumes here...please listen.
Kind Regards
Mark
Title: Re: Rosemary Ainslie circuit demonstration on Saturday March 12th 2011
Post by: cHeeseburger on March 17, 2011, 01:29:55 AM
Hi, Mark!

I believe the evidence points to the idea that Rosemary has chosen option B a long time ago.  To expect that any thinking person would accept her claims without even a statement from her regarding her measured input power seems just nuts to me.

After all, what else is there to measure?  She long ago (and with good reasoning supported by almost everyone commenting) decided that measuring the output power via voltage and current multiplication at the load would not work easily because of the load inductance and its inherent phase shift and non-unity power factor.  So the 'scope method was shunned in regard to measuring output power with not so much as a peep of objection from her or anyone else.

Instead, the thermal integration method was chosen...even in her original 2002 publication.  Comparing the thermal equalibrium temperature of the load driven by her circuit against the DC power from a bench supply that was required to reach the same thermal equalibrium temperature.  Perfectly acceptable and reasonable way to proceed.

What she and everyone else seems to have blindly overlooked is that the measurement of input power is plagued with the exact same complications of inductance-based phase shifts and power factor complexities that were deemed too difficult to overcome on the output side.  There is no difference!

Yet, thosands of forum posts and blogs and hundreds of thousands of words and arduous special arrangements to borrow fancy oscilloscopes and try to lern to use them and bitter heated arguments have since ensued all regarding the correct measurement of the inpuit power.  To date, no numbers have emerged!

All I am suggesting is that simple techniques that in no way alter the circuit operation, i.e. using a simple RC low-pass filter on the battery voltage and current shunt voltage will give the exact same advantage that using the thermal integratiion method of obtaining equivalent DC power provides in the output measurement.  Even better, there is no need for a "control" or comparison test at the input side as must be done on the output side.

The only reason to use an oscilloscope in this whole exercise is to "tune and tweak" the circuit for whatever characteristics Rosemary thinks are best.  Once that is done, the scope should be turned off and forgotten.

Measure the average DC-equivalent input voltage and current using a good DMM and the RC filter.  Multiply.  End of story!

cHeeseburger
Title: Re: Rosemary Ainslie circuit demonstration on Saturday March 12th 2011
Post by: fritznien on March 17, 2011, 03:41:53 AM
a dirty great pi filter would be even better but then it would show clear results.
Title: Re: Rosemary Ainslie circuit demonstration on Saturday March 12th 2011
Post by: Rosemary Ainslie on March 17, 2011, 04:17:32 AM

...All the scope traces I've seen her present show an input (battery) voltage with over a hundred volts of AC at over 1MHz on it.  That can't be right.
Well then.  It seems then that cHeeseburger knows that they're wrong.  To the best of my knowledge there is nothing unfolded in these waveforms that are not in line with previous replications.  I distinctly recall the evidence of AC waveforms - in one form or another - on every single test either on own circuit or on replications.

  There must be some large inductances or long wires being used in the battery circuit.
Indeed.  There are.  They need to span a large bank of batteries. 

No decent battery would have such a high impedance on its own as to allow such a large AC voltage swing.  She says her batteries are brand new and very high quality types.
Here cHeesburger is wrong.  I have never claimed that the batteries are high quality types.  I've simply shown the battery brand.  And they most certainly ARE NOT brand new.  They've had a known shelf life for 9 months prior to their use and they've been used rather extensively for the last 5 months.

Second, she recently showed her latest circuit and parts values.  I noticed that the shunt being used to measure the battery current flow is made up of several quite long ceramic wirewound resistors.  She states the combined inductance as being 130nH or something like that and 0.25 Ohms combined parallel resistance.  With an oscillation frequency of over 1MHz, the inductance is the predominating part of the shunt impedance (by a huge margin) and the shunt impedance will be adding a large phase shift and showing much larger voltages across it than a pure 0.25 Ohm resistor would.
Here cHeesburger makes his first valid point.  Indeed.  There is no question that there is inductance.  Add that in.  And IF that inductance and impedance is responsible for that wild oscillation and any consequent phase shift - then I would strongly recommend that they be retained for ALL applications.  It's highly exploitable.  Whatever is finally determined to cause that osciallation needs to be factored IN not OUT.  Self-evidently it results in a waveform that PERFECTLY reinforces itself.  And that means that in those wildly swinging oscillations - which persist and would probably persist as long as the gate voltage is negative - also relies on those properties of the shunt.  If, however, the oscillation resulted in a 'cancelling out' that it all decayed into a sad little flat ringing trace - then indeed - there would be no value to that oscillation.   

So, when the wildly oscillating AC "battery voltage" is multiplied (sample by sample) within her oscilloscope math by the phase-skewed voltage across her inductive shunt, the results will be totally unrelated to the actual DC-equivalent average power.
Here cHeesburger's logic becomes hard to follow.  That 'phase-skewed voltage' persists over time.  And it seems that it would persist as long as a negative charge is applied at the gate.  There is no question that it adds to the system.  Indeed.  If you also factored in the increase to the Ohmage of the shunt - then it would add even more to the system than is currently being shown.   

Measurements made on this deeply-flawed basis could quite easily show a negative (reflected) power being returned to the battery when such was not actually the case at all.  Or they could easily show zero (or close to zero) power being drawn when, in reality, significant power was being drawn out of the battery.
Nothing is 'deeply flawed' here other than cHeesburger's conclusions.  I think what we've shown - conclusively - is that it is possible to generate two opposing cycles of current that perfectly reinforce each other with a zero discharge of energy during that oscillation.  What is also proved is that this results in a sustained dissipation of heat at the resistor element.  Much desired.

I would suggest that a simple low-pass filter be applied on both the shunt voltage measurement and the battery voltage measurement in order to find the actual DC equivalent input power.  This will eliminate the false readings associated with the phase shifts and inductive parasitics in the circuitry and reveal quickly the actual DC net power flow either out of or into the battery.
I would suggest that cHeesburger is determined to deny us the benefit from those circuit components including the wiring.  I'm reasonably satisfied that if we, indeed, eliminated the inductance on the circuit - including the wiring - then we would, also, indeed, lose all that advantage.

This has been suggested to Rosemary many times by many folks on several forums but, so far, she refuses to do it and has ignored all such advice.  Adding fifty cents worth of R and C to form a simple first-order low-pass filter and then just measuring the results with a DMM is all that is needed.
While I persist in ignoring cHeesburger's advices I could do nothing to stop him from doing his own tests.  Perhaps he should take the trouble - before commenting so freely.  And I'm somewhat disinclined to follow his advices when they're evidentially aimed at negating the very advantages that the circuit requires. 

It's much easier than trying to change the batteries to smaller ones or run using a capacitor or DC power supply.  It could be done in five minutes at almost no cost and would give results that are far more ACCURATE AND TRUSTWORTHY than doing math on 8-bit scope traces which are wildly swinging around with huge imposed AC voltages far beyond what would appear across any decent battery or a pure resistive shunt.
Here cHeeseburger is indulging in a standard of comment that really does NOT deserve and answer.

This technique has been used for decades and is well-known to any engineer who has tried to make accurate DC-equivalent power measurements on circuits that have pulsed or high frequency AC current draw.  Multiplying phase-skewed values derived across inductive shunts and batteries hooked up with long wires and no bypass capacitors has no chance of ever yielding accurate DC-equivalent power numbers.
From where I sit it seems that cHeesburger wants to retain the status quo and deny the rights to explore this waveform.  I'm sure he's free to do so.

P.S.  Hooking two or more MOSFETS directly in parallel is well known to cause parasitic oscillations that are, in fact, difficult to get rid of when they are unwanted.  Rosemary is using a function generator and has liberally applied DC offset voltages to the pulse output and tweaked that offset to enhance the oscillations, so using a 555 timer circuit will probably not work the same way at all.  Anyone desiring to replicate should forget all about the earlier Rosemary Ainslie COP 17 schematics and use the latest circuit shown in her blog report.  Don't forget to use at least ten feet of wire to hook up the batteries!  And NEVER add any bypass caps ANYWHERE!  Oh...and use a long twisted pair of small-guage wires to run from the signal generator to the MOSFET gates.  That extra inductance and impedance mismatch can get a solid oscillation going even with a single MOSFET.

I think that's about right.  It seems that cHeeseburger has indeed found the recipe.

Rosemary
Title: Re: Rosemary Ainslie circuit demonstration on Saturday March 12th 2011
Post by: Rosemary Ainslie on March 17, 2011, 05:02:47 AM
And with reference to this post.
I'll comment here because some of these points are good.  Some not so good.

I believe the evidence points to the idea that Rosemary has chosen option B a long time ago.  To expect that any thinking person would accept her claims without even a statement from her regarding her measured input power seems just nuts to me.
Input and output are measured across the shunt.  The input is that voltage above ground the output is that voltage below ground.  It is the difference that we highlight.  And in as much the there is more out than in - then one may conclude that there is a zero loss to the battery.  This is evident in the scope traces and the spreadsheet analysis confirms the indications that are shown in the math trace.  That much is reported. 

What she and everyone else seems to have blindly overlooked is that the measurement of input power is plagued with the exact same complications of inductance-based phase shifts and power factor complexities that were deemed too difficult to overcome on the output side.  There is no difference!
'blindly overlooked'.  Strong words here by cHeesburger. Golly. In point of fact these have NEVER been overlooked.  But it intrigues me that he needs to claim this.

Yet, thosands of forum posts and blogs and hundreds of thousands of words and arduous special arrangements to borrow fancy oscilloscopes and try to lern to use them and bitter heated arguments have since ensued all regarding the correct measurement of the inpuit power.  To date, no numbers have emerged!
IF indeed, cHeesburger had been following all this then he has failed - rather sadly - in understanding the actual argument.  To the best of my knowledge there have been no 'bitter arguments' about the correct measurments to apply.  And no person on our team required any special training to get their heads around those DSO's.  I wonder if cHeesburger is trying to put a slant on things - and to what end? 

All I am suggesting is that simple techniques that in no way alter the circuit operation, i.e. using a simple RC low-pass filter on the battery voltage and current shunt voltage will give the exact same advantage that using the thermal integratiion method of obtaining equivalent DC power provides in the output measurement.  Even better, there is no need for a "control" or comparison test at the input side as must be done on the output side.
Here he is, emphatically, wrong.  Any filters applied will most certainly block that required resonance.

The only reason to use an oscilloscope in this whole exercise is to "tune and tweak" the circuit for whatever characteristics Rosemary thinks are best.  Once that is done, the scope should be turned off and forgotten.
cHeesburger is clearly NOT aware of the fact that the value of those DSO's is in their bandwidth capabilities.  Else the measurements would be ENTIRELY suspect. 

Measure the average DC-equivalent input voltage and current using a good DMM and the RC filter.  Multiply.  End of story!
I trust that cHeeseburger realises that there is nothing holding him back from applying his own tests here.  Then I'm sure he's free to apply whatever measuring technique he chooses.  Whether or not one relies on his methods of measurement would need to be determined by our experts.  Thus far it is experts who have guided us in our measurement protocols. 

Rosemary
Title: Re: Rosemary Ainslie circuit demonstration on Saturday March 12th 2011
Post by: Rosemary Ainslie on March 17, 2011, 05:49:49 AM
Guys, may I remind you all.  That oscillation - that thing that is always factored out of switching circuits - it's usable.  The proof is in this.  We can set the duty cycle that it switches once ever 2.7 minutes.  Then for about three minutes we get a sustained oscillation.  During that period there is no evident loss of heat from the element.  There is also no measured loss of energy from the supply.  On the contrary.  The battery voltage is seen to climb.  Interestingly it only climbs to its previous high.  Then it stays there.

Yet.  If we disconnect the circuit for a period of three minutes there's a dramatic cooling evident at the resistor.  Why do the implications of this not grab you?  There is no error in the measurements.  Unless from here on we must ignore measurements. 

That's what I was rather hoping you'd all consider.  We've been throwing away an advantage in switching circuits at our cost.  And if we persist in applying 'standard' age old tried and tested techniques then we will NEVER find out new things.  More to the point.  We are now doing so at our peril.  It is a truth that this technology may yet confront any need to expand nuclear programs - at LEAST.  Surely that's a good thing?  This technology is scalable and it hardly needs modification to apply it to our household hot water requirements.  That takes up a HUGE amount of energy.  And there's no noise.  Previous switches had noise and it was really problematic.

Rosemary
Title: Re: Rosemary Ainslie circuit demonstration on Saturday March 12th 2011
Post by: MrMag on March 17, 2011, 07:39:07 AM
Rosemary,

I have got to give you a lot of credit. You are a very patient person. Most would of stopped posting by now. I haven't followed your posts or blogs but I do pop in once in a while to see whats going on. It seems like you are always being asked the same questions. In the other forum by hambugger and over here by cheeseburger and others. You must be doing a lot of cut and paste. :)

Keep up the good work and I wish you success in your circuit.
Title: Re: Rosemary Ainslie circuit demonstration on Saturday March 12th 2011
Post by: neptune on March 17, 2011, 11:10:37 AM
First of all , many thanks to nul-points and FatBird for their excellent replies to my questions . It is all much clearer now . This circuit is , in essence , a very simple circuit , but as allways the devil is in the detail . I feel that Rosemary has made some very valid points regarding measurements . The thing that convinces me of the reality of the phenomenon , is the 2.7 seconds of oscillation between pulses . We all have our own ideas on this , and I urge everyone to keep cool . You cant really argue with Rosemary when she says that everyone is free to choose their own power supply , including caps , and make their own measurements . Sadly , failing eyesight prevents me participating , but I follow all points of view with interest .At this stage the problem is that few people have test equipment of high enough quality to replicate this .I have just noticed something else . Cheeseburger says that Rosemary has applied "voltage offset" to the output of the function generator she is using .Does that mean moving the zero line so that the off puses become negative? If it does, then that is how the gate becomes negative
Title: Re: Rosemary Ainslie circuit demonstration on Saturday March 12th 2011
Post by: cHeeseburger on March 17, 2011, 11:39:23 AM
I would suggest that a simple low-pass filter be applied on both the shunt voltage measurement and the battery voltage measurement in order to find the actual DC equivalent input power.  This will eliminate the false readings associated with the phase shifts and inductive parasitics in the circuitry and reveal quickly the actual DC net power flow either out of or into the battery.

“I would suggest that cHeesburger is determined to deny us the benefit from those circuit components including the wiring.  I'm reasonably satisfied that if we, indeed, eliminated the inductance on the circuit - including the wiring - then we would, also, indeed, lose all that advantage.”

All I am suggesting is that simple techniques that in no way alter the circuit operation, i.e. using a simple RC low-pass filter on the battery voltage and current shunt voltage will give the exact same advantage that using the thermal integratiion method of obtaining equivalent DC power provides in the output measurement.  Even better, there is no need for a "control" or comparison test at the input side as must be done on the output side.

“Here he is, emphatically, wrong.  Any filters applied will most certainly block that required resonance.”

What she and everyone else seems to have blindly overlooked is that the measurement of input power is plagued with the exact same complications of inductance-based phase shifts and power factor complexities that were deemed too difficult to overcome on the output side.  There is no difference!

“'blindly overlooked'.  Strong words here by cHeesburger. Golly. In point of fact these have NEVER been overlooked.  But it intrigues me that he needs to claim this.”

Rosemary, you are right.  The proper and simple and accurate measurement technique has never been overlooked.  I apologize for implying any such shortcoming in your perceptive abilities.

What I should have said is PURPOSELY AND STUBBORNLY AVOIDED AT ALL COST.

Let me try a simple analogy.  Your load resistor has a fairly big mass, thermally speaking.  It obviously takes some time to heat up and cool down.  I’m sure we would all agree that the instantaneous temperature does not follow the frequency of oscillation (1MHz +), heating up and cooling back down a million times per second.

A wideband high speed measurement of the heat signature is therefore not required.  The load’s mass performs a very accurate averaging of the rapidly-oscillating high frequency energy being fed through the load.

You clearly agree with this, because you have always used the method of comparing the output heat to that produced (in the same load) when it is fed a steady and easily known and determined DC power.  This is what is known as determining the DC equivalent power.

You have acknowledged that this is how the output heating power is measured and have indicated that you understand at least one very strong reason for doing it this way, as opposed to trying to use a wideband DSO to measure the voltage across the load and current through it.  It is because the load is inductive and the driving wave is not a sinusoid, which vastly complicates the math due to an inability to use simple real numbers and Ohm’s Law or even simple complex numbers to get the power factor, phase shift and VAR (Volt Amperes Reactive) versus the true Watts of real forward power numbers correct.

Now…please read this carefully and understand me clearly, if you would.
What I am suggesting is that all of those same complications apply equally to the measurement of the real Watts of input power and for the same reasons.

I am not suggesting that you remove or reduce or eliminate any of the circuit inductances or that you add anything that will in any way effect or change the way the circuit operates or behaves or alter the waveforms and scope traces you have so diligently worked to accomplish.  The load will receive/emit exactly what it presently receives/emits and the batteries will also receive/emit exactly what they presently do as well.  No change to the MOSFET operation/oscillation will occur.

What I am proposing by adding a simple filter ONLY TO THE MEASUREMENT APPARATUS AND NOT TO THE CIRCUIT ITSELF yields the exact same EQUIVALENT DC REAL POWER measurement results as you already use to measure the output heating power.  Instead of averaging via thermal mass, you average in an exactly analogous way by using a resistor and capacitor attached to a simple digital voltmeter.

This method, properly applied, has no effect on circuit performance and has no inherent error sources.  If nothing else, Rosemary, it would behoove you to at least try doing this to compare the results versus what you arrive at using your DSO method.  If this simple straightforward technique gives numbers that closely agree with your zero-battery-net-power or shows actual charging of your battery while heating the load, you will have made a gigantic leap forward toward mainstream acceptance and credibility.

cHeeseburger (extra fries, please)
Title: Re: Rosemary Ainslie circuit demonstration on Saturday March 12th 2011
Post by: Pirate88179 on March 17, 2011, 11:50:54 AM
Rose:

I have continued to follow your work and all of your efforts on this project.  I would just like to echo MrMag's comments in saying that I, too, admire your tenacity as you continue with this.

If you are measuring correctly, or not, does not matter to me at this point.  You have involved some learned folks that should know the correct way and, the proof will be in the pudding as they say.  I feel bad for the abuse you have to take by sharing your efforts openly but, I also admire you for doing so.

As you have said so many times, if folks think you are doing it wrong, there is nothing standing in their way to do it the "right" way.  Yet, no one does.  Easier to cast stones I suppose.

In the end, we will know.  Please continue with your work, and continue to share the results, whatever they may be.

Bill
Title: Re: Rosemary Ainslie circuit demonstration on Saturday March 12th 2011
Post by: cHeeseburger on March 17, 2011, 12:08:24 PM
Rosemary,

I have got to give you a lot of credit. You are a very patient person. Most would of stopped posting by now. I haven't followed your posts or blogs but I do pop in once in a while to see whats going on. It seems like you are always being asked the same questions. In the other forum by hambugger and over here by cheeseburger and others. You must be doing a lot of cut and paste. :)

Keep up the good work and I wish you success in your circuit.

There is only one question I've ever asked.  What is the input power and output power?  Rosemary has not answered the question.  She has produced no numbers.  Her reports regarding input power suggest that it is either always exactly zero ("perfect cancellation" or "perfect symmetry") or, at other times suggest that it is always less than zero, constituting a net charge to the battery while delivering real heating power to the load.  Earlier, the input power was given as a positive number being 1/17 of the heating power measured at the load.  Never the same answer twice and never any numbers. 

I see this as a huge problem with her "science" and I also see why it is virtually impossible to arrive at solid numbers using the approach she has taken to measuring the input power, which is not workable nor capable of furnishing accurate results.

cHeeseburger  (extra tomatos, please)

P.S.  Why my kindly and helpful and very constructive suggestions and my clear statements of the reasoning behind them are viewed as negative, abusive, pesky, rude, intolerable and bothersome by Rosemary and apparently others here is a true mystery to me.   Is it my breath?  Hold the onions!
Title: Re: Rosemary Ainslie circuit demonstration on Saturday March 12th 2011
Post by: cHeeseburger on March 17, 2011, 12:30:53 PM
Rose:

I have continued to follow your work and all of your efforts on this project.  I would just like to echo MrMag's comments in saying that I, too, admire your tenacity as you continue with this.

If you are measuring correctly, or not, does not matter to me at this point.   You have involved some learned folks that should know the correct way and, the proof will be in the pudding as they say.  I feel bad for the abuse you have to take by sharing your efforts openly but, I also admire you for doing so.

As you have said so many times, if folks think you are doing it wrong, there is nothing standing in their way to do it the "right" way.  Yet, no one does.  Easier to cast stones I suppose.

In the end, we will know.  Please continue with your work, and continue to share the results, whatever they may be.

Bill

So it doesn't  matter if measurements are done correctly or not.  Now that is some really great science, pardner!  Why build anything if no decent measure of it's actual performance will be made?  Is it just art for art's sake?  A medium for chatroom conversation and "team spirit building"?  A popularity contest?  A debate club?

No...Rosemary is pretentious enough to suggest that she has found  the answer to the global energy crisis.  Good measurements with repeatable publishable quantified results should preceed any such suggestion.

cHeeseburger (make that a double, to go)
Title: Re: Rosemary Ainslie circuit demonstration on Saturday March 12th 2011
Post by: Rosemary Ainslie on March 17, 2011, 12:36:24 PM
MrMag and Pirate

Thanks for the support.  I really wouldn't have bothered to answer CB in such depth except that I hoped it would finally silence him.  The problem is that egos and testosterone get in the way of science and - suddenly - it only matters that someone sound clever - not that they are.  And now - to boot - it seems that we must improve our measuring instruments.  What a load of doggy doo.  In any event - it seems that the test object - the significance of the resonance - the whole catastrophe - is just way over his head.  More's the pity.

But regarding the measurements.  There has been no effort to factor in for the inductance.  This may yet change the picture.  But - preliminary overview shows that it makes no material difference - this because the resonance is so perfectly in antiphase.  The battery and the heat on the load are always the beneficiaries.  The aspect of the test that interests me is that the battery can discharge during the off period of the duty cycle.  There's clearly an open path.  And this simple fact is precisely the point where I am hoping that those little dipoles will be considered as the material of current flow.  Certainly classicists will have a hard time of it arguing electron flow.   And then the comforting fact that we can apply just about any heat - not by increasing the voltage as would normally be required -  but by adjustments to the offset and to the frequency.  That's good news - as our previous was somewhat restricted to dissipating values somewhat less than the full potential from the supply.  It sort of closes the argument that this system is now more efficient rather than less.

But we've a way to go.  All I was hoping to achieve is to get this to the academic forum.  And with a little more effort it may yet get there.

Kindest as ever,
Rosemary

And btw Neptune.  So nice to see your sustained interest.  I'm sorry you won't be testing.  But hopefully, soon, there will be no need for this.  Certainly if it can get properly researched then we can all relax.  We have an unfortunate but necessary reliance to get a proper academic over view and that also requires hands on involvement.  The challenge is to lift this from esoteric fringe science to something that may be plausibly studied.  Clearly I'm ever the optimist.
Title: Re: Rosemary Ainslie circuit demonstration on Saturday March 12th 2011
Post by: cHeeseburger on March 17, 2011, 01:06:08 PM
"The aspect of the test that interests me is that the battery can discharge during the off period of the duty cycle.  There's clearly an open path.  And this simple fact is precisely the point where I am hoping that those little dipoles will be considered as the material of current flow."

Let's see...the path...yes.  Five big honking MOSFETS all wired in parallel, each having probably 1500pF or so of output capacitance between drain and source.  Total of five in parallel, 7500pF or 7.5nF.

Rosemary, if you can do it, calculate the reactance of 7.5nF at a frequency of 1MHz.  You will then know the measure and mechanism of "the first path".

Then remember that the drain-source body diode will conduct fully any time the inductive-capacitive resonance tries to drive the drain negative with regard to the source.  Path number two.  Non-linear but very robust.

These paths exist regardless of the gate voltage.  Little dipoles may or may not provide yet a third path, but are not in any way required to fully explain that strong paths already exist and are well known and fully characterised.

cHeeseburger (double the onions and...do you have any garlic?)
Title: Re: Rosemary Ainslie circuit demonstration on Saturday March 12th 2011
Post by: Pirate88179 on March 17, 2011, 01:07:45 PM
So it doesn't  matter if measurements are done correctly or not.  Now that is some really great science, pardner!  Why build anything if no decent measure of it's actual performance will be made?  Is it just art for art's sake?  A medium for chatroom conversation and "team spirit building"?  A popularity contest?  A debate club?

No...Rosemary is pretentious enough to suggest that she has found  the answer to the global energy crisis.  Good measurements with repeatable publishable quantified results should preceed any such suggestion.

cHeeseburger (make that a double, to go)

How could you possibly get that from my post?  Are you on drugs here?  I said it does not matter to me IF the measurements are done correctly or not, the end result, as it will be, will stand on its own.  rose does have some academics working with her and IF the measurements are NOT done to your satisfaction then, as she has said, do them yourself.  OR would that be too much work?  I realize it is a lot harder than just hitting keys on a keyboard.

My post meant that, even if I were measuring the input vs output incorrectly, the proof will be in the pudding when the others evaluate her device.  How the heck you could twist that into what you posted is beyond me.  I am still thinking some over medication was involved for sure.

What a waste of posting space that was...please spare us any more of your drivel.

Bill

PS  According to the IP address as traced through a proxy, this is yet another one of our "friends" from OUR back again from banned land.  I will take this up with Stefan.  Some folks never learn.

Nice try Cowboy.
Title: Re: Rosemary Ainslie circuit demonstration on Saturday March 12th 2011
Post by: WilbyInebriated on March 17, 2011, 01:32:16 PM
What I am proposing by adding a simple filter ONLY TO THE MEASUREMENT APPARATUS AND NOT TO THE CIRCUIT ITSELF yields the exact same EQUIVALENT DC REAL POWER measurement results as you already use to measure the output heating power.  Instead of averaging via thermal mass, you average in an exactly analogous way by using a resistor and capacitor attached to a simple digital voltmeter.

cHeeseburger (extra fries, please)
does this method you propose use standard probes on the measuring apparatus?

hold your pickle...  ::)
Title: Re: Rosemary Ainslie circuit demonstration on Saturday March 12th 2011
Post by: Pirate88179 on March 17, 2011, 01:36:39 PM

hold your pickle...  ::)

He would need tweezers and a magnifying glass to be able to do that, ha ha.

Bill
Title: Re: Rosemary Ainslie circuit demonstration on Saturday March 12th 2011
Post by: poynt99 on March 17, 2011, 01:38:21 PM
does this method you propose use standard probes on the measuring apparatus?

Yes, it would. But the beauty in this method, is that a scope is not required, a decent DMM is probably better to measure the resulting average Input voltage and current values in this case.

However, and don't jump on me for this yet Hum, but I think this method works only for Input power, not Output power. I have verified the Input measurement in SPICE, but not yet the Output power.

The reason this method works well for Input power, is because the input voltage is DC, and getting the average of the voltage and current is valid. I believe this is not valid for a varying output.

I will test and post back here with the results to verify this.

.99
Title: Re: Rosemary Ainslie circuit demonstration on Saturday March 12th 2011
Post by: poynt99 on March 17, 2011, 03:05:07 PM
i see. so would you or humbooger care to explain just exactly how it is that you can connect the measuring device (another circuit), much less the current shunt, to the original and not have it affected? preferably in the real world, with a bench experiment... thanks!

Use a simple RC filter, whereby the R value is substantially higher than the impedance of the node being measured. For example with a 0.25 Ohm CSR, placing a 10k or even 1k Ohm resistor at the MOSFET Source in series with a 10u so capacitor will allow for good isolation from the circuit so as not to affect it's operation, and provide a near pure DC voltage representing current, that can be accurately measured using a common DMM.

Use a high enough time constant (R*C) to substantially filter out the varying voltage at the measurement point. For eg, if your switching frequency is 50Hz (20ms period), use a tau of at least 50 times longer (1s). If we use a 10k resistor, then we need a capacitance of 100u. Obviously, the higher the frequency of operation, the smaller C value can be used. The DMM (set to DC Voltage) will provide additional averaging such that the final measurement will be very accurate.

See attached schema for RC filter on the CSR.

.99
Title: Re: Rosemary Ainslie circuit demonstration on Saturday March 12th 2011
Post by: WilbyInebriated on March 17, 2011, 03:17:59 PM
Use a simple RC filter, whereby the R value is substantially higher than the impedance of the node being measured. For example with a 0.25 Ohm CSR, placing a 10k or even 1k Ohm resistor at the MOSFET Source in series with a 10u so capacitor will allow for good isolation from the circuit so as not to affect it's operation, and provide a near pure DC voltage representing current, that can be accurately measured using a common DMM.

Use a high enough time constant (R*C) to substantially filter out the varying voltage at the measurement point. For eg, if your switching frequency is 50Hz (20ms period), use a tau of at least 50 times longer (1s). If we use a 10k resistor, then we need a capacitance of 100u. Obviously, the higher the frequency of operation, the smaller C value can be used. The DMM (set to DC Voltage) will provide additional averaging such that the final measurement will be very accurate.

See attached schema for RC filter on the CSR.

.99
is this gonna be like our sim conversation at energetic? ::) do i really have to play lawyer again... ::)
let me rephrase my question counselor. ;) please explain to the good people how it is that by "placing a 10k or even 1k Ohm resistor at the MOSFET Source in series with a 10u so capacitor will allow for good isolation from the circuit." ideally you could demonstrate this (tk's probe placement video comes to mind, where he shows the trace change) with a circuit similar to rose's circuit... ideally you could show there is no change. then we can discuss the inadequacy of 24 bit scopes...  ;)
Title: Re: Rosemary Ainslie circuit demonstration on Saturday March 12th 2011
Post by: evolvingape on March 17, 2011, 04:01:11 PM
Hello Everyone,

I have been thinking about what has been discussed in this thread and trying to formulate a logical plan to move forward.

It has become obvious that due to the classical and non classical debate there is not going to be any resolution when it comes to measurements of the circuits components themselves, inputs, outputs, or indeed any hard values for measurements at all. So far we have only unsubstantiated conjecture.

At this point it is irresponsible of any of us to make any assumptions as to what is occurring in this circuit. If we had any hard data at all then maybe we could, but we do not...

So...

I am going to propose this:

How about Rosemary and her team sets up a test experiment where new batteries are load tested and recharged independently before the test begins. Three times each should suffice for gaining an accurate average of the batteries ability to store charge. I would prefer to see lead acid cells used and delivered dry so that the acid can be added to the water yourself to accurately control the specific gravity of the electrolyte. You would also be able to test each individual cell of the battery for bad cells.

The batteries are then connected to a large distribution block that will power many individual circuits. We are probably talking something like 100 circuits at least here, maybe more.

The circuit heating elements will all be submersed in a large tank of water at ambient pressure. A separate tank will have temperature controlled water to match the test tank temperature, and be controlled by a simple cork float switch. This would keep the test tank volume at the same level and allow water converted to steam to vent to atmosphere.

Obviously the circuitry for the temperature control of the additional supply tank will not be part of the experiment, it is just there to ensure that the water is the same temperature as the test tank.

So, leave this running for a long time, say a month, and then disconnect everything and perform a load test on all the batteries. This will tell us whether the charge holding capacity has changed during the experiment.

The temperature of the test tank water would have been accurately monitored throughout, as would the voltage across the battery bank.

By performing the experiment this way all of the energetic processes will be converted within the system and remove the need for any other measurements by people.

It will very quickly become apparent whether there has been any loss of energy from the supply, therefore proving or disproving Rosemary's claims that the battery charge remains stable without loss or gain. I think we would all agree that a battery can maintain its voltage at a stable level without actually maintaining its charge, so the net power (Watts available) would decrease. This is why Voltage measurements on a large battery are next to useless for measurement purposes, and are insufficient to prove anything on their own.

Questions:

1) Would the addition of a large distribution block affect the results sufficiently to disqualify the experiment ?

2) Would the addition of 100 circuits affect the ability of the “energetic mass” that Rosemary absolutely requires to deliver sufficient “current pressure” to the many circuits ?

3) Would you all agree that this would conclusively prove whether the Watts within the system are not consumed, and that the excess energy, if any, will be shown by temperature measurement of the water ?

I would appreciate your thoughts on this matter,

RM :)





Title: Re: Rosemary Ainslie circuit demonstration on Saturday March 12th 2011
Post by: WilbyInebriated on March 17, 2011, 04:10:57 PM
i have a question. why is that science, with all it's fancy fancy equations and formulas, cannot measure exactly how much energy is in a battery? and let's not be facetious and suggest that load testing and then averaging is exact... ;)
Title: Re: Rosemary Ainslie circuit demonstration on Saturday March 12th 2011
Post by: markdansie on March 17, 2011, 04:20:44 PM
Hi pirate, Willy and other
I am sad this thread has degenerated into some mudslinging for whatever reason.
I admire what Rosemary is doing for some time
However, I also support the many who has challenged (without the insults) the way the power in and out is calculated and measured.
This was a response to a claim made that there was no net drawdown on the battery, yet no data was given to support this claim.
Many suggestions of how best do this have come forward, some may be the right way to go and some perhaps the wrongway to go in how to measure.
If the issue was raised by just one person then it could be argued that it is not an issue. However it has been raised by many.
This does not distract from the efforth Rose has undertaken and I echo your sentiments expressed.
Mark
Title: Re: Rosemary Ainslie circuit demonstration on Saturday March 12th 2011
Post by: powercat on March 17, 2011, 04:39:04 PM
i have a question. why is that science, with all it's fancy fancy equations and formulas, cannot measure exactly how much energy is in a battery? and let's not be facetious and suggest that load testing and then averaging is exact... ;)

As part of my previous work as an automotive engineer you find yourself running a battery on a car virtually empty when trying to diagnose and if you don't do a jump-start, you often fined after 20 minutes or so that the battery has partially recovered and might well give you one more starting attempt.
Anyway the point I'm trying to make is not to trust batteries, dead ones empty ones or any other type, I think Bill will back me up on this ;)he has lots of experience with dead ones
Title: Re: Rosemary Ainslie circuit demonstration on Saturday March 12th 2011
Post by: Pirate88179 on March 17, 2011, 04:48:58 PM
Mark:

I agree with you.  My personal thoughts are, and I may have been the first to suggest this, or not, but I have on other topic areas, is to use caps, or rather, supercaps.  Rose does not want to got this route and I respect that.  This is her deal and she needs to do what she sees fit.

I just like the caps because of what I learned on the earth battery experiments and seeing how the high spikes, that Bedini uses, are instantly converted to usable power in the supercaps.  Also, to me, there is less question of power in/out with caps but, as I said, this is Rose's show, and she should be able to proceed however she wants to.

Bill
Title: Re: Rosemary Ainslie circuit demonstration on Saturday March 12th 2011
Post by: evolvingape on March 17, 2011, 04:52:59 PM
Hi,

I was not being facetious and suggesting that load testing was exact. What I was trying to do was formulate an approach that would indicate whether or not there was net drawdown on the battery bank as Mark so rightly pointed out. No assumptions or claims can be made at all until this issue is resolved!

As Rosemary's statements are a mass of contradictions, for example she states that the power supply mass is absolutely required for operation of the anomaly, and yet in the next breath states that she is absolutely indifferent to the power supply used. So... I have been trying to work within the restrictions set by Rosemary to come up with some answers.

Rosemary will not alter her circuit in any conventional way claiming that it will remove the anomaly if she does so. Ok, I get that.

So, I am forced to take an approach that works within the constraints Rosemary has dictated.

The issue of the potential difference of the power available to the circuit and the power consumed by the circuit in use is still outstanding, this is why I have suggested using many individual circuits to actually load the battery bank at a higher rate.

As for the load testing, no its not exact, but if it does show a large discrepancy between starting conditions, and ending conditions then questions will be asked why. If it does not then it may well prove Rosemary's claims of equal charge being returned to the battery.

For example it may indicate that current is actually being consumed by the circuit to produce heat, but will not show up with a single circuit, on a very large power supply.

Load testing is not a perfect answer, but it will tell us far more than a voltage measurement will, and is a step forward given the restrictions placed on possibilities by Rosemary herself.

RM :)
Title: Re: Rosemary Ainslie circuit demonstration on Saturday March 12th 2011
Post by: neptune on March 17, 2011, 07:16:44 PM
It is a shame that we have some "mud slinging" on this thread . The subject here is so important that we need to forget our differences . For some reason , I only discovered Rosemary fairly recently , and there is a vast amount of info to catch up on . so I may ask questions that have already been answered . First this business of voltage offset . As I understand it , this means a waveform of square pulses that toggle not between pos and zero but between pos and neg states . Correct [or insult !] me if I am wrong . I understand that the 555 circuit as shown is not normally capable of this . Question . Has this circuit been made to work ONLY when driven by a function generator with voltage offset , or have 555 versions worked .
        Now a bit of a daft idea .At frequencies up to about 100 Hz it would be possible to replace the MOSFET by mechanical switching , using a motor , a cam and car ignition points .A suitable zener diode could be connected across the points . Possibly s a separate capacitor could be used to represent the internal capacitance of the Mosfet . If the device still works , it would be easier to nail down the effect .
Title: Re: Rosemary Ainslie circuit demonstration on Saturday March 12th 2011
Post by: poynt99 on March 17, 2011, 07:31:45 PM
is this gonna be like our sim conversation at energetic? ::) do i really have to play lawyer again... ::)
let me rephrase my question counselor. ;) please explain to the good people how it is that by "placing a 10k or even 1k Ohm resistor at the MOSFET Source in series with a 10u so capacitor will allow for good isolation from the circuit." ideally you could demonstrate this (tk's probe placement video comes to mind, where he shows the trace change) with a circuit similar to rose's circuit... ideally you could show there is no change. then we can discuss the inadequacy of 24 bit scopes...  ;)
Method to determine if the proposed alternative to measuring current has any significant effect on the wave forms and values:

Select a MEAN measurement in the scope for the CSR channel. This is equivalent to determining the average value using the RC/DVM method. Note the measurement in the scope.

Keep the scope probe attached to the CSR, and attach the RC filter and DVM as I outlined. Note the MEAN value the scope is measuring to see if it has changed. Note the CSR wave form to see if it has changed. Note the voltage reading on the DVM and compare with the scope measurement.

.99

PS. If you can find a 24-bit scope, I'd be quite happy to discuss it.  ;)
Title: Re: Rosemary Ainslie circuit demonstration on Saturday March 12th 2011
Post by: markdansie on March 17, 2011, 08:01:19 PM
@evolvingape
If Rosemary must use a battery the other simple way to go is to use the smallest capacity battery to meet the specs and since it is claimed to be closed loop let the device run over several days or weeks. A simple heat exchanger could be deviced to measure and extract the heat as it is generated. So if heat persists and the battery maintains its charge...strong evidence.
Just a thought anyway
mark
Title: Re: Rosemary Ainslie circuit demonstration on Saturday March 12th 2011
Post by: Rosemary Ainslie on March 17, 2011, 08:31:08 PM
Hi guys.  Golly - we're moving all over the place here.  I keep trying to explain the point about batteries and - for some reason - keep missing you all.  At the risk of stating the obvious, battery discharge/recharge is a chemical event.  What it does is produce an electric current that is then used in whatever application required.  The other way to produce current flow is through a generator which is used by our grid suppliers - and generators - and so on.  Typically the grid supplies ac and the battery dc.  If this question was purely about the recharge condition of batteries - then I'd have lost interest way back.  I am only interested in that current flow and having a stab at determining the properties of that current flow.  This because I believe we are dealing - not with electrons which are tangible particles with known mass and charge - but with an entirely different particle that is here proposed to make up a magnetic field.

Now.  Why this is possibily significant - is because, IF this particle is the 'thing' that makes up the material of current - as we measure it and know it - then we are also grossly underusing it's potentials.  It is proposed to have a bipolar charge.  That way it can move it two directions - subject to a path through any given circuit.  It is proposed to belong to the material 'from whence it came' and that it will get back there if circuit conditions allow.  It is also proposed that in moving through the circuit and subject to it's returning to its source, then its potential differences are equalised and its charge perfectly conserved.  It is also proposed that the heat that is dissipated at sundry components is as transitory as those voltage imbalances.  Once those discrete packages get back to their source they combine with 'broken fields' of these same particles and all that heat then resolves itself in the rebinding of that material.

But I won't bore you with the thesis.  I know that you guys are only interested in the applications.  So again.  Let me try and stress where this points.  To my way of seeing it there are two entirely different sources of current flow.  The first is from the battery and that - being a dc supply - moves exclusively in a clockwise direction.  The second is from the material of the circuit components themselves - which becomes a second source of energy and this moves in an anticlockwise direction.  But what they are both trying to do is to get back to their respective sources being either the battery or that circuit material.  That oscillating or resonating condition is sustained precisely because, no sooner has the battery had a return of all it's voltage - discharged as current flow, than the circuit has extruded its own voltage.  And no sooner has the circuit had a return of all that voltage discharged as current flow, than the battery has extruded its own.  And so on.  In effect the clockwise current flow is the trigger for the anticlockwise current flow.  And the paths for both these flows is enabled on that circuit.  They never settle. 

So.  In effect the first radical departure from mainstream is this proposal.  There is a second energy supply source in that circuit material.  The next point is this.  I expected a greater benefit.  I did not expect this wild oscillation.  But what the thesis does claim is that the heat that is dissipated at the work station of a circuit, results - not from any transfer of energy as such - but from the transfer of a voltage imbalance into the circuit material itself.  The proposal is that the current flow has a charge bias - being either positive or negative.  The sum of those discrete orbits of binding fields in that circuit material is precisely balanced in an orbit.  An orbit is made up of two moments.  It first moves in one direction with a charge justification and then it moves in an opposite direction with an opposite justification.  Therefore, if these binding fields are orbiting - then one half opposes the other half.  So, if the current flow that is imposed through that material is say, positive - then it will extrude all those positive fields in its path.  And if it is negative then it will extrude all those negative fields in its path.  Essentially that orbit is broken and one half of the fields then move outside of the material and congregate again in a long string that orbits that material component which we then measure as voltage.  It leaves behind the other half.  And while the one extruded half can still congregate as a 'field' what is remaining - that other half - cannot.  It then loses it's 'grip' so to speak on all those atoms that it was holding in a fixed pattern.  And in a cascading sequence of breaks it then becomes as hot and slow and big as it was first fast and cold and small.  It literally grows.  It also then comes out of the field condition and can be seen and experienced in our own dimenstions.  It is no longer orbiting at velocities that exceed light speed.  We see that glow.  Photons can now interact with that material.  It is very much in our tangible dimensions. 

The point is this.  That imbalanced - that broken condition of those discrete packages that remain in the circuit material - it is a CONSEQUENCE of the current flow in the first instance.  Energy has NOT been transferred to it from the supply.  All that has been transferred is a voltage imbalance. 

THAT is the point.  Sustain that imbalance and, what is evident, is that this heat is also sustained.  If you can get your minds around this - then I've finally succeeded.  You see, there are many out there who actually do understand the thesis.  It's no accident that wherever I post I am trailed and trolled by a stream of highly competent individuals who are most anxious to silence me and discredit this thinking.  And the reason for this is that the thesis is showing us free energy and the tests are proving this.  Just think about it.  The lastest from our Poynty is that I'm an Idiot savant - for God's sake.  And Humbugger's mandate is unquestionably to throw as much dirt in this trail as he possibly can.  And under usual circumstances it's enough to flame these threads of mine and kill the subject.  I hope, this time round - and after the last spate of efforts that we've managed - that this will survive these attacks.  And guys.  It would be a good point to try and grasp this thinking.  Because we are not talking batteries.  We're actually talking free and abundant energy and thanks to the 'team' we've found it - pretty conclusively - in that extraordinary oscillation.  I think.

Rosemary
Title: Re: Rosemary Ainslie circuit demonstration on Saturday March 12th 2011
Post by: evolvingape on March 17, 2011, 08:46:53 PM
Hi Mark,

Yes I completely agree with you but there will be problems implementing this approach.

A quote from Reply #75 by Rosemary:

“What is valid is to test this on smaller batteries. Feel free - but then you also may need to reduce the size of the resistor to get that oscillation. I'm not sure. But it's possible. You'll need to scale it from all aspects.”

So Rosemary is saying that it will be valid to test with smaller batteries but she herself will not be doing this. The circuit is also going to have to be scaled differently which will mean that components will change.

Full specifications of the circuit are still outstanding despite in Reply #1 harti stating that they would be forthcoming after the demonstration. I do not believe harti goes around telling untruths, so I am forced to believe that he was led to believe that full specifications would be provided.

Operating procedures for the tuning of the circuit are not available, and the only ones capable of performing said tuning is Rosemary and her team.

So yes, while your points about smaller batteries and also caps are perfectly reasonable, they are also going to be completely ignored by the originator of the technology and the claims based on said technology will only come from the circuit as it currently stands.

So in light of the difficulties I have changed my approach. I am now asking Rosemary to provide evidence and proof with the circuit unchanged, using a method that we can all agree would show some indication of whether the circuit is drawing power or not.

We do not need exact measurements, we only need to show a difference or not to provide strong evidence one way or another. Without performing these tests Rosemary has no basis whatsoever to claim that she has found a source of infinite energy.

As Rosemary has not published her thesis in a legible format, she is the only one that understands it. Please Rosemary, do not presume to know what are my interests. I would be most interested in a full and complete report of your thesis, with evidence and results to back your claims. So far we only have speculation on your part about what you think is happening!

She claims the thesis is showing us free energy (what thesis ? Please provide a link to where it is published) and the tests are proving this (what tests ? You have not provided any results or evidence at all, only conclusions).



RM :)
Title: Re: Rosemary Ainslie circuit demonstration on Saturday March 12th 2011
Post by: neptune on March 17, 2011, 08:55:52 PM
Am I right in thinking that a full technical report will be issued on the demo which occurred on March 12th ? If so , this will hopefully settle all arguments on testing protocols . Meanwhile , let us all keep cool and let not our differences blind us to what we have in common . Rosemary is a strong woman and does not need me or anyone else to defend her . She does things her way , and she owes us NOTHING .She has already given us the gift of the century . I do not pretend to understand her thesis , as what knowledge I have is based on classical theory . I do not doubt that someone will try caps as a power supply , and a lot of other ideas . I look forward to the official report . I believe that when the effect is confirmed and isolated , circuits will be possible without a pulse input , and will be self oscillating .
Title: Re: Rosemary Ainslie circuit demonstration on Saturday March 12th 2011
Post by: Rosemary Ainslie on March 17, 2011, 09:10:11 PM
Am I right in thinking that a full technical report will be issued on the demo which occurred on March 12th ? If so , this will hopefully settle all arguments on testing protocols . Meanwhile , let us all keep cool and let not our differences blind us to what we have in common . Rosemary is a strong woman and does not need me or anyone else to defend her . She does things her way , and she owes us NOTHING .She has already given us the gift of the century . I do not pretend to understand her thesis , as what knowledge I have is based on classical theory . I do not doubt that someone will try caps as a power supply , and a lot of other ideas . I look forward to the official report . I believe that when the effect is confirmed and isolated , circuits will be possible without a pulse input , and will be self oscillating .

Neptune, I'm afraid the only report there is the one on the blog.  I presume you've read it.  There won't be another but we may yet try and publish a paper - yet again.

Kindest regards,
Rosemary

here's the link - in case you missed it. 
http://newlightondarkenergy.blogspot.com/2011/03/report.html
Title: Re: Rosemary Ainslie circuit demonstration on Saturday March 12th 2011
Post by: neptune on March 17, 2011, 09:16:17 PM
Hi Rosemary , I did not realise there was a report on your Blog . I will take a look . Thanks .
Title: Re: Rosemary Ainslie circuit demonstration on Saturday March 12th 2011
Post by: powercat on March 17, 2011, 10:12:13 PM
Here is a list of circuit test videos on YouTube, some are from members on this forum
http://www.youtube.com/results?search_type=videos&search_query=Rosemary+Ainslie+circuit&search_sort=video_date_uploaded&suggested_categories=28&uni=3 (http://www.youtube.com/results?search_type=videos&search_query=Rosemary+Ainslie+circuit&search_sort=video_date_uploaded&suggested_categories=28&uni=3)
Title: Re: Rosemary Ainslie circuit demonstration on Saturday March 12th 2011
Post by: neptune on March 17, 2011, 10:35:00 PM
Dear Rosemary [ I know you don't like @Rosemary] I have read the report on your blog .I have to say that I found it very informative .I was amazed the you could make the magic oscillation last for 2.7 MINUTES and not 2.7 seconds as I previously misread . One other thing .For that to happen , your function generator was running at6.172 millihertz .Hell . I could imitate that with 2 torch batteries and some jump leads and a stopwatch! Seriously , what I am saying is that even with my poor eyesight , I could build a mechanical pulse generator using a motor driven cam and some torch batteries And incorporate variable voltage offset.That way, it eliminates all the uncertainties of 555 timers . I also think , that almost any oscilloscope would do if its sole purpose is to look for the magic oscillation .I might well give it a go yet .
Title: Re: Rosemary Ainslie circuit demonstration on Saturday March 12th 2011
Post by: WilbyInebriated on March 18, 2011, 01:15:18 AM
@evolvingape
Hi,

I was not being facetious and suggesting that load testing was exact. What I was trying to do was formulate an approach that would indicate whether or not there was net drawdown on the battery bank as Mark so rightly pointed out. No assumptions or claims can be made at all until this issue is resolved!
i wasn't suggesting you were being facetious. i was attempting to nip in the bud a foreseen point of contention. thanks for the reply but you didn't answer my question.




@ poynt
Method to determine if the proposed alternative to measuring current has any significant effect on the wave forms and values:

Select a MEAN measurement in the scope for the CSR channel. This is equivalent to determining the average value using the RC/DVM method. Note the measurement in the scope.

Keep the scope probe attached to the CSR, and attach the RC filter and DVM as I outlined. Note the MEAN value the scope is measuring to see if it has changed. Note the CSR wave form to see if it has changed. Note the voltage reading on the DVM and compare with the scope measurement.

.99

PS. If you can find a 24-bit scope, I'd be quite happy to discuss it.  ;)
thanks poynt! and how can you be certain your scope has enough resolution to see a difference? an 8bit oscope has a crap ADC (only 256 'steps') and i've haven't even touched on the noise (from the 'front end' of the DSO) nor the fact that accuracy (most DSOs quote 3% to 5% DC accuracy) isn't even usually regarded as important for most oscilloscopes.

p.s.  it was a jest poynt... that's why i winked at you. ;) a poynted one raising the issue of exactly how scopes "scope", their inherent inadequacies (ADC converter) and how nice it would be to have something with a bit more resolution than 8, 12 or 16bit... ;)  and please ask humbooger to 'buck up' a little bit and quit being so emotional. it was a simple question i asked of him, he didn't have go all sophomoric...
Title: Re: Rosemary Ainslie circuit demonstration on Saturday March 12th 2011
Post by: poynt99 on March 18, 2011, 02:39:53 AM
https://www.techni-tool.com/content/resources/articles/Agilent-Tips-LowCurrentMeasurements.pdf
Title: Re: Rosemary Ainslie circuit demonstration on Saturday March 12th 2011
Post by: Omnibus on March 18, 2011, 03:30:42 AM
@poynt99,

It would be interesting to see Rosemary's circuit modeled in PSpice. I can't see anyone around here better than you to do that. Would you be willing to sim it? That would answer a lot of questions.
Title: Re: Rosemary Ainslie circuit demonstration on Saturday March 12th 2011
Post by: poynt99 on March 18, 2011, 04:17:30 AM
@poynt99,

It would be interesting to see Rosemary's circuit modeled in PSpice. I can't see anyone around here better than you to do that. Would you be willing to sim it? That would answer a lot of questions.

LOL.

Omnibus, I have simulated this thing to death, many many months ago! I've even tried simulating her latest, but that was before she revealed the important facts that they are using a negative offset in the Gate drive, and that they are paralleling 5 MOSFETs together.

I would have to set up a DC sweep of the offset in order to find the sweet spot where the thing bursts into self-oscillation. As I find time I will try this.

.99

PS. I just saw your other posts in your thread. I don't know what else I can offer other than what I already have.
Title: Re: Rosemary Ainslie circuit demonstration on Saturday March 12th 2011
Post by: WilbyInebriated on March 18, 2011, 04:19:49 AM
https://www.techni-tool.com/content/resources/articles/Agilent-Tips-LowCurrentMeasurements.pdf
and is this the type of probe being used?
Title: Re: Rosemary Ainslie circuit demonstration on Saturday March 12th 2011
Post by: markdansie on March 18, 2011, 04:23:27 AM
@omnibus
I actually know someone who did replicate and earlier circuit with spice and built it. The circuit perfromed exactly as the spice simulation suggested...but not as claimed. This does not apply to the current experiment..but that spice is sure good.
Mark
Title: Re: Rosemary Ainslie circuit demonstration on Saturday March 12th 2011
Post by: evolvingape on March 18, 2011, 04:26:28 AM
My apologies Wilby, I thought it was a general question and not directed at me.

I do not know why science cannot measure exactly what energy is contained in a battery. It is obviously a flaw in the understanding. I am not disputing this.

Tesla's view was that all things have electrical content. I agree with this.

I am not disputing the fact that Rosemary's approach may have some merit, I think along similar non classical lines myself in the search for truth. I find the oscillation she has discovered very interesting, however I think it to be premature to make any wild claims about it before ruling out all possible alternate causes. Indeed it is bad science, and bad engineering to do so.

The problem I have currently is that every time hard questions are asked to attempt measurements in a classical understanding they are ignored. Why ? What will those measurements show ?

Often when Rosemary does not have an answer she will resort to her “thesis”, and change the subject entirely.

Am I to understand that this thesis is finished, complete and available for viewing somewhere ? Or is it the case that the thesis is what is being presented by Rosemary in this thread ?

The issues I have with presenting the thesis in “forum chat” are the fact that Rosemary often contradicts herself from paragraph to paragraph, and post to post, so how are we to trust what she has presented here as her thesis ?

The whole business with “parasitic oscillation” demonstrated that things are in a constant state of flux with her statements. How you can possibly discount something entirely, and state it false, while updating your blog to claim it was the sole purpose of the demonstration is beyond my understanding.

I would much prefer Rosemary to write a comprehensive thesis, laying everything out, taking all the measurements possible, posting her theoretical calculations of what she expects to see as opposed to what the measurements show, some hard numbers would be nice, some full specifications would be great along with detailed operating procedures. A proper record of Rosemary's position on this matter is required for credibility.

As it stands at the moment the infinite energy claims have been made, statements that the numbers stack when there are no numbers, accurate measurements have been taken when there is no proof of this. Selective measuring of certain variables and the complete exclusion of others.

So what are we to think ?

Rosemary's work will never be accepted by me while it is based purely on self assertion that it is correct.

No claims to overunity can be made until it has been proven that more energy is coming out than is going in, whatever the cause, classical or non classical. This has not been demonstrated by the report at all.

I hope that the demonstration video when it surfaces shows us indisputable evidence that the oscillation is creating additional energy from an alternate source. Time will tell.

RM :)
Title: Re: Rosemary Ainslie circuit demonstration on Saturday March 12th 2011
Post by: WilbyInebriated on March 18, 2011, 04:26:59 AM
@omnibus
I actually know someone who did replicate and earlier circuit with spice and built it. The circuit perfromed exactly as the spice simulation suggested...but not as claimed. This does not apply to the current experiment..but that spice is sure good.
Mark
is this data available for you to present?
Title: Re: Rosemary Ainslie circuit demonstration on Saturday March 12th 2011
Post by: Omnibus on March 18, 2011, 04:27:33 AM
LOL.

Omnibus, I have simulated this thing to death, many many months ago! I've even tried simulating her latest, but that was before she revealed the important facts that they are using a negative offset in the Gate drive, and that they are paralleling 5 MOSFETs together.

I would have to set up a DC sweep of the offset in order to find the sweet spot where the thing bursts into self-oscillation. As I find time I will try this.

.99

PS. I just saw your other posts in your thread. I don't know what else I can offer other than what I already have.

Could you possibly share the PSpice files? It would be interesting to see what others will conclude. PSpice seems to offer a way to get pretty conclusive results.

As for the other results, you may see that I've included a Zener diode which cuts off half of the current within a period. This way the integral of current over time won't be zero as when the full wave is integrated and thus Pin should be voltage offset dependent.
Title: Re: Rosemary Ainslie circuit demonstration on Saturday March 12th 2011
Post by: Omnibus on March 18, 2011, 04:30:45 AM
Kapanadze's, Bedini and so forth should also be modeled to see conclusively what we're looking at. Otherwise it will go on for years and because the people here overwhelmingly are underfunded, the racket will continue indefinitely.
Title: Re: Rosemary Ainslie circuit demonstration on Saturday March 12th 2011
Post by: Rosemary Ainslie on March 18, 2011, 05:18:42 AM
Dear Rosemary [ I know you don't like @Rosemary] I have read the report on your blog .I have to say that I found it very informative .I was amazed the you could make the magic oscillation last for 2.7 MINUTES and not 2.7 seconds as I previously misread . One other thing .For that to happen , your function generator was running at6.172 millihertz .Hell . I could imitate that with 2 torch batteries and some jump leads and a stopwatch! Seriously , what I am saying is that even with my poor eyesight , I could build a mechanical pulse generator using a motor driven cam and some torch batteries And incorporate variable voltage offset.That way, it eliminates all the uncertainties of 555 timers . I also think , that almost any oscilloscope would do if its sole purpose is to look for the magic oscillation .I might well give it a go yet .

Great stuff Neptune.  Every bit helps.  Just note that there is a whole lot of iron on that resistor and it, unquestionably, adds to those gains.  We'll publish photos and videos on Monday.  Whatever else you use - try and keep a threaded rod number of sorts.  Also.  Each MOSFET has its own heat sink.  I'm not sure if this is required or not.  Otherwise it's all standard.

BTW.  I share you problem with bad eyesight.  I know something about the difficulties that result from this.  Fortunately I see very clearly when I'm about an inch away from what I'm trying to see.   ;D  That's short sighted with a vengeance. 

Kindest regards,
Rosie
Title: Re: Rosemary Ainslie circuit demonstration on Saturday March 12th 2011
Post by: Rosemary Ainslie on March 18, 2011, 05:38:59 AM
Guys - the video should be up by Monday. 

It is mentioned - all over the place that we don't give the Pout Pin numbers that you guys prefer.  There's a reason for this.  The wattage returned to the battery is that HUGE that it's almost an embarrassment.  We're still trying to reconcile this.  What the team needs is a mathematician.  If there are any out there that are interested - then PLEASE - let me know.  Somehow - in full operation mode - that power is exponentially increased.  It is not entirely resolved by factoring in inductance and impedance.  But that does help some. 

Rosemary

I should add this.  We have very high temperatures when we're in that 'booster' mode - and I suspect that we're then getting some kind of wattage reconciliation.  But the heat is that extreme and it rises that fast that we've not even managed to do a data dump.  Everything then becomes critical and we barely get the time to check that the voltage levels are still compatible with the DSO's.  Then, indeed - we're possibly getting something that correlates with our measurements.  But then too, we're talking really high wattage values.  Well in excess of the 44 watt tolerance that we know we can test - safely.  The urgency then is to disconnect.  Fast.  It's really quick and really hot.

another edit
Title: Re: Rosemary Ainslie circuit demonstration on Saturday March 12th 2011
Post by: Omnibus on March 18, 2011, 09:11:16 AM
@omnibus
I actually know someone who did replicate and earlier circuit with spice and built it. The circuit perfromed exactly as the spice simulation suggested...but not as claimed. This does not apply to the current experiment..but that spice is sure good.
Mark

Can you post the PSpice files of that simulation? I'll be waiting for @poyn99's simulation of the new schematic too. All these claims have to come to an end so that we can move to something more productive, if all turn out negative.
Title: Re: Rosemary Ainslie circuit demonstration on Saturday March 12th 2011
Post by: markdansie on March 18, 2011, 09:26:04 AM
@Omnibus
Unfortunately I do not own the data but will see if I can get permission to send it privately.
@Rosemary
I know of a maths guru who is familiar with your work. He with a friend built one of your experiments sometime ago and know what you are trying to achieve. I can put you in direct contact with them if you like.
My email is markdansie@bigpond.com
Kind Regards
Title: Re: Rosemary Ainslie circuit demonstration on Saturday March 12th 2011
Post by: poynt99 on March 18, 2011, 01:21:13 PM
and is this the type of probe being used?

No. It was simply to make a comment on the limited vertical res of oscilloscopes, and how some folks attempt to work around that limitation. In this case, for small currents.

.99
Title: Re: Rosemary Ainslie circuit demonstration on Saturday March 12th 2011
Post by: neptune on March 18, 2011, 04:59:45 PM
Hi Rosemary , your eyesight sounds no better than mine . I have only one eye that works , and last week while mending a puncture in my bike , I managed to Glue it shut! All sorted now . There was a a couple of things you said in your last reply that I did not understand . You said "there is a whole lot of iron on that resistor ." I take it you mean the load resistor , but I thought it was nickle chromium wire on a glass or ceramic core . Are you now saying it has an iron core? Also , not sure what you meant by "try to keep a threaded rod of sorts " Please tell me if and when you have time . Looking forward to the video on Monday , or whenever .
           Just a small point from the demo report on your blog .At the lowest driver frequency , you talk about the gate being Negative for 2.7 minutes . If we assume a low duty cycle of , say ,10% on , that means the actual switching frequency is one cycle every2.97 minutes .I know that you said that the effect is not frequency dependent but , boy , is that slow!
Title: Re: Rosemary Ainslie circuit demonstration on Saturday March 12th 2011
Post by: Rosemary Ainslie on March 18, 2011, 06:56:29 PM
Hi Rosemary , your eyesight sounds no better than mine . I have only one eye that works , and last week while mending a puncture in my bike , I managed to Glue it shut! All sorted now . There was a a couple of things you said in your last reply that I did not understand . You said "there is a whole lot of iron on that resistor ." I take it you mean the load resistor , but I thought it was nickle chromium wire on a glass or ceramic core . Are you now saying it has an iron core? Also , not sure what you meant by "try to keep a threaded rod of sorts " Please tell me if and when you have time . Looking forward to the video on Monday , or whenever .
           Just a small point from the demo report on your blog .At the lowest driver frequency , you talk about the gate being Negative for 2.7 minutes . If we assume a low duty cycle of , say ,10% on , that means the actual switching frequency is one cycle every2.97 minutes .I know that you said that the effect is not frequency dependent but , boy , is that slow!

Hi Neptune.  We have a standard immersion heater type element.  I'll try and get a photo of this from my early shots.  The wire is threaded inside the rod. 

Regarding the frequency.  We have some variation when we go into 'heavy duty mode' with the frequency.  But that zero discharge number from the batteries - that is as steady as a rock at just about any and every frequency.  We took it to its slowest possible to test this.  And yes - it oscillates without any evident variation for 3 minutes.  I agree.  It's wierd. 

Kindest
Rosemary
Title: Re: Rosemary Ainslie circuit demonstration on Saturday March 12th 2011
Post by: happyfunball on March 18, 2011, 08:05:37 PM
I don't get why this hasn't simply been continuously looped as proof positive of it's validity if there is so much supposedly going back to the batteries
Title: Re: Rosemary Ainslie circuit demonstration on Saturday March 12th 2011
Post by: neptune on March 18, 2011, 09:16:51 PM
Hi Rosemary , and thanks for the reply and the picture . Would you believe I had actually seen that picture before and forgotten about it ! I think they call it "having a senior moment. " @happyfunball . By feeding power back to the battery , is it not therefore looped already ?
Title: Re: Rosemary Ainslie circuit demonstration on Saturday March 12th 2011
Post by: happyfunball on March 18, 2011, 10:05:32 PM
@happyfunball . By feeding power back to the battery , is it not therefore looped already ?

Then why does it not run continuously?
Title: Re: Rosemary Ainslie circuit demonstration on Saturday March 12th 2011
Post by: Rosemary Ainslie on March 19, 2011, 06:03:54 AM
Every single one of these inventions to date have produced absolutely nothing publicly. Zero, nada. They're always coming to market 'very soon' and never heard of again. Every single one of them.... None of them powering anything in the real world as far as I know. Now we have a 'cold fusion' power plant supposedly being built. Don't hold your breath. Gets tiring after a while. The only benefit I have seen in this quest is some interesting research revolving around resonance (Joule Ringer) which seem to have real world applications, although I've yet to see it being used practically by anyone. What happened to Bedini's 'ferris wheel?' Looked impressive, what is it powering? Anything, anywhere?

Happy

happyfunball.  Another gross misnomer.  LOL Your posts read like the prophets of doom. I've just trailed through a page of them.  Your denial of OU is somewhat brutal.  They're about as inspirational as as a tall glass of tepid tap water.   And you're wrong of course.   Measurements are given all over the place.  It's just when the stack up to contradict what you clearly require - then they're ignored - or considered fallacious.

Just to fill you in here I'll say this again.  When BP (SA)  evaluated these results - some decade ago - they insisted that it would ONLY be proved on batteries.  I was involved in a series of the most boring tests that I have ever been involved with.  All the more arduous as I am - absolutely not - an experimentalist.  I won't here go into the protocols.  But it required close testing of controls against the experiment and run concurrently.    The timing of those batteries was determined like this.  When either one of those supply banks depeleted their PD from 24 v's to 20 volts or when each battery depeleted from 12 to 10  - then the tests were terminated.  That constituted the 'test period'.  What was evidenced is that the controls were entirely 'flat' when the test had barely lost a fraction of a volt.  On the strength of these results PB (SA) allowed us to use their names as accreditors of that early test.  Those early tests are on record as showing a COP>17.  In effect we proved that the test batteries outlasted its watt hour rating against the control.

Now.  When it came to giving a published report on those definitive tests - the PUBLISHER refused to allow ANY REFERENCE TO THE CONTROL.  The publication was a technical journal.  The editor was advised by an electrical engineering academic.  They determined - regardless of my protests - that any reference to battery duration was entirely IRRELEVANT to the argument.  Therefore was I not allowed to reference batteries.  I ASSURE YOU - that as often as you guys state that the battery needs to be tested to it's full duration - just as often will that evidence be ignored.   Batteries vary - one from another.  Some batteries retain their charge and then collapse in moments - to nothing.  Others distribute their charge more gradually.  Others require small currents to match their ratings.  Others don't.  The electrolytes vary - one from another.  So.  If I was to test one then - for conclusive results - I'd need to test them all.

Then.  We have hooked up as many as 7 of those very large batteries in one single test -  apparently discharging nothing.  Now.  The artefact matters.  When this experiment finally gets to our academies, then equivalent and nonequivalent capacities will need to be tested.  In these tests we only used that same bank.  And we could measure absolutely zero loss over a 5 month period.  Exactly how long would it be required to run those tests?  Would it take 2 years to prove it?  10? 6 months?  What?  What exactly would satisfy you?  And how then does one run a control?  Must we SHOW that under normal operating conditions a battery will discharge?  I would have thought that that much could be relied on.  And even then.  I am ready to put money on it that while the most of you engineers require it - our learneds will, to a man, insist that the battery duration is irrelevant.    I wonder if I can state this more plainly.  They're right.  The minute you start evaluating the battery performance - then you are trying to resolve a result in line with specific commodity with a market supply that has varieties that are probably counted in their thousands if not their hundreds of thousands.  That's an awful lot of testing. 

What is intersting is this.  We have an energy returned to the supply that is far greater than the energy delivered from that supply.  Now.  Here's the thing.  If, as is widely assumed by mainstream - that energy is lost to a battery when it discharges current flow - then - by the same token one would expect the energy to be increased in line with a recharge cycle.  In point of fact the batteries voltages varied under test conditions.  The stronger the current discharge the quicker the decline.  But OF INTEREST - is that immediately thereafter it systematically climbs - within minutes - to it's previous high.  Not higher.  Perhaps there are those subsequent tests that may take it higher.  In previous tests we have certainly found a climb to a higher 'start condition'.  But in these tests we did not.  It never exceeded its 'kick off' voltage level. 

I would modestly propose  therefore, that there is a fixed amount of energy that is available from that potential difference - and that no new material - electrons or whatever classical assumption requires - has been introduced to the system.  That's interesting.  That implies that this may be a closed system. It also implies a whole lot of other things.  But for now - just consider that.  That is, if you are not 'happily' out to throw more of that tepid tap water on this research.

Rosemary
Title: Re: Rosemary Ainslie circuit demonstration on Saturday March 12th 2011
Post by: Rosemary Ainslie on March 19, 2011, 06:43:49 AM
And Happy - Guys, all,

It is a complete waste of time testing those small wattage values as this does not show depletion on that large stack of batteries.  It may make sense to test those higher wattages.  But here there's a problem.  There is clear evidence that the system is trying to output more energy than is determined by the setting at the gate.  It has OFTEN defaulted that the gate setting seems to slip higher and - in moments - we're in a crisis.  I have - in the past - set fire to sundry components.  Therefore to test this to duration would take time.  Whole days and nights of it.  And someone would need to be there to monitor that accidental 'rise' in output which - most assuredly - would be hazardous.  There simply was not the personnel available on this kind of test basis.  It was simply a 'no go' criteria for testing. 

And I keep saying this.  Feel free to do your own tests.  We've made a complete disclosure of the components required.  I may be giving some small demonstrations to experts as I've got the artefact with me.  But, otherwise, I am most certainly giving experiments a rest for now.  I've been at it for a year and a bit - AGAIN.  And, just to remind you, I really have no interest in experiment.  I am interested only in where these results point.  I just wish there were others who would share that interest.  It's where these tests are pointing that is actually of far greater interst.  On the face of it - and in terms of the measurements applied - all of which conform to classical protocols - the evidence is that there is a second energy supply source on our circuits.  Isn't that the actual reach of OU research?  Aren't we all looking for this energy?  So.  Surely this is a good thing? 

Rosemary
Title: Re: Rosemary Ainslie circuit demonstration on Saturday March 12th 2011
Post by: alexandre on March 19, 2011, 04:01:37 PM
Dear Rosemary,

I am an EE student from Brazil and I am following your last experiments. Thank you for your hard work and openess.

In answer to your last post, I would say yes, what I am seeing here is definitely a good thing. And that is people challenging boundaries.

I have also seen here good suggestions to enhance the experiment, to shed more light into what´s happening. With all respect, in my view the experiment is VERY important, it´s what is tangible for me. And I am very interested in the results.

Technically speaking now, if you allow me, I think these suggestions were good and I see no reason not to try them (experiment): much lower AH batteries, many parallel circuits, low pass filtering before DVM as a DC average measurement.

I think an important issue that has been pointed, is that you are mesuring voltage across the current sensing resistor, and considering it pure R, when in reality that element is RL.

With all respect, these suggestions can do no harm to our understanding of what´s happening, quite the contrary in my opinion.

Thank you again and god bless,
Alexandre

(Removed the suggestion about bypass capacitors, because it could make the circuit more stable, which is not desirable? And, could it be that the HF going through the lead-acid batteries is required for COP>1? In any case, I´m not satisfied and that is the reason for my posting, I hope it is constructive.)
Title: Re: Rosemary Ainslie circuit demonstration on Saturday March 12th 2011
Post by: alexandre on March 19, 2011, 04:27:47 PM
Dear Rosemary,
I would like to add this:
I really want this effect to be real extra energy, and I do hope that you succeed in all of this!
God bless  :)
Alexandre
Title: Re: Rosemary Ainslie circuit demonstration on Saturday March 12th 2011
Post by: Rosemary Ainslie on March 19, 2011, 06:13:47 PM
This is good overview reading for starters:

http://emedicine.medscape.com/article/292991-overview

It will put everything in perspective.

cheers
chrisC

Hello ChrisC.  If I am delusional I share that delusion with more than 86 others related to the witness or involvement of previous tests and to more than 30 who have been witness to or involved in these latest tests.  I also share that delusion with those at the demonstration.  And the most remarkable of all is that our video camera and our oscilloscopes are equally delusional.  Clearly this is delusion on a remarkable scale.  Unless, of course, all of us - including the camera and those DSO's - are somehow infected with a kind of contagious delusion.  I believe that is widely assumed to be the explanation for that magical Indian Rope Trick.  But our particular delusion trumps that.  They've never managed to film that trick in operation.  We have.

There is, of course, another kind of delusion.  That's when a certain kind of pathology kicks in and refuses to evaluate the evidence to hand.  That's usually associated with a kind of bigotry and closed mindedness that has absolutely nothing whatsovever to do with scientific research and considerably less with the truth.   It's a Medieval throwback that still, unfortunately, has some genetic links through to those descendants even in our own times.  It's where evolution has not so much moved forward but, in fact - devolved.  Unfortunately, one can cure most delusions.  But this particular state is entirely incurable because those poor afflicted are not aware of their afflication.  More's the pity.  What they need is some reasonable access to fair mindedness, an effective intelligence quotient and at least some rudimentary grasp of logic.  But it's denied them - on just about every level.  So.  It's probably always out of reach. 

Rosemary

edited spelling
Title: Re: Rosemary Ainslie circuit demonstration on Saturday March 12th 2011
Post by: Rosemary Ainslie on March 19, 2011, 06:24:49 PM
Thanks for your suggestions alexandre.  Your English is remarkably good. 

We have already been obliged to return the Tektronix DSO and we're to return the LeCroy in the near future.  I cannot therefore do any more tests.  All we will be able to do from here onwards is to put up the occasional demonstration for experts - as required.    But there's nothing to stop anyone else from doing this or any variation as required. 

Kind regards,
Rosemary
Title: Re: Rosemary Ainslie circuit demonstration on Saturday March 12th 2011
Post by: Rosemary Ainslie on March 19, 2011, 06:40:19 PM
I tip my hat off to you for your tenacity in your 'research' but from what I've read so far, most 'inventors' want to believe what they think they have found that no one else have found so far. I wished it was true but the reality is often misguided knowledge coupled with inaccurate measurements. That said, I do wish you well and maybe you really have discovered something worth pursuing.

I've gone to some considerable lengths to assure you all that THERE IS NOTHING NEW in what we're showing.  What we're doing is showing you an aspect of something really well known and yet its signficance has been entirely overlooked.  How often do I need to say this.  It's all really well known stuff.

Rosemary
Title: Re: Rosemary Ainslie circuit demonstration on Saturday March 12th 2011
Post by: alexandre on March 19, 2011, 06:55:10 PM
Thank you Rosemary, I have been reading and writing english for a long time.

Hopefully there will be replications and similar experiments seeking these COP>1 results. We need validation. This to me is a very worthwhile pursuit, I plan to engage in as well.

Best,
Alex
Title: Re: Rosemary Ainslie circuit demonstration on Saturday March 12th 2011
Post by: Omnibus on March 19, 2011, 07:01:47 PM
Thank you Rosemary, I have been reading and writing english for a long time.

Hopefully there will be replications and similar experiments pursuing these COP>1 results. So far I am not aware of easily repeatable, proven experimental results of COP>1. This to me is a very worthwhile pursuit, I hope to engage as well.

Best,
Alex

How come? You've probably missed these easily repeatable and proven experimental results for Pout/Pin>1 (COP is not a scientific term): http://actascientiae.org/v/comments.php?DiscussionID=9&page=1#Item_4 . These are the only results categorically demonstrating OU in electric circuits that I'm aware of.
Title: Re: Rosemary Ainslie circuit demonstration on Saturday March 12th 2011
Post by: alexandre on March 19, 2011, 07:09:39 PM
Thanks Omnibus, I am looking at it.
Best,
Alex
Title: Re: Rosemary Ainslie circuit demonstration on Saturday March 12th 2011
Post by: Rosemary Ainslie on March 19, 2011, 07:11:21 PM
(COP is not a scientific term): http://actascientiae.org/v/comments.php?DiscussionID=9&page=1#Item_4 . These are the only results categorically demonstrating OU in electric circuits that I'm aware of.

What a load of nonsense.  Here's wiki's definition of COP.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Coefficient_of_performance

And from where I stand it's ENTIRELY appropriate to our references.  Not sure how more scientific one can get.  And there's absolutely NO definition of Pin/Pout.  It's just a voguish reference to power used on some forums.  And DO NOT state that we have not shown OU Omnibus - unless you are first prepared to argue where there are measurement errors.  It seems that you will stoop to endless depths to try and bluster some kind of pretended authority.

Rosemary
Title: Re: Rosemary Ainslie circuit demonstration on Saturday March 12th 2011
Post by: MrMag on March 19, 2011, 07:52:06 PM


She is taking actual measurements on the circuit isn't she. That means a lot more then a simulation. Just because no one cares about your claims you try to put others down. And you think you are an open minded person? Grow up.
Title: Re: Rosemary Ainslie circuit demonstration on Saturday March 12th 2011
Post by: neptune on March 19, 2011, 07:58:45 PM
@Omnibus .You are falling into the old trap of thinking that just because an effect cant be simulated that it does not exist . In the words of the Amazing Randi ,absence of evidence is not evidence of absence . If we had to choose between you and Rosemary on this thread , I know where my vote would go . If you disagree with Rosemary , why not just leave her alone .
Title: Re: Rosemary Ainslie circuit demonstration on Saturday March 12th 2011
Post by: MrMag on March 19, 2011, 08:56:22 PM
@Omni,

We know. Everyone who disagrees with you is incompetent. Have you ever thought that maybe it's just you.

@Burger

Why have you been following for 10 years if you don't think there is anything to it. You should find something better to do with your time.

Title: Re: Rosemary Ainslie circuit demonstration on Saturday March 12th 2011
Post by: Feynman on March 19, 2011, 09:24:46 PM
@rosemary

I've read the postings on your blog with great interest.  Could you please provide higher-resolution versions of your scope shots?

That is, higher resolution versions of the images found in this article:
http://newlightondarkenergy.blogspot.com/2011/03/report.html (http://newlightondarkenergy.blogspot.com/2011/03/report.html)

I am interested in replication.

All the best,
Feynman
Title: Re: Rosemary Ainslie circuit demonstration on Saturday March 12th 2011
Post by: infringer on March 19, 2011, 09:30:22 PM
Mr. Mag excellent point "why follow something for 10years if you believe there is nothing to it ?"

Let us answer that question with some reasonable answers:

Confined to a wheel chair with limited movement. While life may suck indeed why do you not check out what Stephen Hawking has been able to do or watch the Documentary "Murderball" for inspiration in something you can really focus your efforts on instead of wasting your time on something you do not believe in.

Use forums as stress relief from the brutal mind bashing of daily life activities and work.  AKA Troll Why not use appropriate website like start your own blog or annoyances.org or something on that note why come here?

Educated and wish to share what I was taught to help make the world smarter. Why not start a website and give out free information in the form of lessons like justin guitar does and accept donations to help pay for your schooling.

Cause in the back of my mind lurking I truly believe it may provide a possible solution though I don't say that for fear of carrying a common label such as "crackpot". Why worry about a superficial thing like a label if anything that would be a push to prove the many wrong.

Because I am not really interested in the so called impossible overunity but instead am interested in real working alternative energy progress, even so why would I read overunity claims .


Any point that one could make would be moot in my eyes you have to have some childish belief in this type of thing to follow it for so many years or a belief in the possibility of this to follow it for 10 years you must be at least a hopeful of some sort.
Title: Re: Rosemary Ainslie circuit demonstration on Saturday March 12th 2011
Post by: WilbyInebriated on March 19, 2011, 10:48:13 PM
No, there's no clear cut evidence you've shown anything unusual. One way to demonstrate it is to show a PSpice simulation proving it. @poyn99 tells me he has seen no OU in your schematic in a PSpice sim but I'm still open minded. Also, try not to foist on the public here Wikipedia definitions. Show a paper from a peer-reviewed physics or chemistry journal where COP is used at all.
pspice is not proof of anything... ::) for the love of zeus omni, you blather about science all the time yet have no idea what constitutes a proof. one person simulating a circuit is NOT proof ::)
Title: Re: Rosemary Ainslie circuit demonstration on Saturday March 12th 2011
Post by: hartiberlin on March 20, 2011, 02:58:51 AM
@evolvinggape
"Erm... no, the replacement of Batteries with Caps is not irrelevant at all. Batteries have a stored potential, Caps have an applied potential. Caps would very quickly show whether your circuit is running down or not and consuming power. 6 car Batteries would hide this extremely well even over lengthy testing periods."

So well put. This has been the failing of many experiments. I have even seen others even fool themselves when using a power supply. That's why many people I know prefer to use caps.
Mark

Yes, but sometimes these things just only work when using lead acid or NiMh batteries
as is the case with pulsed battery boosters like Bedini or Newman or Joule Thief style circuits.

Caps just don´t work here cause they don´t have the right electrons-ions in them...

Regards, Stefan.
Title: Re: Rosemary Ainslie circuit demonstration on Saturday March 12th 2011
Post by: markdansie on March 20, 2011, 03:51:25 AM
O dear
for the first time ever I have been out under the moderators control.
Well I guess thats the way it has to go
Bye everyone
Kind Regards
'Mark
Title: Re: Rosemary Ainslie circuit demonstration on Saturday March 12th 2011
Post by: markdansie on March 20, 2011, 04:02:48 AM
One thing I always admired about this forum was even when under fire from the zealots (remember Mylow punch up) free speech and the right to allow reason to have a voice was supported. Other forums (especially Sterling's) relied on heavy censorship.
And now we have by far the majority of contributors challenging methodologies used by Rosie and next thing before we know it censorship. There is no room for censorship in scientific debate.
I have tried to use some subtle humor, but was never abusive which is more than I can say for Rosie. Anyone who questions anything gets a spray.
I respect and value all opinions but may not always agree with them.
It is highly unlikely this will get through...the new world order is here already. LOL
Well in the scheme of things WTF.
I guess my real concern is "who else is being sensored?"
Kind Regards
Mark
Title: Re: Rosemary Ainslie circuit demonstration on Saturday March 12th 2011
Post by: hartiberlin on March 20, 2011, 04:19:10 AM
Okay, I just read the whole thread now and looked deeper into the
new Rosemary circuit.

As I did see already the picture of her setup about a month ago
I also still have some issues with it.

The issues I see are missing notes:
1. Rosemary,
was the ciurcuit  also run without connecting the scope
and just connecting the function generator ?

I earlier pointed out that ground loop
currents of the scopes and the function generator can add up
and extract some power via the grounding of the different devices.

As the circuit goes into selfrunning oscillation at around 1.5 Mhz
due to the parasitric LC components of the circuits, it could
be that it also extracts power via the groundloop currents, if these
exist there simular to the Kapanadze devices.

So please disconnect the scopes and also disconnect the ground
connector from your function generator and see, if you still
have this high 40 Watts heat output in the load resistor.


2. The circuit just oscillates when it has a negative bias at the gates,
so it would be easy just to use a battery with a voltge divider pot to
control the necessary voltage for it.
Then you would not need anymore the function generator and can see,
if it will also oscillate with the right negative bias voltage at the gates
and have this high 40 Watts heat output at the load heating resistor.

3. Rosemary, please post a PDF File or
at least higher Res screen shots of the scope shots,
otherwise we can not analyze the waveforms.

4. A simulation is just wasted time as it would not include
anomalous effects, so just forget it.

5.  Battery operated could be the only way it could work,
cause battery chemistry behaves totally different than normal power
supplies as is also seen in Bedini devices, where the OU energy seems
to come inside the batteries as the ions just move so slow...

6. Was the scope set to DC or AC in the input as you scoped
the voltage  on the batteries  ?

This is pretty important.

7. Was the scope set to DC or AC in the input as you scoped
the voltage  on the gates  ?


This circuit is simular to a Newman coil circuit running just at higher frequencies
and at lower inductances.
The MOSFETs with their included zener diodes can just
feed the BackEMF spikes back to the battery.

Now and the difference between 6 and 40 Watts heat should be easily measureable just by using
heated water calorimetrically.

Regards, Stefan.

P.S: I cleaned this thread up and deleted some offtopic messages and flame war messages...
Please stay ontopic. Thanks.
Title: Re: Rosemary Ainslie circuit demonstration on Saturday March 12th 2011
Post by: hartiberlin on March 20, 2011, 04:35:54 AM
Here is the picture of the setup that she already posted in a small size.

Regards, Stefan.
Title: Re: Rosemary Ainslie circuit demonstration on Saturday March 12th 2011
Post by: hartiberlin on March 20, 2011, 04:42:30 AM
P.S: What kind of function generator was used ?

This was not specified in the report.

Thanks.
Title: Re: Rosemary Ainslie circuit demonstration on Saturday March 12th 2011
Post by: Feynman on March 20, 2011, 04:57:05 AM
@stefan

I think Mark's criticisms in this thread  were valid , so if some of his posts were deleted while you cleaned up the flame war , I think they should be restored.

My 2c anyway.
Title: Re: Rosemary Ainslie circuit demonstration on Saturday March 12th 2011
Post by: hartiberlin on March 20, 2011, 05:00:47 AM
I left the valid ones in there.

Regards, Stefan.
Title: Re: Rosemary Ainslie circuit demonstration on Saturday March 12th 2011
Post by: hartiberlin on March 20, 2011, 05:02:39 AM
    Show a paper from a peer-reviewed physics or chemistry journal where COP is used at all.
    -Omnibus


Quote

    Performance of Cogeneration System Incorporating Gas Engine Driven Heat Pump

    Challenges of Power Engineering and Environment
    2007, 2, 61-63, DOI: 10.1007/978-3-540-76694-0_10
    Abstract
    Cogeneration systems have a large potential for energy saving, especially when they simultaneously produce heat, cold and power as useful energy flows. Various cogeneration systems for combined heat, cold and power production are designed mainly incorporating absorption heat pumps. But compression heat pumps always have higher coefficient of performance than that of the absorption heat pumps. Gas engine-driven heat pump is the compression heat pump driven by gas engine. Cogeneration system associated with gas engine-driven heat pump will have higher efficiency. Detail thermodynamic analyses of such cogeneration system are processed. For a specific building, result of the energy consumption shows that the primary energy ratio of such system is 1.49, which is higher than that of the conventional separated production system.
    http://www.springerlink.com/content/m8442q14646q3077/

Please stay ontopic.
This has nothing to do with this thread.
Thanks.
Title: Re: Rosemary Ainslie circuit demonstration on Saturday March 12th 2011
Post by: chrisC on March 20, 2011, 05:04:00 AM
@stefan

I think Mark's criticisms in this thread  were valid , so if some of his posts were deleted while you cleaned up the flame war , I think they should be restored.

My 2c anyway.

@Stefan
I don't think MarkD was ever a troublemaker. He just spoke the honest truth and has always been a gentleman, polite in many ways. Please consider to reinstate him. Thank you.

ChrisC
Title: Re: Rosemary Ainslie circuit demonstration on Saturday March 12th 2011
Post by: hartiberlin on March 20, 2011, 05:06:45 AM
There are now some people on moderation and
I decide, if their postings go through or are deleted.

This is due to the facts that now more and more paid
"twisters" are coming onto this forum,
who want to suppress free energy
as there are now viable solutions.


I did not delete all their postings, just the ones
being rude, offtopic or twisting the known facts.

Regards, Stefan.
Title: Re: Rosemary Ainslie circuit demonstration on Saturday March 12th 2011
Post by: Rosemary Ainslie on March 20, 2011, 05:55:15 AM
Guys - it seems that we're being moderated - and none too soon.  Thank you.  It is no accident that this technology of ours has been flamed from the get go.  The worst of it is that - until this last thread - I've been obliged to deal with it more or less alone.  There is not one of you who seriously considered that the results were valid.  And why should you?  The denial was absolute.  Or the allegations against my good name were wild and comprehensive.  The one that gets me the most is Poynt's last statement that I'm some sort of Idiot Savant. 

Anyway - clearly that's all changing.  Thank you God.  And, possibly more to the point - thank you Steve.

I took time out last night to read PESwiki.  There's a thing in there where some guys from NASA are prepared to replicate motors that claim OU results.  I sent them the following email.

Dear Michael,

It's not a motor - but we'd be glad of some replication of the attached test - by Ken and/or Mike.  Let me know if you need more information.

Regards

From the team
Rosemary Ainslie


I attached our pdf and look forward to some reply.  I'll also post this challenge on my blog lest it be overlooked.

Meanwhile I'll get back to those posts here that still need answers.

Kindest and many, many thanks to those who spoke out in support.  Much needed. 

Rosie
Title: Re: Rosemary Ainslie circuit demonstration on Saturday March 12th 2011
Post by: Magluvin on March 20, 2011, 06:22:37 AM
Sorry for my outburst earlier Rose.  Just felt the need. And just got done watching Death Wish II.  ;] 

Do you have a link from peswiki?  =]

Hope things go better for you here now. ;]

Mags
Title: Re: Rosemary Ainslie circuit demonstration on Saturday March 12th 2011
Post by: Rosemary Ainslie on March 20, 2011, 07:01:36 AM
The issues I see are missing notes:
1. Rosemary
was the ciurcuit  also run without connecting the scope and just connecting the function generator?

I earlier pointed out that ground loop currents of the scopes and the function generator can add up and extract some power via the grounding of the different devices.

As the circuit goes into selfrunning oscillation at around 1.5 Mhz due to the parasitric LC components of the circuits, it could be that it also extracts power via the groundloop currents, if these exist there simular to the Kapanadze devices.

So please disconnect the scopes and also disconnect the ground connector from your function generator and see, if you still have this high 40 Watts heat output in the load resistor.
Only one such test.  It was set at the zero discharge - low wattage dissipation number.  I started the test at 11.30 am and came back that night - or early morning rather -  at 1.30.  The same level of heat was still measured over the resistor - but no data logger - so can't tell you what happened in the interim.  You must please understand this Steven.  That gate setting is 'brittle'.  It has a tendancy to 'slip' higher - and I'm forever in a panic that all will go up in flames.  So.  With any unsupervised testing I'm rather untenably anxious.  We disconnected the scopes only because it won't tolerate those high voltages when and if it defaults into heavy duty mode.  So the short answer is - NO - we have not tested higher wattages without the scope.  Nor dare we.  That gate voltage is a really critical reference at high wattages.  And yes we've tested this at lower wattages.

Of interest is that over that 14 hour test or thereby - there was a measurable 0.01 volt drop.  Not inconsiderable considering the HUGE capacities of those batteries.  But not that atypical either.  Because the DMM used as a reference - does not show the same voltages that the scope reads - and when we linked the scope it showed an increase.  Frankly I dont think those battery voltages are relevant during the testing.  They climb and fall continuously.  It's only relevant at the end of the tests when the test apparatus is disconnected.  Then they show their 'kick off' levels.  This has never varied.

I was categorically assured by our advisors that there was NO problem related to grounding.  Not sure of the argument but will ask them to elaborate.  What I do know is that the DSO's are two pinned and therefore - it's not an issue.  The functions generator - three pinned.  BTW you asked for the make.  It's an ISOTECH GFG - 8216a - 50 Ohms at the output.  Our plug outputs are all at 220 volts AC.  In any event.  I'll ask about the grounding issue - on Monday and get back here.  I should have gone into this more thoroughly before.

2. The circuit just oscillates when it has a negative bias at the gates, so it would be easy just to use a battery with a voltge divider pot to control the necessary voltage for it. Then you would not need anymore the function generator and can see, if it will also oscillate with the right negative bias voltage at the gates and have this high 40 Watts heat output at the load heating resistor.
Indeed.  There is also another variation of the circuit which is theoretically evident.  I'll try and get a sketch of this posted here.  There are many ways of skinning this cat.  Neptune's already mentioned this.  And the more that are put on offer here in this forum - the better.  Think Open Source guys.  There's all kinds of competing interests.  And I think we need make everything as public as is possible.

3.Rosemary, please post a PDF File or at least higher Res screen shots of the scope shots,otherwise we cannot analyze the waveforms.
Indeed.  Never realised this was a problem.  When I've finished here I'll give it a go.  If I can't there are those on the team who can.

4. A simulation is just wasted time as it would not include anomalous effects, so just forget it.
At last.  Someone speaking sense.  Donny did his own replication with a faithful inclusion of all components and he included the measured inductances - even on the wires.  There is nothing in classical protocols that can manage these results so WHY does anyone assume it can be simulated?  Has anyone picked up yet that there's more inductance on our wire than on the resistor element?  That's a lot of wire.  But clearly it adds to the effect.

5.  Battery operated could be the only way it could work, cause battery chemistry behaves totally different than normal power supplies as is also seen in Bedini devices, where the OU energy seems
to come inside the batteries as the ions just move so slow...
I entirely agree but possibly for different reasons. 

6. Was the scope set to DC or AC in the input as you scoped the voltage  on the batteries ?

This is pretty important.
Of course it's important.  And yes.  Across the shunt and batteries then the scope was set at DC ALWAYS.  Golly.  It seems that you guys have absolutely no confidence in our expertise.  Mine you're well advised to doubt.  But that's where it should end. 

This circuit is similar to a Newman coil circuit running just at higher frequencies and at lower inductances.  The MOSFETs with their included zener diodes can just feed the BackEMF spikes back to the battery.
That has been the intention from our very earliest tests.  This has never varied.  I don't know about the Newman coil but if that's what it does then there's got to be an advantage.

Now and the difference between 6 and 40 Watts heat should be easily measureable just by using
heated water calorimetrically.
It can also be measured in air.  The advantage to using water is that it can give the total output more reliably.  But we didn't need this to be too accurate.  We were - evidently - discharging nothing from the batteries.  What we did do - unfortunately - was buckle that plastic - and it is IMPOSSIBLE to even touch the resistor at 100 degrees, let alone the 200 degrees and upwards that we've measured.  As have some of the team learned to their cost.  LOL

Thanks again,
Regards,
Rosemary
Title: Re: Rosemary Ainslie circuit demonstration on Saturday March 12th 2011
Post by: cHeeseburger on March 20, 2011, 08:08:00 AM
It is clear that Stefan has the right and the might to heavily moderate this forum and I respect that.  Whether I think his judgements are fair or not is not important and I appreciate that he left intact seven of my fifteen posts.  I assume that was because they were on-subject, without insult and quoted in other posts anyway.  Thank you Stefan for leaving at least some of my comments and suggestions.

Apparently, at least Mark Dansie and I are on "heavy moderation" at this time and Stefan has suggested that someone (I assume he means me) is a paid detractor sent by big oil or the MIB to destroy Rosemary's progress.  That is simply not true, I can assure you.  However, each of us has a right to hold and express our opinion; especially Stefan, as it is his blood sweat and finances that have built this forum.

That said, I will not be posting here again because I do not feel that my comments are welcome, despite their often acute and timely relevance.  As my final post here, I would ask and hope that Stefan have the sense of fairness and good sportsmanship to clear this for posting.

For anyone who is interested, I have tonight published a very revealing set of simulations under the Rosemary Ainslie thread at OUR forum.  I have discovered a couple of things that may be of interest even to those of you who put no faith in simulations.

First, the Ainslie circuit with five MOSFETs models quite easily and shows exactly the same waveforms and performance that Rosemary shows in her lengthy series of 'scope shots on her blogs when all of the various wiring inductances are included.  This indicates strongly that all circuit behaviors she has pointed out and shown are entirely explainable using only classical circuit models.

Second, I have shown that one single input step-function pulse of 1 microsecond duration will set the circuit into continuous oscillation.  Simply setting a tuned DC bias at the gate may or may not set the circuit into oscillation, but a single sharp transition past the threshold definitely does when the gate is subsequently held at zero or negative DC.

There are no ground currents involved.  The circuit oscillates continuously at between 1 and 1.4 MHz, depending on specific MOSFET types and inductance values in the range consistent with the wire lengths and load inductances as stated by Rosemary.

I think these facts and the ability in the simulation to probe inside the RL lumped components (the shunt, the load and the battery stack) to look at the waveforms as they exist across just the battery, just the resitive parts of the load and just the resistive part of the shunt to see the true current and voltages there are useful to anyone planning to replicate and or simulate the circuit for further study.

I will be doing some more sims to include actual measurements of the load heating power and the battery input power in the near future.  If these tests show anything like or close to overunity, I will proceed to an actual hardware replication to verify the results.  This work will be shown at OUR exclusively unless Stefan invites me to also show it here.

Thank you for your consideration of these sincere efforts to gain a fuller understanding of this circuit and its performance.  So far, the model tracks and agrees very well with all of what Rosemary has reported based on her waveform analysis.

Of final and very significant interest is the fact that the waveforms representing the shunt voltage change dramatically when measured to include or exclude the omnipresent inductance of the physical shunt. 

Yes, as Rose has reported. it appears that the current waveform has nearly identical areas above and below zero when the shunt inductance is allowed in the measurement and that the apparent current levels are many times higher than those measured across the purely resistive portion of the shunt impedance. 

However, when we look only across the true resistive portion of the shunt (leaving the inductance in the circuit so that operation is unaffected), it becomes clear that the real area under the current waveform is quite a bit larger above zero (coming out of the battery) than the current being returned.

cHeeseburger



Title: Re: Rosemary Ainslie circuit demonstration on Saturday March 12th 2011
Post by: Rosemary Ainslie on March 20, 2011, 08:45:31 AM
Guys a quick word here.  I challenge anyone to do a simulation where the phase angles are at precisely 180 degrees.  If they are not precise then, as day follows night - they'll ring and cancel out at zero.  At 180 degrees they'll reinforce each other.

What intrigues me is this.  I've been called delinquent - ignorant - presumptuous - pretentious - deluded - self-serving - deceptive - optimistic - fanciful - manipulative.  Name it.  It's there.  In fact I've also been called an IDIOT SAVANT.  Poynty?  I have a really functional intelligence quotient.  Surely that much is evident?  And right now Hamburger is throwing a hissy fit with MileHigh as his praise singer.  So what?  What if I am all of those things?  What has it got to do with the issue at hand?  We are only showing results.  And those results are hugely promising.  But they unquestionably need research.  We're all, on our team - ONLY anxious that this get researched.  If any out there need to take the credit - FEEL FREE.  Just DON'T try and patent it.  I'll contest that to my dying breath and with my last cent.

Kindest as ever,
Rosemary
Title: Re: Rosemary Ainslie circuit demonstration on Saturday March 12th 2011
Post by: Feynman on March 20, 2011, 09:05:00 AM
The possibility that the heating element is being powered exclusively by the battery needs to be excluded.  Measuring the input energy via  the four scope traces will establish some degree of confidence in this, so I look forward to a higher resolution of the scope traces to calculate AUC.

Another point:
Quote
When this is applied to each sample from a spreadsheet analysis across the 500 000 to 1 million samples supplied by the digital storage oscilloscopes, then the product of this and the battery voltage represents the instantaneous wattage. The sum of these values, divided by the number of samples, represents the average wattage delivered over the entire sample range.
-Section 3.2, report on the tests for the demo held today

Quote
...This is confirmed by detailed analysis of data downloads to spreadsheets...
-Section 4.6, report on the tests for the demo held today


These spreadsheets are important. In the interest of replication and characterization of what you are observing, it would be helpful if all the relavent source data (including raw spreadsheet data) were to be published.  The process of 'peer review' in an open-source community manner requires full disclosure, including source spreadsheets of observations. 

Quote
At these slowest switching speeds, at 6.172 mHz, and during that burst oscillation mode period where the frequency is measured at close to 1.5 MHz, the battery supply source is seen to recharge.
-Section 4.4


The claim of the battery recharging needs to have the support of experimental observations, results of repeated trials, raw data etc.  Spreadsheets, experimental notes, and/or Video would help. 

I remember you have mentioned you don't want to bother with battery tests and load tests etc.  I understand this can be time-consuming , but this part is critical.   The batteries are still connected.   They are a possible source of the power to the heating element.  They must be excluded as the power source in order to confirm an anomaly.

The voltage data of the battery and the temperature of the heating element over repeated experimental trials that forms the basis in claim 4.4 need to be published if this effect is to be analyzed and/or replicated.     This include not just a single scope trace, but multiple experimental trials and results  (starting voltage, voltage as a function of time, and ending voltage for all anomalous experimental trials) as compared to the behaviour of the heating element..

For example, as mentioned previously, someone pointed out that there is a chart for the 'control' results, but there is no such chart for the 'experimental/anomalous' results  (besides scope traces which are too low a resolution).  A chart measuring input voltage, input current, ambient air temp, and temp at load needs to be published for 'anomalous' operation.

Further photographs and/or video of the setup would be helpful.

 I believe overunity exists, is possible, and there are working configurations (for example , HHO can power a generator in closed-loop operation).

I would be pleased if this circuit is overunity, but we need more information to proceed. In the absense of self-running operation (closed loop) there is a higher standard of proof, and we must meet the requirements for open-sourcing of all data  in order to have a viable , replicable free-energy system.

This open-sourcing of all available experimental data (including raw data , spreadsheets, photographs, video, and lab notes) should apply to all potential methods and results. I look forward to the open-sourcing of more experimental details.

Best Wishes,
Feynman
Title: Re: Rosemary Ainslie circuit demonstration on Saturday March 12th 2011
Post by: Rosemary Ainslie on March 20, 2011, 09:14:05 AM
Feynman - I'm trying to get those scope resolutions posted.  It takes me forever.  Bear with me.  And then, indeed, I'll attend to your every comment.  It's just so nice to deal with ISSUES related to the test.  I assure you you'll have my undivided attention and where possible, co-operation.

Thanks for your inputs.  Just so nice to deal with this level of criticism.  I'll get back here during the day.  But right now I'm plodding through the files to get the right pictures so that you can reference them.  I'm absolutely not quite the quickest on the block.  I think I'm going to have to bug some of the team to sort this out for me.  But I'll first try it myself. 

Are you in SA?  Can you please email me.  I'll see what we can do to download those spreadsheets.  They're HUGE.  I know I can't sent them by email.  I've tried.  There must be some alternative.  My email address is ainslie@mweb.co.za

Thanks Feynman.  LOVE THE NAME.  He's the first guy who learned how to explain particle interactions diagrammatically.  What a genius.

Kindest regards
Rosemary
Title: Re: Rosemary Ainslie circuit demonstration on Saturday March 12th 2011
Post by: powercat on March 20, 2011, 01:22:13 PM

I took time out last night to read PESwiki.  There's a thing in there where some guys from NASA are prepared to replicate motors that claim OU results.  I sent them the following email.

Dear Michael,

It's not a motor - but we'd be glad of some replication of the attached test - by Ken and/or Mike.  Let me know if you need more information.

Regards

From the team
Rosemary Ainslie



Hi Rosie
The only place I can think where he got the motor idea is TK's video.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4x0wQJrc9To (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4x0wQJrc9To)

Congratulations it's been a week since the demonstration and you have virtually 10,000 readers on your thread,that's a lot of people looking every day ;D
looking forward to the video on Monday.
All the very best.
cat

Title: Re: Rosemary Ainslie circuit demonstration on Saturday March 12th 2011
Post by: evolvingape on March 20, 2011, 03:13:31 PM
@evolvinggape
"Erm... no, the replacement of Batteries with Caps is not irrelevant at all. Batteries have a stored potential, Caps have an applied potential. Caps would very quickly show whether your circuit is running down or not and consuming power. 6 car Batteries would hide this extremely well even over lengthy testing periods."

So well put. This has been the failing of many experiments. I have even seen others even fool themselves when using a power supply. That's why many people I know prefer to use caps.
Mark

Yes, but sometimes these things just only work when using lead acid or NiMh batteries
as is the case with pulsed battery boosters like Bedini or Newman or Joule Thief style circuits.

Caps just don´t work here cause they don´t have the right electrons-ions in them...

Regards, Stefan.

Hi Stefan,

A simple substitution of Caps for Batteries will conclusively show whether the anomaly is reliant on the chemical properties of the Battery Cells. We cannot know this until it has been evaluated, we can only assume that Caps will not work. I believe this would be an important simple test to confirm the anomaly is present only in chemical cells.

RM :)
Title: Re: Rosemary Ainslie circuit demonstration on Saturday March 12th 2011
Post by: neptune on March 20, 2011, 03:45:34 PM
Its great we are talking technology again instead of flame wars .I apologise for any small part I may have played in this , I usually pride myself on not rising to the bait .And thanks Rosemary for acknowledging that I was the first to suggest biasing the gate with a battery . I know that I walk among giants on here ,so its good to know I can make a small contribution .
           On a more serious note . Given the bias battery , the whole circuit is mega simple . Maybe we should now look at it as a simple radio frequency oscillator [with special effects] .An oscillator has been defined as an amplifier that feeds its own input .To work , an oscillator needs two things . An amplifying device [the mosfet] and a feedback path .We need to fully understand this feedback path/mechanism in order to make the oscillation controllable and reliable . As Rose suggests , the wiring may play a [huge] part in this . Since most RF oscillators are not overunity ,we need to identify what is different here . I think it may be the use of a power mosfet operating at higher voltages than would normally be used in an oscillator .Also looking at the photo of the latest apparatus in Hartiberlins post ,there appears to be only ONE mosfet . Rosemary , can you please confirm this ? A final thought .When the circuit oscillates at 1.5 Mhz you would hear it on a medium wave AM radio .Also , If I was building a RF oscillator for 1.5 Mhz , the coil would have probably 100 turns on a ferrite rod . MUCH more inducatance than Rosemarys heater .As the circuit stands , I would expect it to oscillate at about 100Mhz plus or minus 50% .
Title: Re: Rosemary Ainslie circuit demonstration on Saturday March 12th 2011
Post by: Rosemary Ainslie on March 20, 2011, 05:16:56 PM
Sorry all - especially Feynman.  Those waveform downloads defeated me.  One of the team is sorting it out.  Hopefully I'll be able to post it across later tonight.

Neptune and Magluvin - there's nothing to apologise for.  Personally I'm delighted to see some kind of resistance.  I'm intrigued that this technology has been hounded at all.  And it seems that the latest affront is that I DARE to suggest any revision to the status quo.  Hamburger has gone on record as having coached Bill Gates in their formative years.  That was when his nascent genius was rampant.  Golly.  It seems one may not, under any circumstances, confront classical theory unless there's some evidence of this brilliance.  And therein lies the problem.  I have none.  That's the truth.  Very much your Mrs average.  So Neptune - if you're walking with Giants then I'm absolutely not in that party.  I'm only walking a few steps behind you.

It's a wonder that our quantum physicists ever survived their own attack in those early days.  It's some kind of vicarious comfort to know that even Heisenberg was laughed off the stage.  And also a comfort to know that he and Bohr had a hard time of it promoting quantum physics in the early days.  LOL.  Not that I'm in the same class.  My own proposals are WAY more revisionary.   :o

What really raises the smile is that Poynty has assured me that any reference to being an IDIOT SAVANT - has nothing to do with me.  In fact it appears that I'm rather presumptuous in assuming that my IQ could even be classed as IDIOT.  Golly.  I think the next step down is MORON - if I remember my phychology 1 lectures correctly.  It seems that I'm hopelessly dysfunctional as well as delusional.   What can I say?  And when I see how hopeless I am in finding my way around a computer - then I'm actually inclined to agree.

Anyway - onward and upward.  It's all in the public domain.  Not sure that the readership is quite as high as Cat's count - but it's robust.  Which means the news is spreading.  And that's all we care about - at this end of Africa.  Many thanks for the good wishes Cat.  I'm enjoying a rare sense of freedom from attack - but I'm still braced.  It's nowhere near finished yet.

Kindest regards,
Rosie
 ;D
Title: Re: Rosemary Ainslie circuit demonstration on Saturday March 12th 2011
Post by: Pirate88179 on March 20, 2011, 05:20:26 PM
Way to go Rose.

Bill
Title: Re: Rosemary Ainslie circuit demonstration on Saturday March 12th 2011
Post by: Rosemary Ainslie on March 20, 2011, 05:27:11 PM
Way to go Rose.

Bill

 ;D
Title: Re: Rosemary Ainslie circuit demonstration on Saturday March 12th 2011
Post by: Rosemary Ainslie on March 20, 2011, 05:46:12 PM
Guys - Here it is.  Thanks to Evan.  Not sure of the order of that upload.  I'll comment when I see if they've got up OK.  I've added some that aren't in the report. 

OK 1st 2nd 3rd and 4th.  All showing zero discharge from the battery and wattage dissipated at plus/minus 6 watts.  Did a whole lot to show that it's not frequency dependent.

5th and 6th - runaway temps - not less than 44 watts.

Channel 1 - shunt
channel 2 - battery
channel 3 - gate
channel 4 - drain

Math trace usually shown on D.

Just noticed that the math trace on those heavy duty numbers - are shown on B - I think.  Just keep in mind that the 'red' is calculated as the instantaneous product of the voltages across the shunt and the battery.

EDITED.

Another edit.  Apparently the video will be ready tomorrow.  I'll attend to Feynman's questions later tonight - else tomorrow after lunch. 

Thanks guys.
Title: Re: Rosemary Ainslie circuit demonstration on Saturday March 12th 2011
Post by: markdansie on March 20, 2011, 07:55:06 PM
Just another question
can you describe the methodology in detail of calculating the heat generated. If I understand correct you use air rather than a fluid
Kind Regards
Mark
Title: Re: Rosemary Ainslie circuit demonstration on Saturday March 12th 2011
Post by: Magluvin on March 20, 2011, 08:03:30 PM
Hey Rose

Just something I had discovered a while back and wanted to know if you think on the same lines.

We hear a lot of talk on BEMF or Counter EMF.   
Well what I have seen is, if you apply current to an inductor then release the current, you can capture a continued current from the inductor before it goes bemf.  I call it FEMF. =]
In a lot of literature, it is said that the field collapse is what creates or generates bemf.
But from my experiments, I find that the collapse, from an induced field, produces current in the same direction as the current that induced the field initially. Only when the field collapses and then goes reverse, NS to SN, by bouncing off of the coils self capacitance, is a reversed voltage produced.
So I see the inductor as a flywheel (opposition to current change) of sorts. Add the self capacitance, and it becomes an off balance flywheel, or a tight springed pendulum.


Take for example a relay where a diode is used across the coil to prevent any self induced voltages from escaping from the coil into other circuitry, as said to eliminate"bemf"
The direction the diode is in, where it doesnt conduct input to the coil, when the current is released, the diode then conducts current that comes from the coil, in the same direction through the coil as the original current sent to the coil from the source. Flywheel.  =]

Just wanted your opinion on this, as I think there are many that have a misconception as to the hows and whys of BEMF.

Thanks for your time.  :-*

Mags

Title: Re: Rosemary Ainslie circuit demonstration on Saturday March 12th 2011
Post by: neptune on March 20, 2011, 08:55:28 PM
@ Magluvin. I think you could be right . Look at a diagram of a bipolarNPN transistor with a relay coil connected between its collector and the positive rail . There is only one way round you can connect the diode across the relay coil , and that is with its arrow pointing towards the pos rail . If you connected it the other way it would short out the relay coil preventing it operating . So as you say the "FEMF" from the coil when the transistor switches off , must be in the same direction as the current flow when the transistor is switched on . So in my opinion you are correct .
            A fact I have just learned .In the type of mosfet in this cicuit , as long as the gate is biased positive , conventional current can flow in either direction through the drain-source chanel . So when the circuit oscillates , current can flow from the load resitor through the mosfet and back to the load resistor in alternate directions . I had sort of assumed that the path through the mosfet was a one way path .We learn a little each day.
Title: Re: Rosemary Ainslie circuit demonstration on Saturday March 12th 2011
Post by: Magluvin on March 20, 2011, 09:45:39 PM
Thanks Neptune   ;]

That is a very interesting observation on the fets.

It seems as though many good things are coming out lately. I wonder if Japans situation is helping more to come out, before its all too late.

The bemf thing was a shock to my system 25 yrs after electronics school. 

Mags
Title: Re: Rosemary Ainslie circuit demonstration on Saturday March 12th 2011
Post by: hartiberlin on March 21, 2011, 12:03:24 AM
Hi Stefan,

A simple substitution of Caps for Batteries will conclusively show whether the anomaly is reliant on the chemical properties of the Battery Cells. We cannot know this until it has been evaluated, we can only assume that Caps will not work. I believe this would be an important simple test to confirm the anomaly is present only in chemical cells.

RM :)


yes, but I think also the batteries will discharge after some while.

But the important fact is, that only maybe 6 Watts or less are drawn from the battery,
but 40 Watts of heat are produced at the load resistor and due to the backEMF pulses the battery´s
ions are too slow to respond so it holds much longer and gets more capacity
as the backEMF pulses activate deeper lead layers and generate more
battery plate surface inside the battery.

Hitting some NiMh AA batteries with BackEMF pulses I was able to almost
tripple the capacity of my NiMH cells this way.

The same is true for the Bedini charger-energizers...


Regards, Stefan.
Title: Re: Rosemary Ainslie circuit demonstration on Saturday March 12th 2011
Post by: Magluvin on March 21, 2011, 12:17:29 AM
Hey Stefan

that is very interesting on the nimh batteries.  ;]

I have 3 electric bikes, 1 is a tidalforce m750 which uses 30 D nimh cells in the front wheel hub. 
They are ready for change. Do you think I can revive them this way? Or even better yet, get more than 20 mpc  miles per charge after treatment?

Sorry  to be off topic but this seems to be very important to anyone using these batteries, as they are $18 each, for the good ones. =]

Thanks for the info

Mags
Title: Re: Rosemary Ainslie circuit demonstration on Saturday March 12th 2011
Post by: hartiberlin on March 21, 2011, 12:23:51 AM
Hey Stefan

that is very interesting on the nimh batteries.  ;]

I have 3 electric bikes, 1 is a tidalforce m750 which uses 30 D nimh cells in the front wheel hub. 
They are ready for change. Do you think I can revive them this way? Or even better yet, get more than 20 mpc  miles per charge after treatment?

Sorry  to be off topic but this seems to be very important to anyone using these batteries, as they are $18 each, for the good ones. =]

Thanks for the info

Mags

Sure !

Just pulse them via a Joule Thief or use a transformer
coil with a relay for the make-break of the current.

The BackEMF pulses will revive them perfectly and also
put a great charge into them.

But only do this with Lead Acid and NiMH.

This will not work with Lithium batteries
as these are built different and
can NOT be charged like this.

But with NiMH batteries normal dc current chargers are a waste,
cause they always make the batteries after a while unusable.

Using BackEMF charging is a great way to always keep NiMH batteries
fresh and get them more capacity.

Regards, Stefan.

Title: Re: Rosemary Ainslie circuit demonstration on Saturday March 12th 2011
Post by: hartiberlin on March 21, 2011, 12:28:33 AM
P.S: Yes you will get more than 20 Miles per charge,
if you charge them up with good BackEMF pulses.

YOu only have to watch the batteries, that they don´t get too hot
during charging, otherwise they dry out and this is the only way you can destroy them
this way.

So use BackEMF pulse charging this way, that they don´t get too hot to
hold in your hand, mildly warm is okay, but not too hot.

So reduce your pulse frequency, if they do get too hot or use a smaller coil
which stores less energy or use a different on/off setting ( PWM ratio for the input current
into the coil).

Regards, Stefan.
Title: Re: Rosemary Ainslie circuit demonstration on Saturday March 12th 2011
Post by: Magluvin on March 21, 2011, 12:31:07 AM
Thank you Stefan. =]

I have to take the hub apart to do this as there is extensive circuitry in both wheels.  I cant even fully drain them either because of this, as nimh do have a memory thing like nicad, just not as bad.

Very good, will try and report as to the outcome. ;]

Mags happy
Title: Re: Rosemary Ainslie circuit demonstration on Saturday March 12th 2011
Post by: hartiberlin on March 21, 2011, 12:40:40 AM
Magluvin your are welcome.

Yes, take the NiMH batteries out and try to recharge them
with a bigger joule thief style BackEMF charger.
Instead of the LED you can connect your NiMH batteries.

The Voltage Spikes without the batteries should be at least 20 Volts Higher
than when the batteries are connected.
If you connect all NiMH in series to the output, that means, if you have for instance a 36 Volts
NiMH pack you should at least hit them with 60 to 100 Volts positive voltage spikes,
so this gets effective.

Please keep attention to the temperature of the battery pack
and only charge them this way, if you are near them and not let them
charge unattended.


Regards, Stefan.
Title: Re: Rosemary Ainslie circuit demonstration on Saturday March 12th 2011
Post by: hartiberlin on March 21, 2011, 12:49:51 AM
Okay, back to the topic.
Thanks a lot Rose for posting the higher res scopeshots.

By looking again at the setup at the picture from:

http://www.overunity.com/index.php?topic=10407.msg278553#msg278553

I can now see, why we see now also the ringing at the battery line.

As this scope head, that measures the battery voltage is put directly at the experimentation board
and not directly at the batteries, we have too much inductance of the connection cable
to have a stable battery voltage and this way we also see the oscillation frequency superimposed
on the battery voltage.

The last scope shot is pretty interesting.
WHen the ground line has not changed to the other scopeshots before, then we see here
a rising of the battery voltage inside these pulses due to almost purely negative current pulses
just flowing back to the battery.

ALso what is NOT good is, that all 3 ground lines from the scope heads
are connected to different screws there on the experimentation board.

For better measurements you need to hook them all into one point ONLY !


Also it should be exactly reported how you measured this 6 Watts and 40 Watts heat
from the heater element.
Only electrically by multiplication of Voltage x amperes or
also calorimetrically ? Just measuring the surface temperature in air with
an laser-pointer temperature measurement meter or how did you measure this ?

Regards, Stefan.
Title: Re: Rosemary Ainslie circuit demonstration on Saturday March 12th 2011
Post by: hartiberlin on March 21, 2011, 01:00:45 AM
P.S. For not having any measurement artifacts from the
scope and function generator grounds, it would be
wise to run a test, where you disconnect all the scope heads
and also the function generator and try to get it to run
via a small battery powered negative bias voltage.

Then you should be able to see again, if you would
get the same heating results.

I had run some different experiments once,
where I had an scope head connected to a cap
and I wondered, why the cap charged up.

This came somehow from a ground current loop and
some rectifier effect inside the scope.

So be carefull if you use grounded scopes.

Never trust these measurements.

Only the real heat at the heater element measured calorimetrically
can be trusted.

Also would be interesting to see, what will happen,
if you use shorter and thicker wires to your batteries.
Will the oscillation effect then disapear and will
the negative currents flowing back to the battery be different ?


Regards, Stefan.


Title: Re: Rosemary Ainslie circuit demonstration on Saturday March 12th 2011
Post by: Magluvin on March 21, 2011, 01:01:48 AM
Thanks  ;]   

One problem is charging them this way when the hub is assembled.
The circuitry involved in the front wheel separates the pack into 3 sectors so the bikes braking recharge (regen)  can just work individual sectors, 12v, I believe because the regen is more effective this way, as it switches between sectors while regen due to not enough being generated to do all at the same time. Regen may get ya an extra mile from a full charge, if there are many stops and goes, of which reduces the 20 mpc due to many acceleration periods from stops.

But if I were to just charge this way, say with a secondary pack, would it fully charge fast?   Perhaps a temp sense circuit could be instilled to the circuit for heat control, as they have I believe 4 in the wheel already for regular charging.
These bikes are sweet, and they were made in the beginning for troops in Afghanistan. Folding frame, dual batt packs, and 30mph on M750X models.  They stopped making them some years ago, but a new company restarted production, but not sure if the same for sure.

Ill keep it short here.  Ill pm you for more info, and thanks for the great info. 

Mags

Title: Re: Rosemary Ainslie circuit demonstration on Saturday March 12th 2011
Post by: Rosemary Ainslie on March 21, 2011, 07:07:44 AM
Hi Feynman, I've got an hour before I need to go out.  I'll see how much of this I can cover.

The possibility that the heating element is being powered exclusively by the battery needs to be excluded.  Measuring the input energy via  the four scope traces will establish some degree of confidence in this, so I look forward to a higher resolution of the scope traces to calculate AUC.
I've given some.  There are many more that I'd love to show.  I'm not sure that scopeshots are conclusive.  But they help.

These spreadsheets are important. In the interest of replication and characterization of what you are observing, it would be helpful if all the relavent source data (including raw spreadsheet data) were to be published.  The process of 'peer review' in an open-source community manner requires full disclosure, including source spreadsheets of observations.
This much is tricky.  I know there's a way of downloading those dumps on the internet.  But I'm not sure how.  Whatever's required - I'll need to ask someone to do this for me.  I'll see what I can do.  Meanwhile - nor can I email them.  The files are just way too big.  Again.  There must be a way around this.  Just let me know.   
 
The claim of the battery recharging needs to have the support of experimental observations, results of repeated trials, raw data etc.  Spreadsheets, experimental notes, and/or Video would help.
It is clearly evident during the test operation that the batteries either wobble around a fixed value - or they drop (when we're doing a very high current discharge) and then they steadily climb.  This could be video'd but right now the experiment is not even set up.  I have everything at home.  I could attend to this.  But not for a while yet, for many reasons.

I remember you have mentioned you don't want to bother with battery tests and load tests etc.  I understand this can be time-consuming , but this part is critical.   The batteries are still connected.   They are a possible source of the power to the heating element.  They must be excluded as the power source in order to confirm an anomaly.
Indeed.  We are only going by the measurements and have done no analysis of the charge condition of those batteries.

The voltage data of the battery and the temperature of the heating element over repeated experimental trials that forms the basis in claim 4.4 need to be published if this effect is to be analyzed and/or replicated.     This includes not just a single scope trace, but multiple experimental trials and results  (starting voltage, voltage as a function of time, and ending voltage for all anomalous experimental trials) as compared to the behaviour of the heating element.
Indeed.  We have enough experimental evidence to fill a tome.  That was not the object of the report nor the demo.  Both were only to highlight anomalies to encourage academic research. 

For example, as mentioned previously, someone pointed out that there is a chart for the 'control' results, but there is no such chart for the 'experimental/anomalous' results  (besides scope traces which are too low a resolution).  A chart measuring input voltage, input current, ambient air temp, and temp at load needs to be published for 'anomalous' operation.
Not sure of your point here.  The control chart was published.  Our results were determined against ambient room temperature and that control.  All were referenced accordingly.  If you specifically require a record of the room temperature and the measured temperature on the resistor - then I'll be glad to add this.

Further photographs and/or video of the setup would be helpful.
Definitely en route.  Hopefully tonight - if my own limited abilities allow this.  Else not later than tomorrow.  Today is a public holiday and some of the team can't access the internet except through work.

I think that covers the questions.  Feynman, on a personal note - I'm very well aware of your exceptional experimental abilities.  This is all the more evident as MileHigh seems to need to denigrade them.  There could be no greater endorsement.  And we all know his partialities.  He like the most of OUR.com are frantic to disprove this.  If you were to set up your own apparatus - then that would be a very good thing.  But if you choose not to then I can fully understand that as well.  The claim is outrageous.  If it's proved on a replication then you - like me - will be confronting mainstream interests and thinking.  It's not a happy place to be.  Personally I would suggest that this tedious process of debugging the evidence is probably a better way to go.  And I am satisfied that your skills here are more than adequate. So.  Ask me what aspects of the tests you need to look at and I'll try and present the evidence.  I don't think I need to extrapolate more evidence.  But if that's required will do so.  Just also know that my time is now more heavily constrained.  I have much to do at this end to ensure that these results are better known.

Kindest regards,
Rosemary 
Title: Re: Rosemary Ainslie circuit demonstration on Saturday March 12th 2011
Post by: neptune on March 21, 2011, 11:53:00 AM
@Magluvin .Re BEMF and forward EMF .The more I think about what you said , the more I am convinced you are right .An inductor has the attitude that what was good enough for father is good enough for me . Unlike President Obama , it does not like change .If you try to pass current into it , it resists it as long as it can , causing a slow rise time . Likewise if you try to stop passing current through it , it will try to maintain that current as long as it can by creating a voltage to keep pushing current in the same old direction .
         How did you discover this for yourself? Was it on an oscilloscope ? What I cannot understand is this . Look at the scope shots of Rosemary , and replicators . Look at the point where the pulse ends , and the "magic" oscillation starts . What we see is a big , fat NEGATIVE spike .[OK I lied about the fat bit } Surely we should expect to see a POSITVE spike here ? We need more opinions here from people who went to college less than 50 years ago , unlike me >
Title: Re: Rosemary Ainslie circuit demonstration on Saturday March 12th 2011
Post by: Magluvin on March 21, 2011, 12:24:43 PM
hey Neptune

It does fool ya huh?  lol   Well, in this case, the inductor has no choice but to go bemf when 1 leg is disconnected, either one. But set up some diodes to capture from the coil to a cap, diode in a direction as we intend to get femf, and you will believe 100%.  And it also works in the falstad.com circuit sim. 

But when 1 leg is disconnected as in Roses circuit, the collapse has only its own very tiny capacitance to reference, and will bemf back through the fets diode.   If the coil were to be fully disconnected at both ends as to not allow the energy to leave the coil, it will oscillate at very high freq considering the inductance o the coil and its very tiny capacitance. Most likely for a very short time, but many oscillations.

have to get to work, been up all night with my orbon and its looking gooood.  ;[

Hope that makes sense, and I think that everyone should realize these things, because I believe not too many know of this.

I havnt heard from Rose on this yet.  :-*  But maybe she is checking it out first also before commenting.   ;) 

I didnt bring this up to down her or anyone, I was just cuirous if she knew this because it may make a difference in her experiments if this element is clearly understood. hopefully for the better.   ;D

I think Rose is good people. =]  Her Gollys get me to crack a smile. =]

Mags 

Title: Re: Rosemary Ainslie circuit demonstration on Saturday March 12th 2011
Post by: Magluvin on March 21, 2011, 12:43:26 PM
one more ting.  yes ting.  =]

ya might tink, yes tink, that if you disconnect the leg on the side that current is flowing to, that we would get a spark from the continued current flow, but we do, just not in that direction, it sucks in from the disconnect after the self capacitance bounce.  Now when we diode capture the colapse does not get a chance to bounce and is just forwarded to the receiving cap via flywheel effect. But when the receiving cap gets full, back to bemf we go, cuz the receiving cap wont accept it any longer. So the cap needs to be loaded or forwarded somewhere to avoid this situation.

I had gone over this some months ago on the Energy Amplification thread but not everyone reads that. i should thread it. ;]

 ok  Im tired and have to get to work.  Be back later.

Mags
Title: Re: Rosemary Ainslie circuit demonstration on Saturday March 12th 2011
Post by: evolvingape on March 21, 2011, 03:31:56 PM

yes, but I think also the batteries will discharge after some while.

But the important fact is, that only maybe 6 Watts or less are drawn from the battery,
but 40 Watts of heat are produced at the load resistor and due to the backEMF pulses the batteries
ions are too slow to respond so it holds much longer and gets more capacity
as the backEMF pulses activate deeper lead layers and generate more
battery plate surface inside the battery.

Hitting some NiMh AA batteries with BackEMF pulses I was able to almost
tripple the capacity of my NiMH cells this way.

The same is true for the Bedini charger-energizers...


Regards, Stefan.

Hi Stefan,

Yes I understand your point. My previous experience with these types of cells was with industrial cleaning machines and the batteries were always failing within 6 months, often less, depending on how they were used.

Some of the most important information was gleaned from the operator themselves, details on charging cycles, run times, and usage etc. This was often no easy task as the operators rarely spoke decent English!

So the ability of the battery to both store and deliver its energy is highly dependant on how it is used.

In Rosemary's experiments the batteries have a very low load over a relatively short time. When we combine this with the BEMF pulsing, the batteries are effectively being desulfated and regenerated during use. Now this is an interesting application in itself. Normally the desulfation and regeneration are achieved during recharging, when the battery cannot be used.

So with this in mind, it is reasonable to expect with the low load and regeneration occurring that the batteries are going to perform at the same level for very long lengths of time, certainly longer than Rosemary has ever tested for. This would in effect maintain the battery Voltage at the same value as before the tests, for the duration of the tests. But I still see no evidence that more energy is being returned to the battery than is being consumed.

Here are some sites that are selling the PWM regen technology and provide some basic information on it:

http://www.batterylife.co.nz/about-batteries.cfm

http://www.batterylife.co.nz/macbat-battery-regeneration-benefits.cfm

http://www.duoregen.com/

http://www.batteryforlife.com/

http://www.batterylifeplus.com/DUO-REGEN/index.html

There are many more out there if you do some Scroogle searching, and all work in a similar pulsed method, with or without chemical additives to assist the process.

We also need to clarify the issue of how the heat is being measured at the load resistor. Rosemary has already stated her team needs a mathematician, which leads me to believe she does not trust her own math, in which case, neither do I, especially in the absence of raw data to double check the calculations.

Your point about the ringing being caused by separate grounding points is also relevant and needs double checking by retesting and result comparison.

So at this point I must conclude that there are interesting effects occurring in this circuit that require further investigation, but in light of the issues raised so far, the conclusions are invalid. It would be beneficial to move forward by redesigning the experiment completely from the ground up to address the noted problems and perform all the tests again via the scientific method.

I would expect different results to the ones previously achieved, however since Rosemary has already made her claims based on the conclusions drawn from analysis of previous results I expect she will be reluctant to redesign the experiment and do it again, properly.

Time will tell.

RM :)





Title: Re: Rosemary Ainslie circuit demonstration on Saturday March 12th 2011
Post by: Rosemary Ainslie on March 21, 2011, 03:41:33 PM
Hi Neptune and Mac - I was hoping to avoid answering you guys because I have no idea what FEMF is.  But don't let that stop you.  It's never a bad thing to ask a few questions. I still depend on those inductive laws for the explanation.  But I'm in a really small minority.

Kindest regards,
Rosie
Title: Re: Rosemary Ainslie circuit demonstration on Saturday March 12th 2011
Post by: Rosemary Ainslie on March 21, 2011, 04:05:51 PM
By looking again at the setup at the picture from:

http://www.overunity.com/index.php?topic=10407.msg278553#msg278553

I can now see, why we see now also the ringing at the battery line.  As this scope head, that measures the battery voltage is put directly at the experimentation board and not directly at the batteries, we have too much inductance of the connection cable to have a stable battery voltage and this way we also see the oscillation frequency superimposed on the battery voltage.
If it's superimposed then it's also responsible for a hefty current flow.  We see the same voltage at the drain which means that it's going through the battery - in one or other direction - at each cycle.

The last scope shot is pretty interesting.  WHen the ground line has not changed to the other scopeshots before, then we see here a rising of the battery voltage inside these pulses due to almost purely negative current pulses just flowing back to the battery.
Exactly my point.

ALso what is NOT good is, that all 3 ground lines from the scope heads are connected to different screws there on the experimentation board.  For better measurements you need to hook them all into one point ONLY !
LOL.  You're the only one who noticed.  We address this in the video with full visual reference.  We ran a copper plate at the base of those plugs.  It was the only way we could get all those scope probes at consistent ground reference.

Also it should be exactly reported how you measured this 6 Watts and 40 Watts heat from the heater element.  Only electrically by multiplication of Voltage x amperes or also calorimetrically ? Just measuring the surface temperature in air with an laser-pointer temperature measurement meter or how did you measure this ?
Fully explained in the report.  I'll post that link again.

Regards,
Rosemary

http://newlightondarkenergy.blogspot.com/2011/03/report.html
Title: Re: Rosemary Ainslie circuit demonstration on Saturday March 12th 2011
Post by: neptune on March 21, 2011, 04:18:31 PM
Hi Rosemary , I am not surprised that you do not know what FEMF is because it is an expression made up by myself and Magluvin ! It stands for Forward Electromotive Force as opposed to Back EMF . Basically we are arguing that BEMF initially moved forwards ! see posts184 and185 when you get time . It might just be one of the keys to this phenomenon .
Title: Re: Rosemary Ainslie circuit demonstration on Saturday March 12th 2011
Post by: Rosemary Ainslie on March 21, 2011, 04:37:51 PM
Hi Rosemary , I am not surprised that you do not know what FEMF is because it is an expression made up by myself and Magluvin ! It stands for Forward Electromotive Force as opposed to Back EMF . Basically we are arguing that BEMF initially moved forwards ! see posts184 and185 when you get time . It might just be one of the keys to this phenomenon .

Hi Neptune.  I did read your posts.  Just couldn't get my head around it.  I'm a plodder Neptune.  It takes me forever to understand how other people see things.  But I'll give it another go.

Meanwhile - I think we've got nothing more than inductive laws doing what inductive laws do best.  Here are some of my own questions.

* How is it that the circuit does not 'SWITCH OFF' when that gate bridge is opened? 
* If capacitance is also residual charge and this is being somehow delivered by the MOSFETs - then is it reasonable to expect that this capacitance can result in an excess of 60 amps flowing in either direction?
* If this 'spurious' oscillation (as it's termed by Hamburger et al) is, in fact, that well known  - then why is it also not more widely applied?  It's clearly rather exploitable.

That's a start - anyway.

Kindest regards,
Rosie
  :)

Title: Re: Rosemary Ainslie circuit demonstration on Saturday March 12th 2011
Post by: Rosemary Ainslie on March 21, 2011, 05:02:21 PM
Harti - this is for you - to show you the voltage at the drain.

Kindest regards,
Rosie

Channel 1 - shunt
Channel 2 - battery
Channel 3 - gate
Channel 4 - drain
Title: Re: Rosemary Ainslie circuit demonstration on Saturday March 12th 2011
Post by: fritz on March 21, 2011, 05:53:04 PM
So the ability of the battery to both store and deliver its energy is highly dependant on how it is used.

In Rosemary's experiments the batteries have a very low load over a relatively short time. When we combine this with the BEMF pulsing, the batteries are effectively being desulfated and regenerated during use. Now this is an interesting application in itself. Normally the desulfation and regeneration are achieved during recharging, when the battery cannot be used.

So with this in mind, it is reasonable to expect with the low load and regeneration occurring that the batteries are going to perform at the same level for very long lengths of time, certainly longer than Rosemary has ever tested for. This would in effect maintain the battery Voltage at the same value as before the tests, for the duration of the tests. But I still see no evidence that more energy is being returned to the battery than is being consumed.


Battery capacity is as  exact as "best before" statements.
Depending on how you charge them -  you get a charging efficiency of  60% and more.
Depending on how you discharge them you get a broad efficiency range.
An oscilloscope - even a good one - can measure lots of things. If it comes to measure energy - things get complicated.

Last month I build a data logger which is driven by a CR2032 3V Lithium cell. The controller needs 600nA for operation - with a 10uA spike for a fraction of a millisecond.
I downloaded the datasheets from all CR2032 mfgrs.
Somehow they guarantee certain nominal energy for some permanent dc discharge.
My scope gives me a figure of the the integrated energy spike consumed -
But there is no nominal energy rated for that purpose.......





Title: Re: Rosemary Ainslie circuit demonstration on Saturday March 12th 2011
Post by: neptune on March 21, 2011, 05:55:43 PM
Hi Rosemary , you asked 3 questions , not specifically of me , but these would be my attempts at answers
 1 I assume you mean why is there a path for conventional current between drain and source when the gate is at zero or negative voltage with respect to ground . I am not sure .A couple of things that may or may not be relevant , When fet is switched ON there is a TWO WAY path between drain and source . also do not forget the zener diode .
2 Short answer is no . there must be another energy source .
3 Because to most people , designing circuits is just a job . Grandad said that parasitic oscillations are a nuisance to be AVOIDED at all costs ,and power was cheap back then .If Grandad did not do it , it cant be done .Or so we are told.
5 hope for some other answers.
Title: Re: Rosemary Ainslie circuit demonstration on Saturday March 12th 2011
Post by: Magluvin on March 21, 2011, 06:26:54 PM
Hi Rose and Neptune

I found this femf as I logically called it when trying to describe it while working with Teslas Igniter for gas engines pat.

He used a large inductance inductor to pump a high voltage into a cap for discharge into a low ohm primary of a hv step up transformer.
When testing in the falstad sim, after making many value changes in the circuit, when the sim was slowed down in time, I noticed that the large inductor just wanted to keep on keepin on, pushing current forward. At first I was in disbelief, but then I had to try real world tests of this, what I now call a flywheel effect, and it exists. 
An easy circuit example would be to build a circuit consisting of...

battery or supply (works either way)
diode
inductor
capacitor
switch

with the switch open, connect all in series from the neg of the battery to the pos, any order is fine but the diode needs to be in a direction that it will conduct when the switch is closed, cathode or say arrow pointing to batt neg.

Now close the switch then open. The cap should be loaded with a voltage about 2 times the batt voltage. Yup.  ;]  Other configs where more current can flow through the coil will produce high voltages just like bemf does, and Ill describe that elsewhere.

imagine just charging a cap from just the batt. Bat is 12v, cap will be 12v also.  But add the diode and inductor and when the switch is closed, you might think that the cap would stop taking charge once it is equal to the batt voltage, but it doesnt. The inductor wants to keep on flywheeling current into the cap beyond equality of the battery voltage.   Thus law of inductance is maintained, "opposition to changes in current flow"   Flyyyy wheel    inertia as tesla put it  ;]

But how have most of us missed that? I cannot be the only one that knows this. Tesla knew it, as this was his use of the large inductance in his igniter pat.

All these years I knew that field collapse created bemf, or better said reverse emf.  Reverse of what was going through the inductor when energized.  not true. Only if one leg of the inductor is disconnected causing a discontinuation of current flow from source through the inductor, then when the inductor tries to keep going forward during field collapse, but it has no where to go, or take current from, depending which side of the inductor is disconnected. But it does see the capacitance instilled within the inductor and bounces off of that and current reverses once the field completely collapses and the field goes opposite polarity of what was originally induced by input.

Now I know better.  Ive used diodes on relay coils in car audio systems to get rid of the loud pops in the speakers when the relays( used for many things in car audio) were de energized and bemf(bout 90v) interfered with the audio signal in the system.

But never took a real gander as to what really caused bemf, I just wanted the pops to stop, as prescribed in tech school.  ;]

ok  Ill put this somewhere else.  ;]   Back to regular programming  =]


Mags laws  ;]
Title: Re: Rosemary Ainslie circuit demonstration on Saturday March 12th 2011
Post by: Rosemary Ainslie on March 21, 2011, 09:19:15 PM
Hi again Mags.  I think I'm getting there.  Thanks to your patience in explaining it again.  Ok.  Assume that the diode is placed directly on the negative terminal.  The switch is closed.  Current conducts clockwise through the circuit.  The switch then opens.  The current can now conduct anticlockwise because the diode is biased to allow that 'negative' flow. In effect the diode ensures that both paths of current can be allowed.

That would explain how the cap gets a double dose.  Now put that diode - still biased that the arrow points to the neg of the battery.  But put the diode on the drain before the MOSFET/s.  It still allows a return path of that current. 

As I see it - provided only that one accepts the concept of clockwise and anticlockwise current flow - then that diode will allow passage from any current that results from a negative spike or negative voltage.  Am I missing something?  Does classical allow for these two directional flows?  Frankly I'm not sure if this is mainstream thinking or not.  In any event - my own concepts rather depend on it.

Let me know.  I'm now really interested.

Kindest regards, and thanks for getting me to look at this.
Rosie

 :)
Title: Re: Rosemary Ainslie circuit demonstration on Saturday March 12th 2011
Post by: Rosemary Ainslie on March 21, 2011, 11:00:18 PM
Guys - I've just read through Hamburger's long awaited debunk courtesy a simulated number.  He's his own best critic.  Here's a sample.   'I love to pierce it incisively until they are naked, if not bleeding.'  Golly.   From where I sit I'm still unscathed and fully dressed. He needs to revisit some of his claims.  One proposal is that the MOSFET is fully turned on at some stages to allow for the - as he puts it - stellar - or was that solar? - increase in output.  This would mean that our little embedded Zener would have to take the full value of 60 amps, during the 'off' time and the transistor itself - something marginally less than 60 amps, during the 'on' time.  Pretty robust for something that's rated at plus/minus 6 amps. 

But that aside - of interest is this obsessive need to disprove this.  I think that what he finds most objectionable is that I am a self-confessed clutz who has no right to advance anything at all.  He's right of course.  But it's precisely because I am THAT mediocre that I have every confidence that this technology and these concepts can, eventually, be understood.  I rather rely on this fact.  Here's the thinking.  If I can get my head around them - then anyone can.  It clearly does not require brilliance.  Just a little bit of common sense.  And I'm the FIRST to admit that we've shown nothing new.  It seems that the simulators do exactly what we show.  The difference again is only in this.  Humbugger dare not show the actual values applied to the sundry components.  He tells us that he tweaks them.  And, self- evidently, he tweaks them to favour under unity.  Which is hardly surprising given that he seems to base his sense of self-worth - on an effective argument to deny all.  And he DARE not show the phase relationships between the shunt and the batteries - this because they'll cancel out and dribble to death in no time at all.  He then shows what he calls 'rosiewatts' and - far from being rosy - they're rather sick.  And they seem to cost way, way too much.   One thing that springs to mind is that he justifies increasing the measured inductance at the shunt from 110nH to 110 nH x 4.  By rights this should divided - as that's the TOTAL that is measured.  And so it goes.  An adjustment here - a oversight there - a variation everywhere.  What's new.

I'm only writing all this in the forlorn hopes that he'll one day try and do an actual pure simulation.  That would be interesting.

Kindest regards,
Rosemary     
Title: Re: Rosemary Ainslie circuit demonstration on Saturday March 12th 2011
Post by: Rosemary Ainslie on March 21, 2011, 11:38:40 PM
And Stefan - with apologies for consecutive posts and for referencing my own work.  I wonder if I could impose on you to read the attached link.  I absolutely refute that electrons are responsible for current flow.  I may well be proved wrong.  But I'm not sure that this has ever actually been proved at all.

Kindest regards,
Rosemary

http://newlightondarkenergy.blogspot.com/2010/11/more-on-inconvenient-truths.html

Which was followed by something considerably less critical

http://newlightondarkenergy.blogspot.com/2010/11/belated-tribute-to-our-scientists.html


Title: Re: Rosemary Ainslie circuit demonstration on Saturday March 12th 2011
Post by: Rosemary Ainslie on March 22, 2011, 12:02:22 AM
Exactly what was post #197 supposed to accomplish ?

There is no place for such talk in honest scientific discussion.

I am now going to do what my instinct has been telling me to do for a while now, devote my time to more worthy pursuits, and honest exploration of the possibilities.

Goodbye Rosemary, it has not at all been a pleasure.


Evolvingape - are you proposing that I may not challenge counterclaims?  The more so when they're based on simulations?  If Humbugger wants to simulate this setup then that simulation should exactly reflect the components and the results should then be shown.  We're looking at something that has been tweaked to death to satisfy an agenda.   Which is a shame.  Because our own efforts at simulating this is shown in the report.  I would love to see an actual simulation which triggers a continuing oscillation.  We could not get this.  If it's there then show it.  I can't even see what angle the waveforms are - one to another.  They're all referenced separately.

Rosemary

And I might add that my right to defend it is because he advises us all that he's finally disproved this.  And that advice is here - on this forum.  If he has disproved it then he needs to give us that evidence.
Title: Re: Rosemary Ainslie circuit demonstration on Saturday March 12th 2011
Post by: poynt99 on March 22, 2011, 02:15:41 AM
Guys a quick word here.  I challenge anyone to do a simulation where the phase angles are at precisely 180 degrees.  If they are not precise then, as day follows night - they'll ring and cancel out at zero.  At 180 degrees they'll reinforce each other.

Kindest as ever,
Rosemary

Is this getting close Rose?

As soon as I entered the load resistance and inductance values on Donovan's schematic, my previous simulation burst into oscillation, when previously, it was not so evident. The 180º phase is there, but the wave shape is not "tuned" exactly.

I am sure that with some adjustments to the component values, or adding in a few more "parasitic" wiring inductances as Humbugger used, I may be able to do better, if this isn't already close enough that is. ;)

.99
Title: Re: Rosemary Ainslie circuit demonstration on Saturday March 12th 2011
Post by: Rosemary Ainslie on March 22, 2011, 02:25:47 AM
Poynty - everything is falling off the page.  But from what I see , all is correct except that the shunt voltage should default to zero. 

Well done.  And what a pleasure to see it.  Now.  How do you factor in that zero default?  Can your system do this? 

Also - when the system goes into higher wattages - can you do the same there?  Or is that what you're showing?  Because at higher wattage outputs there's some serious spiking.

Well done Poynty.

Regards,
Rosemary
Title: Re: Rosemary Ainslie circuit demonstration on Saturday March 12th 2011
Post by: poynt99 on March 22, 2011, 02:31:53 AM
Not sure what you mean by "default to zero".

What part specifically is not correct yet?

.99
Title: Re: Rosemary Ainslie circuit demonstration on Saturday March 12th 2011
Post by: Rosemary Ainslie on March 22, 2011, 02:34:34 AM
Check out our shunt waveforms.  During the 'on' time - there's zero voltage across the shunts - zero
 discharge from the battery.  It only STARTS oscillating when the negative trigger kicks in.  Mags has
an explanation for this.

Regards,
Rosemary
Title: Re: Rosemary Ainslie circuit demonstration on Saturday March 12th 2011
Post by: poynt99 on March 22, 2011, 02:38:58 AM
If you look closely, you can see that Vshunt is ringing down to zero.

I didn't say it was perfect.  :P

OK, I see what you mean now....zero volts. I'll play with it and see what I can do.

.99
Title: Re: Rosemary Ainslie circuit demonstration on Saturday March 12th 2011
Post by: hartiberlin on March 22, 2011, 05:00:30 AM
Guys - I've just read through Hamburger's long awaited debunk courtesy a simulated number.  He's his own best critic.  Here's a sample.   'I love to pierce it incisively until they are naked, if not bleeding.'  Golly.   From where I sit I'm still unscathed and fully dressed. He needs to revisit some of his claims.  One proposal is that the MOSFET is fully turned on at some stages to allow for the - as he puts it - stellar - or was that solar? - increase in output.  This would mean that our little embedded Zener would have to take the full value of 60 amps, during the 'off' time and the transistor itself - something marginally less than 60 amps, during the 'on' time.  Pretty robust for something that's rated at plus/minus 6 amps. 

But that aside - of interest is this obsessive need to disprove this.  I think that what he finds most objectionable is that I am a self-confessed clutz who has no right to advance anything at all.  He's right of course.  But it's precisely because I am THAT mediocre that I have every confidence that this technology and these concepts can, eventually, be understood.  I rather rely on this fact.  Here's the thinking.  If I can get my head around them - then anyone can.  It clearly does not require brilliance.  Just a little bit of common sense.  And I'm the FIRST to admit that we've shown nothing new.  It seems that the simulators do exactly what we show.  The difference again is only in this.  Humbugger dare not show the actual values applied to the sundry components.  He tells us that he tweaks them.  And, self- evidently, he tweaks them to favour under unity.  Which is hardly surprising given that he seems to base his sense of self-worth - on an effective argument to deny all.  And he DARE not show the phase relationships between the shunt and the batteries - this because they'll cancel out and dribble to death in no time at all.  He then shows what he calls 'rosiewatts' and - far from being rosy - they're rather sick.  And they seem to cost way, way too much.   One thing that springs to mind is that he justifies increasing the measured inductance at the shunt from 110nH to 110 nH x 4.  By rights this should divided - as that's the TOTAL that is measured.  And so it goes.  An adjustment here - a oversight there - a variation everywhere.  What's new.

I'm only writing all this in the forlorn hopes that he'll one day try and do an actual pure simulation.  That would be interesting.

Kindest regards,
Rosemary   

I also had a look at his simulations.

His shunt voltages never looked like the voltages Rosemary showed here on her scopeshots.

So he might have tuned his simulation for underunity.

Especially this scopeshots:

http://www.overunity.com/index.php?action=dlattach;topic=10407.0;attach=51615

shows, that the orange colored input current at the shunt is almost everytime
negative.
Humbuger did not have this in his sim.

Rose, please post more zommed in scopehots of this scopeshot, by just showing
3 or 4 wavecycles and not the full burst please.
Thanks.

As I said, if we have a new effect here it can no be simulated by simulation software just
based on standard theory.

Maybe the nichrome wire in the heater element or the spiral shape
of the heater element also plays a role here. This could not be seen in any simulation
software...

Regards, Stefan.
Title: Re: Rosemary Ainslie circuit demonstration on Saturday March 12th 2011
Post by: hartiberlin on March 22, 2011, 05:25:24 AM
Hi Poynt,
please try again your simulation with this setup please
and show burst waveforms (many cycles) and 3 to 4 cycles
on one scopeshot.

Many thanks.
Title: Re: Rosemary Ainslie circuit demonstration on Saturday March 12th 2011
Post by: Magluvin on March 22, 2011, 05:39:03 AM
Hey Rose

Here is the circuit we last talked about that proves my point of the inductor being a flywheel of the electronics world.

In this test, we close the switch until the cap is full and current stops flowing. Then you can leave it closed or open it, at this point the cap is charged and now we can reason my theory by comparing the cap voltage vs source.

When we hold the switch down, current will flow clockwise and represents electron flow, negative to positive.

We know that if this circuit, without the inductor and diode, if we close the switch, the cap would charge to the level of the source and equal the source when all settles.

But with the inductor and diode in as shown, close the switch and we have our clockwise flow till the cap is full. when you measure the cap, it will be approximately 2 times the source. The reason for the diode is to stop the higher voltage stored in the cap from reversing, from its great height achieved, and trying to equal out with the source.

Now if the diode was eliminated, the circuit would oscillate till it dies.

Now if you understand that, you can get the feel for how higher voltages can be had with inductors. ;]

This is not a reflection of your circuit or where we get the very high voltages from inductors can produce in circuits, it just femf 101. ;]
Just to get the feel of the flyweeling( an object set in motion tends to stay in motion ) effect I speak of, and Teslas term inertia of inductors of all sorts, wires, capacitor plates, inductance everywhere, oh my!   ;]

This gives us the basis for femf and shows continued forward motion of current that is strong enough to pull more from the battery and drive it into the cap beyond what the source would normally instill into the cap without the inductors actions described.

In your circuit, you are making and breaking the flow of current delivered through the circuit due to source potential drive, emf.

Bemf, or reverse emf happens because of the break. The inductor is winding down during collapse, still wanting to push current forward. But now it has no place to get fresh electrons due to broken circuit. And all the inductor can see, electrically, other than its inertial self is its self capacitance, which is usually very small and it becomes a self contained oscillator. And the first time it reverses current flow, it will now have the mosfet diode as a way to go past the break(transistor off) and current flows in the circuit in the reverse direction, Bemf. =]

Thats what me finds.  =]

Now just the fact that we now know how bemf is really produced, and it is NOT produced while the field initially is collapsing, but only after the field goes reversal during the cycle of oscillation, there is a small time period there where something is happening that we never knew about nor heard of and we just assume what they told us that when the field is collapsing, current is reverse during this time, but its not.

Why would this be an issue, as to not teach us this as I have described. What is there to hide?  I dont know anyone that knew these things that I present other than the ones I have told. Im sure some already knew, just not most. Im not the only one to discover this I canst believe. yes canst.  ;]

So if its twisted info, there must be a sweet reason for it, sweet for us.  Just what is it?  ;]


I see you have had some flack today. But you handled it very well. ;]
Thats how you win, keep cool and they will just burn themselves up.

I looked over at our and those guys are on a mission. I joined there but I find it not my style soon after.  I like it here.


Hope this makes it clearer for you. Its good to know EXACTLY what we are working with.  ;]

Night.  I have been up since yesterday and Im going to drop. zzzz


Magzzzz
Title: Re: Rosemary Ainslie circuit demonstration on Saturday March 12th 2011
Post by: Magluvin on March 22, 2011, 08:04:32 AM
Here, LO frikin L, I have found a perfect example of where I smell a problem with all this.  I was about to get to sleep and I was thinking, I wonder if anyone else is trying to explain this the wrong way somewhere.

I went to yahoo and searched, field collapse bemf, and looky, perfecto examplo.  =]

Read this guys post and some of the reactions to it. Is this what everyone thinks?   test your friends, see if im right at least most of the time, if not all.
Some may think whats the big deal. well it is if we dont have an accurate knowledge of a device we are dealing with in a design. Or maybe there are benefits not known yet.

http://www.overunity.com/index.php?topic=9875.msg261143#msg261143

Now from the description that I have given, which way would you follow? That forward emf that happens during collapse, is a very short period of time, as its working against a small capacitance when circuit is broken, and when the field collapses past neutral phase, it is now reversing poles and the field is on the rise, not collapse when the reverse emf is being produced. So things happen sooo fast, the femf bounce off of the self capacitance may not be visible, to the naked scope. ;] Only seeing the spike.

One more example then me collapse. A good one.
If we have 2 coils face to face and we drive one with a sine wave and the other we watch on a scope, as the driver coil field rises, the voltage in the receiver rises. But as the driver field starts collapsing during ac cycle, does the output coils voltage just instantly go reverse while collapse is happening? Nope, nice comparable sine wave.

Lol  Im so tired, I almost started doubting all this at certain times while writing tonight, delusional  lol , and the I bounce back and know this is truth.

There is a great compression during the bounce and thats why we get very high voltages with breaks in the circuit. my demo circuit, where the inductor only gets as much energy through it as the capacitor will allow through the circuit in one direction. So the inductor is limited as compared to direct drive current as when your circuit is on, thus only 2 times the input voltage.

Is I Is? Or Is I Isnts?  ;]


Funny aint it?

Night

Mags
Title: Re: Rosemary Ainslie circuit demonstration on Saturday March 12th 2011
Post by: Rosemary Ainslie on March 22, 2011, 11:59:22 AM

Rose, please post more zommed in scopehots of this scopeshot, by just showing 3 or 4 wavecycles and not the full burst please. Thanks.

As I said, if we have a new effect here it can no be simulated by simulation software just based on standard theory.

Maybe the nichrome wire in the heater element or the spiral shape of the heater element also plays a role here. This could not be seen in any simulation soft

I don't have another one of this Steve.  But I'll check what else I've got that approximates this.  I've got a library of samples to choose from.  I'll get back here this pm.

Re the nichrome - the shape - the whole bit - it all needs to be thoroughly explored.  Of interest is that it holds the same - in fact, IMPROVED benefits, with a very large reduction to the inductance.  Seems that this is not required at the levels that I anticipated.  But there's way more material now that there's that casing involved.

Kind regards,
Rosemary

BTW - Mags - your posts are tricky - and I need to get my head around them.  I'll give it a go later today.  Thanks for all that input.  LOL.  I see it kept you awake.  Join the club.  Insomniacs incorporated.
Title: Re: Rosemary Ainslie circuit demonstration on Saturday March 12th 2011
Post by: Rosemary Ainslie on March 22, 2011, 01:19:17 PM
Guys, finally the video.  Apologies for the delays.

Kindest as ever,
Rosie

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fyOmoGluMCc (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fyOmoGluMCc)
Title: Re: Rosemary Ainslie circuit demonstration on Saturday March 12th 2011
Post by: Pirate88179 on March 22, 2011, 01:58:20 PM
Rose:

Great video.  Very well done.

Bill
Title: Re: Rosemary Ainslie circuit demonstration on Saturday March 12th 2011
Post by: Rosemary Ainslie on March 22, 2011, 01:59:43 PM
Rose:

Great video.  Very well done.

Bill

Thanks Bill.  I'll pass your comments on.  It had nothing to do with me.  The team rallied with this.  I agree.  It looks good. 

Kindest as ever,
Rosie
Title: Re: Rosemary Ainslie circuit demonstration on Saturday March 12th 2011
Post by: Sprocket on March 22, 2011, 03:02:28 PM
Nice video.  Apologies if this has been answered already but why was it necessary to use such 'beefy' batteries, those things are huge!
Title: Re: Rosemary Ainslie circuit demonstration on Saturday March 12th 2011
Post by: Rosemary Ainslie on March 22, 2011, 03:32:11 PM
Nice video.  Apologies if this has been answered already but why was it necessary to use such 'beefy' batteries, those things are huge!

Indeed.  They were donated Sprocket.  We were very glad of the donation.  But they are huge.  Surprisingly there's no wattage rating detailed.  Rather remiss.  We've still have to get that established.

Rosemary
Title: Re: Rosemary Ainslie circuit demonstration on Saturday March 12th 2011
Post by: Sprocket on March 22, 2011, 05:25:57 PM
Indeed.  They were donated Sprocket.  We were very glad of the donation.  But they are huge.  Surprisingly there's no wattage rating detailed.  Rather remiss.  We've still have to get that established.

Rosemary

It would have been nice to see the same charging-effect with much smaller batteries.  I had a stab at this when you were posting on EF but couldn't find anything out of the ordinary.  I managed to blow a few mosfets but still have a few unused ones still, might have another go.  I also have loads of Nokia 3.6v NiMH cell-phone batteries, 20-30 of these in series would match your setup, volts-wise anyway.  The 5-in-parallel thing is interesting - does this enhance the effect a lot, 5-fold perhaps?
Title: Re: Rosemary Ainslie circuit demonstration on Saturday March 12th 2011
Post by: Rosemary Ainslie on March 22, 2011, 06:10:00 PM
It would have been nice to see the same charging-effect with much smaller batteries.  I had a stab at this when you were posting on EF but couldn't find anything out of the ordinary.  I managed to blow a few mosfets but still have a few unused ones still, might have another go.  I also have loads of Nokia 3.6v NiMH cell-phone batteries, 20-30 of these in series would match your setup, volts-wise anyway.  The 5-in-parallel thing is interesting - does this enhance the effect a lot, 5-fold perhaps?

Hi again Sprocket.  It would be good to see your results here.  Everyone's interested in exploring which batteries and what exactly they contribute.  The difference with this and previous tests is only in that negative triggered oscillation.  That's the parasitic oscillation that's normally thrown away.  What we see is that this allows for a hefty current flow and my own take is that - in parallel - they can manage the current potential that one MOSFET by itself - just doesn't.  But there are other things that are strange.  I'll try and get around to this later on tonight. 

Not sure why your previous didn't work.  That early test is actually very easily replicated.  But it probably needs the help of a high level scope - just to tease out the right tuning.  Not the easiest.  And one needs to know what to look for.  Again.  For me this side of the exercise is relatively easy.  I have never been hampered by conventional expectations.  LOL.  I think there may be some advantages to not having a classical training.  Perhaps.  Anyway.  Good luck with your efforts.  I'm sure we'd all like to hear what happens - good or bad.  It's all likely to add to the general pool of knowledge.  Never a bad thing.

Kindest regards,
Rosemary   
Title: Re: Rosemary Ainslie circuit demonstration on Saturday March 12th 2011
Post by: neptune on March 22, 2011, 08:07:38 PM
I found this video to be clear and informative . Vital info is here for the taking .As I long suspected , the input signal on the mosfet gate toggles between about 5 volts positive and 4 volts negative . This is not a wave form you are going to get with the published 555 timer circuit as it stands . There are people reading here who could overcome this problem of voltage offset . Of course on the video it is overcome using a function generator to do the job . Rosemary , a sudden thought . If it is the Zener diodes that form the path for oscillation , why not just add additional zeners across the drain and source terminals of the fets , in parallel with the internal diodes , and see if the effect is enhanced ? Choose the diodes to have a breakdown voltage just higher than the highest battery voltage .
Title: Re: Rosemary Ainslie circuit demonstration on Saturday March 12th 2011
Post by: Rosemary Ainslie on March 22, 2011, 08:11:08 PM
I found this video to be clear and informative . Vital info is here for the taking .As I long suspected , the input signal on the mosfet gate toggles between about 5 volts positive and 4 volts negative . This is not a wave form you are going to get with the published 555 timer circuit as it stands . There are people reading here who could overcome this problem of voltage offset . Of course on the video it is overcome using a function generator to do the job . Rosemary , a sudden thought . If it is the Zener diodes that form the path for oscillation , why not just add additional zeners across the drain and source terminals of the fets , in parallel with the internal diodes , and see if the effect is enhanced ? Choose the diodes to have a breakdown voltage just higher than the highest battery voltage .

Hello Neptune.  We've used diodes across the switch - often.  It works.  But I've never seen anything work like this does.  If we need more current drawn then it's possibly for that 'booster' mode.  Then - I'm quite simply more anxious to hold back the potential than otherwise.  It's already spiking at values that are almost too big for our DSO's. 

Kindest regards
Rosemary
Title: Re: Rosemary Ainslie circuit demonstration on Saturday March 12th 2011
Post by: neptune on March 22, 2011, 09:02:05 PM
Hi Rosemary . Could you please clarify two points from the video . Is the heating element in the canister immersed in water , or just air . Also , the 5 mosfets are mounted on separate heatsinks . Are these heatsinks electrically isolated /insulated from each other? From the experimenters point of view , does the higher efficiency of the present element justify its additional complexity and expense when compared to a simple wire wound element on a ceramic core?
Title: Re: Rosemary Ainslie circuit demonstration on Saturday March 12th 2011
Post by: cHeeseburger on March 22, 2011, 09:49:20 PM
Rosemary,

At 8:40 into the video, while your colleague is demonstrating 190C on the load with a 50VDC battery voltage, there is a good closeup of the LeCroy which shows that there is +243mV (about 1 Ampere on a 0.25 Ohm shunt) flowing out of the battery.

Could you please explain to everyone why the scope math that is showing us the product of the +243 mV trace and the +50.3 VDC battery voltage is telling us that the product is -5.43 VV?  How does the scope get a negative small number by multiplying two positive numbers?  By my figuring (even without using a calculator) 1A x 50VDC = 50 Watts.  All positive numbers flowing out of the battery.

Please clear this up.  It's rather confusing.  Thank you.

cHeeseburger
Title: Re: Rosemary Ainslie circuit demonstration on Saturday March 12th 2011
Post by: woopy on March 23, 2011, 12:20:19 AM
Hi Magluvin

thank's very much for your reply 208 and included schematic
 
i did a small test of your idea and hope this is not too much off topic here ;)

perhaps you should open a specific thread for this specific idea  ?

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XrwgEb5ac_w

And of course my BRAVO to Rosemary and her team for sharing  :)

good luck at all

laurent
Title: Re: Rosemary Ainslie circuit demonstration on Saturday March 12th 2011
Post by: hartiberlin on March 23, 2011, 12:46:18 AM
Good question Cheesiebugger,

it probably comes from the Minus 70 Volts offset in the channel 2
which is not substracted.
So channel 2 had about -20 Volts x 245 mV= about - 5 VV...

So the multiplication settings of the scope was not set right at this time.

But much more interesting is this attached scopeshot,
where you can see that the mean current at the shunt is really negative.
Not only from the numbers that show Minus 25 MilliVolts
but also from the display of the yellow burst showing more amplitude
below the ground line.

The ground line is the left yellow line at the number 1.

So in this condition is  really seems to charge the batteries.

Depends probably all on the working points it is running on.

So the first shown test seems to recharge the batteries but the
second one seems to discharge them at the higher temperature...

Regards, Stefan.
P.S. Well done video Rosemary !
Thanks a lot.
Clears up many questions.
Title: Re: Rosemary Ainslie circuit demonstration on Saturday March 12th 2011
Post by: cHeeseburger on March 23, 2011, 01:53:10 AM
So you agree that he second test shows 44W of heat costing 50W of battery drain, right?  And thank you for clearing my post.  It is an honor to be allowed to post here once in a while.  I'll not abuse the privilege,

Regarding the first test, then, we all agree that it would have been nice if Rosemary had given us a shot or two showing the actual waveform of the oscillation, rather than exclusively showing low-sweep-speed shots of the 100Hz duty cycle where no one can see the cycle by cycle shape of the actual oscillations.

SInce we know that the actual power into or out of the battery depends on the areas under the curves above and below zero and not on the peak voltage excursions there, and we acknowledge never having been showed those areas at any time, how can we conclude anything realistic about the first test based on only those peak excursions and the math trace which we agree was faulty and in error on the second test?

What if the cyclic oscillation waveform looks like this picture?

Sincerely,

Cheesebreath
Title: Re: Rosemary Ainslie circuit demonstration on Saturday March 12th 2011
Post by: hartiberlin on March 23, 2011, 02:23:18 AM
Then the yellow burst would probably have looked different,
but I agree, that we need better zoomed in waveforms,
showing only 3 or 4 cycles and not this burst only.
Title: Re: Rosemary Ainslie circuit demonstration on Saturday March 12th 2011
Post by: poynt99 on March 23, 2011, 02:32:38 AM
Hi Poynt,
please try again your simulation with this setup please
and show burst waveforms (many cycles) and 3 to 4 cycles
on one scopeshot.

Many thanks.

Here you go Stefan. Notice the difference across the shunt, with and without the 110nH series inductance...

.99
Title: Re: Rosemary Ainslie circuit demonstration on Saturday March 12th 2011
Post by: Rosemary Ainslie on March 23, 2011, 04:09:16 AM
Harti,
Regarding your question related to the 'default' mean average voltage to positive during the 'high' wattage dissipation on the load - here's the reference in the report under RESULTS

3.2 Second test
The mean average and cycle mean average voltage across Rshunt indicates that some current has been discharged by the battery to the source rail. However, instantaneous wattage analysis applied to the voltage measured across the battery and Rshunt indicate, here too, that the battery supply source has had more energy returned to recharge it than was first applied to the circuit.  When this is applied to each sample from a spreadsheet analysis across the 500 000 to 1 million samples supplied by the digital storage oscilloscopes, then the product of this and the battery voltage represents the instantaneous wattage. The sum of these values, divided by the number of samples, represents the average wattage delivered over the entire sample range. This results in a negative value indicating that more energy is still being returned to the battery than was delivered. This is in line with the math function of the DSOs where it, too, indicates an increase of wattage back to the battery supply over the amount of wattage initially delivered from that supply.

More wattage returned to the battery than was delivered
Wattage dissipated at RL1= 44 watts
Switching results in the generation of extreme spiking at the transitional phases of the switch. 


The following is the video @ 6.33 minutes highlights the neg mean over the shunt - compared to 7.03 minutes that highlights the default to positive - notwithstanding the continued negative mean average.  This is in the annotations at the start of the video.  In the report this was listed under 'anomalies' PRECISELY as it's required to get an expert evaluation here.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fyOmoGluMCc

There was an extensive debate held at OUR.com related to the correct wattage measurements.  The consensus was that wattage is correctly computed as the instantaneous product of vi over time.  If you look closely at the antiphase condition of the voltages across the shunt and the battery you will see that when the battery voltage is trending high - then the voltage across the shunt is trending low.  And conversely when the battery voltage is trending low - then the voltage across the shunt is trending high.  In effect, the returning current flow from the circuit 'trumps' the discharge from the battery that there is a zero loss to the battery - and, according to the math - results in a gain.  THAT IS THE SIGNIFICANCE OF THE ANTIPHASE CONDITION OF THOSE VOLTAGES.  I have referenced this in this thread - extensively - and on the blog.  I have, in fact, been trying to draw your attention to this from the get go.  This is one of the many aspects of this 'evidence' that requires research and expert analysis.  This is also PRECISELY why we included two tests - to highlight this very point.  If the measurement of instantaneous wattage is a correct reflection of the energy delivered by the supply then here there is an inevitable net gain to the supply.  Interestingly - the voltage measured across the battery - defaults to less than its 12 volt each 'start' voltage and then, within minutes, recovers to its previous value. 

While I appreciate that this is now being used as a 'last ditch' effect by Humbugger as he reaches deep into that barrel in his efforts to refute the claim - it is, in point of fact, the ENTIRE theme of that demonstration.  That, and the fact that there is a negative mean average over the resistor at all.  Good heavens.  We could not have been more transparent in our evidence if we had recorded the demo in 3D.

There is NO simple explanation here guys.  There are challenges to conventional protocols, conventional predictions - conventional assumptions - ALL OVER THE PLACE.

Regards,
Rosemary
Title: Re: Rosemary Ainslie circuit demonstration on Saturday March 12th 2011
Post by: Rosemary Ainslie on March 23, 2011, 04:13:07 AM
Here you go Stefan. Notice the difference across the shunt, with and without the 110nH series inductance...

.99

Poynty - I can no longer see your waveforms and i would LOVE to see them.  There are others of us who also cannot open those files.  WOULD YOU PLEASE POST A PICTURE and just size it that it fits this thread.

Kindest regards,
Rosie

ADDED
This is copied over from your forum - written by you Poynty Point.

'Indeed, I am having difficulty figuring out why her shunt trace is at zero. Mine is showing about 1.5V or so, and hey, 0.25/11 x 72 = about 1.6V. It would seem what I'm showing is about right.'

I think what you meant is 0.25/11 x 72 = about 1.6 watts, NOT VOLTS.  In which case can you then explain the temperature over the load which, typically, is at 6 watts or greater at 72 volts applied.
Title: Re: Rosemary Ainslie circuit demonstration on Saturday March 12th 2011
Post by: Rosemary Ainslie on March 23, 2011, 04:29:15 AM
Rosemary,

At 8:40 into the video, while your colleague is demonstrating 190C on the load with a 50VDC battery voltage, there is a good closeup of the LeCroy which shows that there is +243mV (about 1 Ampere on a 0.25 Ohm shunt) flowing out of the battery.

Could you please explain to everyone why the scope math that is showing us the product of the +243 mV trace and the +50.3 VDC battery voltage is telling us that the product is -5.43 VV?  How does the scope get a negative small number by multiplying two positive numbers?  By my figuring (even without using a calculator) 1A x 50VDC = 50 Watts.  All positive numbers flowing out of the battery.

Please clear this up.  It's rather confusing.  Thank you.

cHeeseburger

I trust that my previous post has now addressed this Humbugger.  It is the result of the phase shifts that the advantage goes to the charge condition of the battery.  Just bear in mind that the negative product of the voltages done by the math trace on both the LeCroy and the Tektronix is born out in the spreadsheet analysis.  AGAIN.  We have asked for EXPERT opinion on this as we are applying conventional power measurement protocols - based as they are - on wattage analysis.

Rosemary
Title: Re: Rosemary Ainslie circuit demonstration on Saturday March 12th 2011
Post by: Rosemary Ainslie on March 23, 2011, 04:34:07 AM
Guys - I feel I'm trying to walk in a bath of treacle.  I thought that these facts had already been understood.  Harti.  You keep asking for 4 traces.  Please look at the frequency of that 'burst oscillation mode'.  That occurs at a rate that is determined - not by the switch - but by some resonating condition that is imposed on the circuit as a result of inductance.  Then.  Please note that the oscillation is self sustaining whether it is dissipating high or low energy on the load.  We ARE, indeed, showing you four or six cycles.  We then zoom into that oscillation.  There is no other way that this can be represented.

Kindest,
Rosemary
Title: Re: Rosemary Ainslie circuit demonstration on Saturday March 12th 2011
Post by: Rosemary Ainslie on March 23, 2011, 04:49:59 AM
And Poynty - I actually do not care WHAT the inductance is on that shunt.  I only care that there is an antiphase condition that is born out in that those oscillations can be sustained.  Clearly they are re-inforcing each other that they continue certainly for as long as 3 minutes and, possibly, indefinitely.  You can factor in whatever value you like.  When it comes to an analysis of power then that ANTIPHASE CONDITION OF THOSE WAVEFORMS RESULTS IN A GAIN.  They clearly persist. And yet there is a sustained temperature measured at the load. 

In short - if one can allow that reversing current flow - WITHOUT blocking their paths - that they can move through the circuit in both directions - then they simply do not appear to 'ring' down to zero as is conventionally expected.  It really does not matter what values precede this event.  At that moment - in burst oscillation mode - you will be left with a net gain to the battery.  And at higher wattages, and as has been pointed out by Neptune - the theoretical implications are that we should simply apply more MOSFETs.

Rosemary   
Title: Re: Rosemary Ainslie circuit demonstration on Saturday March 12th 2011
Post by: cHeeseburger on March 23, 2011, 05:11:16 AM
I trust that my previous post has now addressed this Humbugger.  It is the result of the phase shifts that the advantage goes to the charge condition of the battery.  Just bear in mind that the negative product of the voltages done by the math trace on both the LeCroy and the Tektronix is born out in the spreadsheet analysis.  AGAIN.  We have asked for EXPERT opinion on this as we are applying conventional power measurement protocols - based as they are - on wattage analysis.

Rosemary

Since you are directly addressing me, Rosemary, I'll do you the honor of a direct reply.  The anti-phase relationship between the drain voltage and drain current is a normal expected fact of life in all MOSFET circuits that have the load between the drain and the power supply.  As the current rises, the drain voltage falls and vice-versa.  It explains and indicates and proves absolutely nothing and need not be analyzed by experts at all.  It's how all MOSFETs work.  It's just inherent.  Junction transistors and tubes do the same thing.  It's basic basic.

I pointed out and Stefan and others seem to agree with me that the higher-power setup indeed shows a draw of net 50W (50V x 1A) out of the battery while producing 40-some Watts of heat.  The negative reported number of the math trace is obviously in error, as one cannot obtain a negative result by multiplying two positive numbers.  It's that simple.  Stefan even gave one plausible theory as to how the error occurred.

You must also be aware, I hope, that the VV math trace and resulting number it generates is not the power in Watts.  The scope is not a sentient being and is unaware that one of the traces represents the current, so it cannot know that it is calculating power.  That's why it is labelled VV, or VxV and not Watts.  Also, the scope does not know the value of the shunt resistance, so it could not possibly give a result in Watts. 

So the claim that the higher power second test shows a net charge into the battery is just not true, based on the +243mV mean current shunt measurement your scope clearly shows.  The negative scope math number (-5.43 VV) is unfortunately wrong and an error, as pointed out clearly by myself and acknowledged also by Stefan and others.


Kindest Regards,

Bryan
Title: Re: Rosemary Ainslie circuit demonstration on Saturday March 12th 2011
Post by: Rosemary Ainslie on March 23, 2011, 05:38:09 AM
Hi Rosemary . Could you please clarify two points from the video . Is the heating element in the canister immersed in water , or just air . Also , the 5 mosfets are mounted on separate heatsinks . Are these heatsinks electrically isolated /insulated from each other? From the experimenters point of view , does the higher efficiency of the present element justify its additional complexity and expense when compared to a simple wire wound element on a ceramic core?

Apologies Neptune.  I missed this.  The canister is just air.  The FETs are all insulated from their heatsinks.  There is a DEFINITE improvement in using this resistor element.  I think it's the added resistance and material from the casing - is my take.  But I'm absolutely NOT certain what's required Neptune.  This is where we need research.
Title: Re: Rosemary Ainslie circuit demonstration on Saturday March 12th 2011
Post by: Rosemary Ainslie on March 23, 2011, 05:54:00 AM
Hi Magluvin

thank's very much for your reply 208 and included schematic
 
i did a small test of your idea and hope this is not too much off topic here ;)

perhaps you should open a specific thread for this specific idea  ?

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XrwgEb5ac_w

And of course my BRAVO to Rosemary and her team for sharing  :)

good luck at all

laurent
Laurent - glad you like the video.  May I return the compliment.  That's a REALLY interesting result on your video.  It seems that there's way, way more energy available than from the supply.  Indeed that's where our own results point. 

Many thanks for highlighting this.  I hope you'll keep these results here if you do continue experimenting on this.  Or at least post over your results.  I think it's very much on topic as it seems to indicate that we've been ignoring the potential energy from the mass of circuit material.  That's been a big complaint of mine for some time.  LOL.

Very well done and another very clear video.  And Mags seems to be on the right road here - so, well done Mags.

Kindest regards,
Rosemary
Title: Re: Rosemary Ainslie circuit demonstration on Saturday March 12th 2011
Post by: Rosemary Ainslie on March 23, 2011, 06:09:44 AM
So you agree that he second test shows 44W of heat costing 50W of battery drain, right?  And thank you for clearing my post.  It is an honor to be allowed to post here once in a while.  I'll not abuse the privilege,
I'm intrigued with this comment.  WHERE did Harti say that 44W of heat costs 50 Watts of battery drain?  I missed this entirely.  Or are you SPINNING here Cheesebreath?  I recall Harti mentioning that there MAY be a loss here - nothing definitive.  And that there is NO LOSS is born out in the instantaneous wattage analysis as indicated by the math trace.  Really Humbugger, Cheesburger, Cheesebreath, whoever it is that I'm addressing, you spin with great aplomb.  But it would be pleasant change if you could simply stick to the facts.

Quote from: cHeeseburger link=topic=10407.msg278911#msg278911
date=1300841590
Regarding the first test, then, we all agree that it would have been nice if Rosemary had given us a shot or two showing the actual waveform of the oscillation, rather than exclusively showing low-sweep-speed shots of the 100Hz duty cycle where no one can see the cycle by cycle shape of the actual oscillations.
The scope - unfortunately - can only show each cycle as they actually occur.  Between each cycle is a resonating or oscillating condition that the circuit generates.  There is NO OTHER WAY THAT THESE OR ANY OSCILLOSCOPES CAN SHOW THIS.  Are you entirely missing the point here Humbugger?  If you look at Poynty's CORRECT simulation - you'll see he has the same problem.  We are showing the waveform EXACTLY as it is.  Good heavens.  And you claim some kind of expertise to comment?  Then you'll need to get your head around this as clearly you have no idea what we're referring to.

SInce we know that the actual power into or out of the battery depends on the areas under the curves above and below zero and not on the peak voltage excursions there, and we acknowledge never having been showed those areas at any time, how can we conclude anything realistic about the first test based on only those peak excursions and the math trace which we agree was faulty and in error on the second test?
Which makes these comments equally spurious. 

What if the cyclic oscillation waveform looks like this picture?

Cheesebreath
It would only be relevant if it did.  It doesn't.  You really need to learn to read our scope values Cheesebreath.  We can only show what the scope shows.  That's a given. 

Golly. ::)

Rosemary
Title: Re: Rosemary Ainslie circuit demonstration on Saturday March 12th 2011
Post by: Rosemary Ainslie on March 23, 2011, 06:13:52 AM
Steve, it seems that I'm only selectively notified - per email - when posters comment on this thread.  Is this intended? Or is it some malfunction in your system?  I've been given notice of exactly 1 posting.  And to my surprise I find a whole lot of them.

I'll make enquiries at this end - but would be glad if you could see if there's some kind of glitch in your system.

Kindest regards,
Rosemary
Title: Re: Rosemary Ainslie circuit demonstration on Saturday March 12th 2011
Post by: Magluvin on March 23, 2011, 07:19:21 AM
hey Rose and Woopy

Woopy   Great show!  =]

Remember Woopy, it is not bemf here, the diode prevents that. =] Cant happen.

In your first test of the circuit with the switch open, Imagine this....

Battery is 5v.
No voltage across inductor
No voltage across the capacitor
The diode is just a one way street and nobody on it  ;]

When we close the switch, the first reactive component is the capacitor. It sees the potential available and wants to be equal with the voltage that is presented and current flows in the circuit.
The inductor builds a field as current flows.

Think of this, as the circuit goes from no charge on the cap to full charge, The current in a normal circuit will decrease as the cap reaches battery level, even just trickling in the last bit to the cap.

Well here we have that same deal, and the inductor is involved in that deal now and as the cap grows in charge, current slows and it will have less influence on the inductor over time till cap is full.

So what we are seeing is, the inductors magnetic field climb and peak, then the peak begins to collapse as the caps voltage increases, the potential difference available to affect the inductor becomes less and less, so naturally the field declines till the cap is full and the circuit has no more current flowing because the cap is now charged and current stops.  NOPE

When we kicked the inductor into motion, the flywheel starts rolling.

When the cap is reaches battery voltage 5v, the inductor is not done spinning, the field is STILL collapsing, forward current Still flows and forces another 4 to 5 volts into the cap.

When the field collapses to nada, our work is done.

Think, collapse is suppose to cause bemf, then why do we not have that here? Instead we got the Merry go round spinning on the amount of energy it took to charge that cap  to battery voltage in series circuit. But what do we see?  The merry go round is still spinning and forces more current into the cap, thus more voltage til the inductors field collapses to no field at all.
No bemf here. Diode wont allow it and your vid just proved what Im saying is truth. ;]

In the vid, I noticed you tapped the battery then released then connected. That little tap cost a vit of inertial value due to now the cap got a small charge before the full connect.  It was not your intention, just a mistake. Now the cap wont have as much continuous pull through the charge from beginning to end because it wasnt empty.  But you did great. The voltage should mostly always be around just less than 2 times batt. 

The comment on your vid says different cap size will do wonders, nope.
The cap is the amount of enegry that drives the circuit.  So a big cap, big long currents, etc.

Your test proves Im correct, your inductor wasnt the same, your cap wasnt the same, but bam just about 2 times the voltage. 

Im so haaaPPY   IM SO HAAAppy!   

Okee   The second setup with the shorting of the cap. That IS the Tesla Igniter pat. way of getting that inductor really spinning because now it is not a declining current in the circuit due to cap charging, you are going all the way baby, kids are flying off this merry go round, and current is moving forward. Now when you release the short, that flywheel pumps that cap way beyond battery voltage.

Thin is, it isnt free. it is pulling current from the battery to charge the cap, that is how much influence the energy stored in the inductor had.

This is all just to show that when an inductors "field" builds  n n N N and on the other pole s s S S  when the current is slowed down or stopped, the field collapses N N n n  and S S s s  and is still pushing forward current, to what ever it is connected to it and will accept it, as seen in woopys vid. ;]  No reverse emf here.  Diode doesnt allow it.

If the inductor is actually disconnected from the circuit by a switch or a transistor that acts as a switch, the field collapse NNnn and SSss trys to force current forward but cant, no where to go. So the inductors self capacitance gets charged really hard, compressing electrons from its tail end to the forward end, and the field is finally zero. Now this compressed charge is very strong and relaxes its spring in the opposite direction(bemf) and the inductors poles s s S S and n n N N, and thus we have a high voltage potential in the opposite direction, and some flywheel effect in the other direction to go along with it.  ;]

Thanks Woopy   This was my precharge circuit when I was doing the sims a while back.

Field collapse isnt the cause of bemf, the bounce of the FEMF during the collapse and it bouncing off of the internal capacitance, that what causes bemf.  But most people I know think that reverse voltage is produced during collapse and thats not the truth.  ;]

Mags

Title: Re: Rosemary Ainslie circuit demonstration on Saturday March 12th 2011
Post by: cHeeseburger on March 23, 2011, 07:43:54 AM
I'm intrigued with this comment.  WHERE did Harti say that 44W of heat costs 50 Watts of battery drain?  I missed this entirely.  Or are you SPINNING here Cheesebreath?  I recall Harti mentioning that there MAY be a loss here - nothing definitive.  And that there is NO LOSS is born out in the instantaneous wattage analysis as indicated by the math trace.  Really Humbugger, Cheesburger, Cheesebreath, whoever it is that I'm addressing, you spin with great aplomb.  But it would be pleasant change if you could simply stick to the facts.
The scope - unfortunately - can only show each cycle as they actually occur.  Between each cycle is a resonating or oscillating condition that the circuit generates.  There is NO OTHER WAY THAT THESE OR ANY OSCILLOSCOPES CAN SHOW THIS.  Are you entirely missing the point here Humbugger?  If you look at Poynty's CORRECT simulation - you'll see he has the same problem.  We are showing the waveform EXACTLY as it is.  Good heavens.  And you claim some kind of expertise to comment?  Then you'll need to get your head around this as clearly you have no idea what we're referring to.
Which makes these comments equally spurious. 
It would only be relevant if it did.  It doesn't.  You really need to learn to read our scope values Cheesebreath.  We can only show what the scope shows.  That's a given. 

Golly. ::)

Rosemary

Again, Rosemary, since you are addressing me directly, I will try to answer your questions and address your comments.

Where did I get the 50W and 44W numbers and did Stefan agree with them...

The numbers all came directly from you, Rosemary.  44W is what you said the power in the load was, as estimated by the heat signature.  50W was derived by plain old arithmetic based on your scope's reported mean voltage on the shunt of +243mV (that's just about exactly 1A on a 0.25 Ohm shunt) and the same scope's reported battery voltage mean of +50.3 VDC.  Multiply these and you get about +50W flowing OUT of the battery. 

Everyone accepted those two basic bits of scope data as good numbers and Stefan agreed that the -5.43 VV your scope got by supposedly multiplying those two positive numbers was obviously wrong.  He attributed the error to your use of offsets to position the scope traces and then not accounting for the offset during the math.

Regarding your scope traces and everyone's constant request that you show the waveform of the oscillation itself, just a few cycles of it, rather than always showing just the burst envelopes at a slow sweep speed...

I am getting the idea from your statements above that you may be misunderstanding the requests.  The burst envelope is that 100Hz 50% duty cycle stuff you always show on the scopes.  Everyone  probably by now accepts that the circuit will oscillate forever once it is started.  Therefore, the bursts are not of much further interest.  We all see and believe that the circuit oscillates at 1.5MHz when the gate is low and stops oscillating when the gate is high.

What people want to see is the actual waveshape of the 1.5MHz oscillation itself.  Just a few cycles of it expanded out to cover the whole screen.  Now this is easy to capture if you know how to work the triggering, the trigger delay, the zoom, etcetra.  And it will show us all some things we want to see that you have never allowed us to see before, like the its actual shape and the relative time and area above and below zero.  No big deal, but I guess it's too late to do it now that the scopes are gone.   

The only thing that makes this at all tricky to capture is that the 1.5MHz oscillations take a while to settle to a regular cyclic pattern after the burst begins, so it's hard to try to capture the very first bunch.  They won't all look the same until the jolt that got them started has faded and the regular repeating identical oscillation cycles steadily continue. 

This is where knowing how to use the triggering and zoom features is essential.  Believe me, these scopes can capture and display any part of any waveform you want to look at.  You just have to know how to use all the scope's powerful triggering and horizontal timebase features.

By the way, the only material and significant diffrence between my sim and Poynt's is that he uses a repeating pulse generator like you do to stimulate the start and stop of the oscillations.  I purposely used a single-shot pulse to demonstrate that the oscillations will continue forever once started, something you have speculated on but not tried yet, I guess.  My oscillations turn on and off too when I use a repeating pulse generator, but I thought this had been thoroughly demonstrated already and wanted to add some new findings to the knowledge base.

If I left anything unanswered please feel free to persist in your inquiries.

Kindest Regards,

Bryan
Title: Re: Rosemary Ainslie circuit demonstration on Saturday March 12th 2011
Post by: Magluvin on March 23, 2011, 07:51:14 AM
Now, if we understand that, imagine keeping the flywheel going buy Kickin it in intervals to keep it going with the shorting the cap technique.
That was teslas way of keeping the discharge cap full in the igniter pat. 

Femf.   Or maybe a correct term  FCCFEMF 

Field Collapse Continued Forward Electro Motive Force.

Night

Mags
Title: Re: Rosemary Ainslie circuit demonstration on Saturday March 12th 2011
Post by: Rosemary Ainslie on March 23, 2011, 08:01:38 AM
Mags - the fact is that there is considerably more charge in the cap than in the battery.  And this, a small battery - has not lost its potential difference as a result of that charge.  That should be the focus.  I'm not sure that it can be argued that the negative current can't flow through the diode.  But nor am I sure that it's that relevant.  What is pertinent is that there is far more energy in the cap than has been delivered by the supply.  And that's what your config proves.  I don't think one need go much further than this to disprove certain claims outlined in thermodynamic laws.  It's HUGE. Hugely signficant.  JUST THERE.

What intrigues me is that - on our circuit - we have, unquestionably, no discharge of energy from the battery during the 'on' time of the duty cycle.  I can't explain this.  In order for that really strong oscillation to take place at all one would expect that there's some transference of potential difference which would show on that shunt.  The only PD that's evident is when it triggers on the negative setting of the gate. To me that may be explained by your forward EMF.  But I'm still working on this.  It may, also, simply be a 'skewed' result due to the inductance on that shunt - as Poynty claims.  But you see the problem then is this.  If one factors in the full effect of the inductance - then one also would need to add to the Ohmage or the resistance on the shunt.  This only increases the benefit.  And this is because the actual advantage has nothing to do with the resistance.  It's to do with that extraordinary antiphase condition of those voltages.  In point of fact, IF power is based on wattage -  VI DT - then - subject to any evidence of this oscillation - we're left with an oversupply back to the battery.  That's the sum that needs to be evaluated.  Either the fundamental measurements applied to power are WRONG - or we have something that flies in the face of.  There are no other explanations.  Bear in mind that the oscillation is not an erroneous indication resulting from a skewed voltage analysis.  If it were then it would never move through the battery and back to be measured at the drain.  It does move back and it is measurable there. 

What is intriguing is that this parasitic oscillation - as its termed - seems to be a preferred condition of current flow.  Let's face it.  On the atomic level we know that everything moves to a state of rest - certainly in a gravitational field.  Here we've got a current that simply cannot come to rest?  So.  What are we looking at?  An electromagnetic interaction on the particle level?  If so - then it seems that there's an equivalence in that electric and magnetic interchange that is self-sustaining.  And it's probably always been there.  Just over-looked or done away with as a nuisance. In point of fact, it seems to want to spin - as you put it.  No evident requirement to get to that rest state.

But again.  I'm not entirely sure that the diode stops a negative flow.  But nor am I sure that its relevant.

Kindest regards,
Rosie
Title: Re: Rosemary Ainslie circuit demonstration on Saturday March 12th 2011
Post by: Magluvin on March 23, 2011, 08:12:42 AM
Here is an idea based on this knowledge

Imagine the circuit and we connect the switch. We wait till the cap just reaches 5v (batt voltage) we cut the switch off.  We have a diode inserted so that we use the fly wheel effect to charge the cap beyond batt voltage without the batt in the circuit to pull from. We now , with the diode, pull from the other side of the cap instead.

If this works, and the cap receives more voltage than the battery, that extra voltage is free.

We cut the battery from the circuit at 5v on the cap. That 5v on the cap is equal to an amount of energy, the same amount every time.
And that is all the energy that was taken from the batt.
But if that cap ends up with more than 5v as described above, even 5.01v, that cap will be holding more energy than what was taken from the battery, period, no debater can beat this.

Oh but where is the energy coming from?  The merry go round my friends, the merry go round.  ;]  oooo scary.  lol

mags
Title: Re: Rosemary Ainslie circuit demonstration on Saturday March 12th 2011
Post by: Rosemary Ainslie on March 23, 2011, 08:18:21 AM
Here is an idea based on this knowledge

Imagine the circuit and we connect the switch. We wait till the cap just reaches 5v (batt voltage) we cut the switch off.  We have a diode inserted so that we use the fly wheel effect to charge the cap beyond batt voltage without the batt in the circuit to pull from. We now , with the diode, pull from the other side of the cap instead.

If this works, and the cap receives more voltage than the battery, that extra voltage is free.

We cut the battery from the circuit at 5v on the cap. That 5v on the cap is equal to an amount of energy, the same amount every time.
And that is all the energy that was taken from the batt.
But if that cap ends up with more than 5v as described above, even 5.01v, that cap will be holding more energy than what was taken from the battery, period, no debater can beat this.

Oh but where is the energy coming from?  The merry go round my friends, the merry go round.  ;]  oooo scary.  lol

mags

Here I entirely agree with you.  Maybe Woopy can do this test for us?  It'll be interesting.

 :D
Rosie.

(Go to sleep Mags - or you'll suffer in the morning.  I know that feeling only too well.  LOL)
Title: Re: Rosemary Ainslie circuit demonstration on Saturday March 12th 2011
Post by: Magluvin on March 23, 2011, 08:34:41 AM


But again.  I'm not entirely sure that the diode stops a negative flow.  But nor am I sure that its relevant.

Kindest regards,
Rosie
hey Rose
Well in my circuit, the diode never gets hit with bemf because the inductor was never  disconnected from forward flow during the circuit cycle. So the inductor had somewhere to put the charge it was flywheeling, no matter if it was pulling from the battery to charge the cap beyond battery voltage. It had enough energy stored to do so. ;]

But, if we cut the inductor, at the end current is flowing out, clockwise, that flywheel pumps that self capacitance so hard, like a 1000 mile an hour train wreck on a spring, the we get bemf. And why is it so short?  Well we are still disconnected, no where to get charge from at the disconnect, then ""SPARK""  ;]  Got some across the gap. Had to, the pressure was high. ;]  The spike can last only as long as the spark, or for as much as the mass of coil will give up in oscillation if no current can be had across the disconnect..  ;]

Ok   Insomniacs anonymous, over and out.  ;D

Mags
Title: Re: Rosemary Ainslie circuit demonstration on Saturday March 12th 2011
Post by: Rosemary Ainslie on March 23, 2011, 09:06:35 AM
hey Rose
Well in my circuit, the diode never gets hit with bemf because the inductor was never  disconnected from forward flow during the circuit cycle. So the inductor had somewhere to put the charge it was flywheeling, no matter if it was pulling from the battery to charge the cap beyond battery voltage. It had enough energy stored to do so. ;]

But, if we cut the inductor, at the end current is flowing out, clockwise, that flywheel pumps that self capacitance so hard, like a 1000 mile an hour train wreck on a spring, the we get bemf. And why is it so short?  Well we are still disconnected, no where to get charge from at the disconnect, then ""SPARK""  ;]  Got some across the gap. Had to, the pressure was high. ;]  The spike can last only as long as the spark, or for as much as the mass of coil will give up in oscillation if no current can be had across the disconnect..  ;]

I get it Mags.  I think it's right.  I just need to run it past some of the team.

Ok   Insomniacs anonymous, over and out.  ;D

 ;D
Title: Re: Rosemary Ainslie circuit demonstration on Saturday March 12th 2011
Post by: Rosemary Ainslie on March 23, 2011, 01:29:26 PM
Guys - It strikes me that I'm getting snarled in defense of protocols that I had thought, by now, were entirely addressed.  This is yet another technique employed by Humbugger et al, to cast aspersions on those test results.  Any and all diversions are being used to take attention from the actual significance of these tests and leave me arguing the correctness of measurements.  And when I do so, then it's too late.  The damage is done.  And there's generalised impression cast over everything  that I know not whereof I speak.

What I may or may not know has no bearing on the report, the demonstration or any claims made.  They are advanced by the 'team' and I'm reasonably satisifed that they are considerably more qualified than Humbugger or Poynty, or MileHigh or any of the others that clamour to deny these claims.   Just know that it was no accident that I left the demonstration to them.  It was intended to remind you all that - while I am not qualified - those that are supporting this evidence most certainly are.  Feel free to discount what I report.  But you'd need strong argument to deny what they, collectively, endorse.   

Meanwhile I'm braced for the inevitable 'attack' on my competence.  I'll address these as they arise.

Rosemary.
Title: Re: Rosemary Ainslie circuit demonstration on Saturday March 12th 2011
Post by: poynt99 on March 23, 2011, 01:33:36 PM
Poynty - I can no longer see your waveforms and i would LOVE to see them.  There are others of us who also cannot open those files.  WOULD YOU PLEASE POST A PICTURE and just size it that it fits this thread.

Kindest regards,
Rosie

ADDED
This is copied over from your forum - written by you Poynty Point.

'Indeed, I am having difficulty figuring out why her shunt trace is at zero. Mine is showing about 1.5V or so, and hey, 0.25/11 x 72 = about 1.6V. It would seem what I'm showing is about right.'

I think what you meant is 0.25/11 x 72 = about 1.6 watts, NOT VOLTS.  In which case can you then explain the temperature over the load which, typically, is at 6 watts or greater at 72 volts applied.

Perhaps someone can unzip the files and resize them. It's a shame that Stefan does not fix the problem so that this is not necessary. I offered him a solution already, as this works fine at OUR.

Regarding the calculation, no I meant Voltage. I am calculating the approximate voltage that should be across the shunt when the FET is ON, and under ideal conditions, those being that the ON resistance of the FET is much much smaller than your CSR of 0.25 Ohms. It is a simple voltage divider between the load resistance (11 Ohms) and the CSR resistance (0.25 Ohms) if we do not include the inductances.

So, 0.25/11 Ohms, times 60 Volts ~ 1.36V. [I used 72 volts last time assuming you had 6 batteries.]

.99
Title: Re: Rosemary Ainslie circuit demonstration on Saturday March 12th 2011
Post by: Rosemary Ainslie on March 23, 2011, 01:41:04 PM
Perhaps someone can unzip the files and resize them. It's a shame that Stefan does not fix the problem so that this is not necessary. I offered him a solution already, as this works fine at OUR.

Regarding the calculation, no I meant Voltage. I am calculating the approximate voltage that should be across the shunt when the FET is ON, and under ideal conditions, those being that the ON resistance of the FET is much much smaller than your CSR of 0.25 Ohms. It is a simple voltage divider between the load resistance (11 Ohms) and the CSR resistance (0.25 Ohms) if we do not include the inductances.

So, 0.25/11 Ohms, times 60 Volts ~ 1.36V. [I used 72 volts last time assuming you had 6 batteries.]

.99

Poynt - we all know that you can do that resize.  Is there a reason you won't?  Are you keeping this hidden for a reason?  Have you not managed to show that waveform afterall?  Come on Poynty.  How about it?  It's a lame claim if there's no evidence.  And right now it's hidden from view.

Still don't understand your sum.  Where does the 11 Ohm's come from? 

Rosemary
Title: Re: Rosemary Ainslie circuit demonstration on Saturday March 12th 2011
Post by: poynt99 on March 23, 2011, 01:42:55 PM

Still don't understand your sum.  Where does the 11 Ohm's come from? 

Rosemary

What is the resistance value of your load resistor then?

.99
Title: Re: Rosemary Ainslie circuit demonstration on Saturday March 12th 2011
Post by: Rosemary Ainslie on March 23, 2011, 01:45:19 PM
What is the resistance value of your load resistor then?

.99

11 Ohms is close.  But why are you dividing the shunt value by the ohms value of the resistor?  Are you saying that there's a 1.3 volt across the FET?  Still don't get it Poynty.  The FET voltge is much higher than this during the 'on' period. 

added
Title: Re: Rosemary Ainslie circuit demonstration on Saturday March 12th 2011
Post by: Magluvin on March 23, 2011, 06:11:45 PM
Hey Rose and Woopy

At lunch so Ill make it short. And sweet.  ;]

Here is a circuit with 2 mods. 

1  a resistor is added to simulate resistance in the inductor.

2 added the diode across the batt/switch for purposes as described last night.  ;]  =]

I ran it on the sim and it works!     ;D

But in the real world the circuit will need more additional circuitry to compare when the cap reaches 5v to cut the switch.

What I did to enable myself to cut the switch manually was slowed down the sim so that I could come very very close to cutting a 5v, and yep that diode allows current in the forward direction to keep flowing into the cap and I was getting over 6v into the cap.
It varied as I could not hit the switch to get a perfect 5v cutoff.

This should be a cop>1.  =]

Woopy  I will look at ways to enable you to automate the cutoff in your setup to do the test tonight.  ;]

Today im not even tired, on 2hours sleep, Im all uppity!  =]  I wonder why?  ;]

Mags
Title: Re: Rosemary Ainslie circuit demonstration on Saturday March 12th 2011
Post by: neptune on March 23, 2011, 06:26:15 PM
Hi Rosemary, Poynt 99 does not seem to be about at the moment , so can I offer my opinion on what he is saying ? The Fet is acting as a closed switch , and its resistance is assumed to be negligible . So we just have 2 resistors connected in series across a 60 volt battery , We have the load resistor , 11 ohms . And we have the shunt , at one quarter ohm . Imagine instead that the load resister is 10 ohms .and the shunt is one ohm . Now , if we measure the voltages across each resister in turn , we find the the voltage across the load is ten times the voltage across the shunt .That is how he arrives at his voltage figure , being the voltage across the shunt .So going back to the original values , the load will have 44 times the voltage across it than the voltage across the shunt . There will be approx 58.6 volts across the load and about 1.3 volts across the shunt . 58.6 plus 1.3 = 59.9 volts . Near enough for me , and I failed my maths exams .@Poynt99 feel free to tell me if I am wrong .
Title: Re: Rosemary Ainslie circuit demonstration on Saturday March 12th 2011
Post by: Rosemary Ainslie on March 23, 2011, 07:03:14 PM
Hi Rosemary, Poynt 99 does not seem to be about at the moment , so can I offer my opinion on what he is saying ? The Fet is acting as a closed switch , and its resistance is assumed to be negligible . So we just have 2 resistors connected in series across a 60 volt battery , We have the load resistor , 11 ohms . And we have the shunt , at one quarter ohm . Imagine instead that the load resister is 10 ohms .and the shunt is one ohm . Now , if we measure the voltages across each resister in turn , we find the the voltage across the load is ten times the voltage across the shunt .That is how he arrives at his voltage figure , being the voltage across the shunt .So going back to the original values , the load will have 44 times the voltage across it than the voltage across the shunt . There will be approx 58.6 volts across the load and about 1.3 volts across the shunt . 58.6 plus 1.3 = 59.9 volts . Near enough for me , and I failed my maths exams .@Poynt99 feel free to tell me if I am wrong .

Ok.  Thanks Neptune.  I'm still not sure why one doesn't take the actual voltage reading.  But it's close - so.  I get it. A kind of check?

Now I'd be very glad if Poynty could print those pictures.  I've finally opened them - but would be glad to get them up here - in case anyone, like me, struggles.  Can you oblige us Neptune?  Someone?

Kindest regards,
Rosie
Title: Re: Rosemary Ainslie circuit demonstration on Saturday March 12th 2011
Post by: woopy on March 23, 2011, 07:05:51 PM
Hi Mag and Rose

i made a quick test with a MO high voltage cap with 0.95 micro F, so it discharge fast enough to see what is going on here.

The battery is at about 4.6 volt and goes to a BAT 43 schotky diode (very few lost in voltage) than to the 220mH inductance(primary of MOT)  ant than to the cap and back to the negative.

I enclose a scope shot .
when i close the circuit the voltage jump to 7.6 volts than the cap descharge down to 4.6 volt (that is the battery voltage, and stay at this value until i open the circuit and the cap goes on descharging.

The best result i got today is a 1.7 time the voltage supplied. In this pix it is 7.7 volts(the freewheeled voltage ) / 4.6 volt (the supplied voltage) = 1.67

Not bad at all.

And in this config (but with a much stronger diode a BYV26D ) , by shorting the cap i can get really high voltage (MORE than 400 volts) impressive.

Now how to use this effect ?

Will test your new circuit ASAP, any idea for the resistor value?

good luck at all

Laurent

Title: Re: Rosemary Ainslie circuit demonstration on Saturday March 12th 2011
Post by: penno64 on March 23, 2011, 07:21:43 PM
Last time - I promise

posted feb 19 in shorting coil thread -


********************
Hi All,

How pertinent is this guys video now ? (1 and 2)

http://www.youtube.com/user/NRGFromTheVacuum#p/u/10/2cUS03yNl40

Looks like it's been under our noses all this time and we couldn't see the forest for the trees.

Kindest Regards, Penno
________________________________________________________

Penno, (Garry)
Title: Re: Rosemary Ainslie circuit demonstration on Saturday March 12th 2011
Post by: nul-points on March 23, 2011, 07:27:56 PM
Will test your new circuit ASAP,

Laurent

hi Laurent

nice testing - but you may want to reconsider Mags idea of a diode across the battery/switch - as shown, it's forward biased and if the switch gets closed for too long, then the 'magic smoke' is likely to to get released from either the new diode or the battery!  :)

interesting to see that shorting the capacitor has such a strong effect - especially when the current fashion seems to be 'shorting coils'!!!

cordialement
sandy


http://docsfreelunch.blogspot.com/
 
Title: Re: Rosemary Ainslie circuit demonstration on Saturday March 12th 2011
Post by: neptune on March 23, 2011, 07:44:40 PM
Hi Rosemary .Sorry I lack the necessary computer skills to print Poynt99s pictures. Come on you computer geniuses .
Title: Re: Rosemary Ainslie circuit demonstration on Saturday March 12th 2011
Post by: Magluvin on March 23, 2011, 08:02:32 PM
BIG YES   reverse the diode  sorry  redrew circuit for pix and made mistake. Now it will work.     mags
Title: Re: Rosemary Ainslie circuit demonstration on Saturday March 12th 2011
Post by: nul-points on March 23, 2011, 08:50:00 PM
BIG YES   reverse the diode  sorry  redrew circuit for pix and made mistake. Now it will work.     mags

interesting!

remove the first diode (because the 2nd one now allows current to continue thro' the RLC) and supply the circuit from a charged cap rather than a battery (it's just another type of voltage source)...

...and you get the switched-charge circuit i was investigating back in '08:

    http://www.overunity.com/index.php?topic=4419.msg130409#msg130409 (http://www.overunity.com/index.php?topic=4419.msg130409#msg130409)


was it OU?  ...only if the text-books are correct in stating that the dissipated/stored energy ratio in charging a cap is always 50:50

unfortunately, my experimental results showed that this ratio could vary quite significantly - so at least i was able to prove that the text-books are wrong in making this 50:50 energy allocation claim

but there is definitely a charge anomaly which occurs - can get around 25-30% more charge-separation in the circuit after switching current into a cap than was in the circuit at the start

looking forward to see where this 'cap-shorting' effect leads us to

good luck all
np

PS ...just realised also that the Q2 (N-MOSFET), L1, R1 half of the circuit is essentially the same as Rosemary's circuit
(powered by the voltage which gets stored on C2, rather than a battery, of course!)
 
 

  http://docsfreelunch.blogspot.com/ (http://docsfreelunch.blogspot.com/)
 
 
Title: Re: Rosemary Ainslie circuit demonstration on Saturday March 12th 2011
Post by: hartiberlin on March 23, 2011, 09:48:45 PM


This is where knowing how to use the triggering and zoom features is essential.  Believe me, these scopes can capture and display any part of any waveform you want to look at.  You just have to know how to use all the scope's powerful triggering and horizontal timebase features.


Yes.
that is right.
These new digital scope are so powerful of features you really need to study all their
features.

As all the teacher always say: RTFM.

Read the Fxcking manual ! ;) lol...

Takes a bit of time and testing to get used to it.

Rose, we really need 3 or 4 cycles on the scopeshot from both tests,
so we can really see the exact voltage on the shunt.

As test 1 shows overunity already with the burst envelope and also
with the mean value display, I am not sure what test 2 will
show, when you zoom into the burst to show the single waveforms...

P.S: Best thing would be to just put a variable DC power supply
to the gate of the MOSFETs and have the MOSFETs oscillate all the time,
then you don´t need a complicated triggering for the scope...

So Rose, please try this, as it is very easy.
just instead of the function generator just get a power supply
and feed in a negative DC voltage to the Gates.

Regards, Stefan.
Title: Re: Rosemary Ainslie circuit demonstration on Saturday March 12th 2011
Post by: hartiberlin on March 23, 2011, 10:31:16 PM
Here is the circuit simulatiom diagram from
poynt and his simulated scopeshots.

He should also post the SIMULATION file, otherwise
someone could say it is just faked...
Title: Re: Rosemary Ainslie circuit demonstration on Saturday March 12th 2011
Post by: Magluvin on March 23, 2011, 10:37:00 PM
I replaced the circuit on the previous page with the correct diode polarity.

I was doing it at lunch and the circuit looked funky from trying different diode positions that worked, so I redrew to make it cleaner and messed up on that diode. 

mags
Title: Re: Rosemary Ainslie circuit demonstration on Saturday March 12th 2011
Post by: hartiberlin on March 23, 2011, 10:37:29 PM
poynt did not "measure" the green voltage directly at the battery,
what I drew up to do earlier in response to his last postings,
so the battery voltage this way measured is pretty much useless.

We just want to see, if the direct battery voltage rises during the negative current spike.

It also depends all, in what working point the circuit is running,
so the gate voltage is missing...
If the gate voltage is set wrong, it could be underunity.

So poynt, please post the simulation file, so we can check it,
what values you did choose.
Many thanks.

Regards, Stefan.


Title: Re: Rosemary Ainslie circuit demonstration on Saturday March 12th 2011
Post by: cHeeseburger on March 23, 2011, 11:29:43 PM
Yes.
that is right.
These new digital scope are so powerful of features you really need to study all their
features.

As all the teacher always say: RTFM.

Read the Fxcking manual ! ;) lol...

Takes a bit of time and testing to get used to it.

Rose, we really need 3 or 4 cycles on the scopeshot from both tests,
so we can really see the exact voltage on the shunt.

As test 1 shows overunity already with the burst envelope and also
with the mean value display, I am not sure what test 2 will
show, when you zoom into the burst to show the single waveforms...

P.S: Best thing would be to just put a variable DC power supply
to the gate of the MOSFETs and have the MOSFETs oscillate all the time,
then you don´t need a complicated triggering for the scope...

So Rose, please try this, as it is very easy.
just instead of the function generator just get a power supply
and feed in a negative DC voltage to the Gates.

Regards, Stefan.

Stefan and all:

If I understand it correctly, I think that Rosemary's benefactors and sponsors who provided the oscilloscopes have required her to return them now, and I think she has said (she can certainly correct me if this is wrong) that there will be no more bench experiments or new data captures upcoming from her team at any time soon.  So it seems we have all the test data we will likely get from Rosemary for the forseeable future.

Bryan
Title: Re: Rosemary Ainslie circuit demonstration on Saturday March 12th 2011
Post by: Magluvin on March 23, 2011, 11:55:57 PM
Hey Penno

Ive seen all this guys vids. I was impressed also.

I have looked at this one and a few others again and again. This one, now that I look at it with details in mind, I dont like the way he thinks he is getting 3 different wires to connect, all together, and then all 3 be disconnected, 3 all at the same time, by hand. Consider the time frame which he gives for switch closure in the drawing, 1 us  even 10 would be a magical feat of enormous proportions when done by hand. 3 connections made and broken all in less than 1 microseconds.

I think that, being that he would have to do the connect/disconnect a couple times to show the charge made, is because of the issue I claim above.  I believe he is getting high voltage into the cap. I think he had a charge instilled into the cap via the charged inductor, but a switch and diode would have done well also.

But we dont know the value of the cap.  We dont know how much power was drawn from the batt, all we know is what we can see and hear with missing details that might confirm things. That cap is huge, but maybe a .5uf at some tremendous voltage rating.

  He did a vid showing a small cap the size of 15 quarters stacked, and producing multiple full charges into a much larger looking cap by just tapping the connections from the small cap to the large, but most of the small caps charge remained.
Well hmmm,  That lil cap could be 10000uf, and that BIG cap could be .5uf .   That would explain it ehh?  ;]   Trix 

If the caps were the same, I would still be drooling and tapping caps to this day looking for the effect, if I didnt ever figure that it was a trick.

He has one vid that still impresses me, but I havnt found a glitch yet

But yeah, to an untrained eye, those vids shock and impress.

And Im not claiming he was trixxin anyone for sure, he just may not have understood some things and didnt recognize issues I see. Dunno. Wasnt there.  ;]  Just my opinion. Educated opinion. =]

Mags



Title: Re: Rosemary Ainslie circuit demonstration on Saturday March 12th 2011
Post by: Magluvin on March 24, 2011, 02:06:01 AM
hey penn0

lol  im tired lately.  I have to rest before I post any more.
When I linked to the vid, I had ff to see which one it was and forgot he had shown the value of the cap.  Wasnt tinking properly for a couple days. Gota get some sleep tonight.

I referenced other of his vids also but now I have to go back and see which ones I had actual issues also and post it more clearly.  ;]

Im beat.

Night

Mags
Title: Re: Rosemary Ainslie circuit demonstration on Saturday March 12th 2011
Post by: poynt99 on March 24, 2011, 02:36:43 AM
Sorry Stefan. I missed that voltage probe on the battery. I changed the battery voltage to 60V.

Here it is.

.99
Title: Re: Rosemary Ainslie circuit demonstration on Saturday March 12th 2011
Post by: hartiberlin on March 24, 2011, 03:02:37 AM
@poynt99

Looks like the battery is charging from the green line
with the small ripples.

All in all,
these circuits, which draw current from batteries and
also immediately return current via back spikes
can use batteries much more efficient.

If you draw low power from a battery bank in this way that for example
has 100 Amphours of capacity,
you will see, that you suddenly can draw draw 150 Amphours
of energy out of it, before the battery bank is discharged.

That is also the case in a good Newman coil or Bedini setup.
These negative spikes recharge the battery on the fly and make
them last longer, so they have a bigger capacity,
although you might have only charged them up with the
energy for 100 Amphours, you can then draw 150 Amphours out of it,
although the average mean current is still positive.

So the ou effect is more dependant on the right battery pulsing
and is happening INSIDE the battery as Mr. Bedini found out.

But in Rosemary´s test1  I would say from the burst envelope that
the scope had a negative input current value,
what also the mean digital numbers showed.

She really needs to take more and better scope shots to verify it in more detail.

Regards, Stefan.

Title: Re: Rosemary Ainslie circuit demonstration on Saturday March 12th 2011
Post by: Rosemary Ainslie on March 24, 2011, 03:56:22 AM
hello Steve,

I have finally 'got it' that you want a more detailed shot of the oscillating waveform during 'light' and 'heavy' duty modes.  Abject apologies.  Of course I'll do this.  Downside is that I'll need to unpack those batteries.  They're heavy - so can't do this myself.  But I'll have some help here tomorrow and will then set the experiment up.  I need to do this anyway.  It's just that I took timeout.  I'm just so sick of experiments. 

Meanwhile - I assure you that in those oscillations - heavy duty or light duty - ALL show a greater return.  I've avoided showing this precisely because that math trace and even the cycle mean show even greater negative voltages.  It's been impossible to try and reconcile all that excess.

I'm still not getting notification of posts here.  It's intermittant.  And I'm getting my emails through OK.  Could I impose on you to check this?

Kindest regards,
Rosemary 
Title: Re: Rosemary Ainslie circuit demonstration on Saturday March 12th 2011
Post by: Rosemary Ainslie on March 24, 2011, 04:33:36 AM
@poynt99

So the ou effect is more dependant on the right battery pulsing
and is happening INSIDE the battery as Mr. Bedini found out.

But in Rosemary´s test1  I would say from the burst envelope that
the scope had a negative input current value,
what also the mean digital numbers showed.


If I can get those spreadsheets to you I will Stefan.  The puzzle is this.  The instantaneous wattage analysis SHOWS a negative mean wattage.  This is in line with the math trace.  And the math trace is a product of instantaneous voltage across the batteries and the shunt.  I was given to understand that this is the result of the phase angle.  They're at 180 degrees in antiphase.  This means that when the battery is discharging the voltage (current) across the shunt is at it's lowest.  Correspondingly when the battery is recharging then the voltage (current) across the shunt is at it's highest.  In other words - that much ignored and discarded parasitic oscillation - is actually the system trying to 'give back' what was first delivered. 

I was also advised that the reason instantaneous analysis is required is PRECISELY because it takes these phases into account.  I keep saying this.  Those waveforms perfectly re-inforce each other and, while it's in that burst oscillation mode, then the advantage is to the supply source.  PLEASE NOTE this.  We all know the immediate effect of a strong current flow from the battery.  It tends to drop - certainly under standard applications.  Well.  We get that same drop when it goes into 'heavy duty mode'.  But INTERESTINGLY - and within minutes - it climbs right back up.  I'll try and video this as well.

I haven't even touched on the MANY different waveforms and effects that we found.  The MOST interesting is that we can get the battery voltage showing a negative voltage - with wild swings even showing up on the Digital multimeters.  Then there are 'burst mode' settings where there are intermittent and HIGH voltage oscillations during the 'on' period.  There's a world of interest there.  We only confined our tests for the demo to those two extremes as they represent the anamolies that need to be resolved relating to the applied measurement protocols.  I keep saying this.  If classical power measurement is based on the INSTANTANEOUS product of vi dt - then classical measurments most ASSUREDLY show a GAIN - notwithstanding that positive mean average on the shunt.  And Harti.  The mean average voltage is NOT the correct measure for wattage - ever.  It's what it is.  A mean average.  It ONLY applies to a DC supply.  And we do NOT have a DC supply once that switching kicks in.  Surely you know this?  Even Poynty et al concluded this in a rather lengthy debate on their forum.

And of even more interst is that it can, in fact, be tuned to show a negative mean even at heavier discharge.  I'll try and get a scope shot of this as well.  But we confined our demo to illustrate this precise point.  In other words 'classical' measurement protocol applied - results in a value that - at it's least - can be said to be anomalous.

Kindest regards,
Rosemary

BTW = many thanks indeed for adding those shots of Poynty's.
Title: Re: Rosemary Ainslie circuit demonstration on Saturday March 12th 2011
Post by: Rosemary Ainslie on March 24, 2011, 04:56:11 AM

So Rose, please try this, as it is very easy.
just instead of the function generator just get a power supply
and feed in a negative DC voltage to the Gates.

Regards, Stefan.

Hi again.  I missed this Stefan.  I need to speak to the guys at CPUT.  As it is they've given me an extended loan on the functions generator and I'm not sure that they'll also throw in a dc power supply.  But I'll certainly ask.  I've 'retired' from campus until I can arrange research funding - if possible.  The Lab I was working is is due to be modified and there's building work planned.  And we need to get this into a more dedicated research basis.  I know that one student wants to write a paper to disprove this.  It'll be interesting.  But we need to get things done more professionally than we've managed to date.  Everything's been done on a shoestring - and none of it funded.  And frankly it's cost me much more time than I can afford.  Hefty inroads into the savings.  But no regrets here. 

Be interesting if all it needs now is that DC supply.  I had no idea.  I'll get back here.  It's what I've been looking for.

Kindest again,
Rosemary 
Title: Re: Rosemary Ainslie circuit demonstration on Saturday March 12th 2011
Post by: Rosemary Ainslie on March 24, 2011, 05:12:40 AM
Hi Mags.

I see you've been really busy.  Very well done for showing that gain.  It seems that this is supported all over the place. 

I'm still hoping against hope that your proof is definitive.  But I want to speak to the guys at CPUT.  They're only back next week.  Another holiday - this time to celebrate Freedom day - which is a tribute to the sacrifices at Sharpville. 

And I trust you've caught up on some of that sleep.  I wish I could say the same. 

Take good care,
Kindest regards
Rosie
Title: Re: Rosemary Ainslie circuit demonstration on Saturday March 12th 2011
Post by: Rosemary Ainslie on March 24, 2011, 05:16:51 AM
and Woopy - Golly.  Many thanks indeed for that update.  You're the experimentalist here and Mags our thoretician.  Nice combo.

Kindest regards,
Rosemary
Title: Re: Rosemary Ainslie circuit demonstration on Saturday March 12th 2011
Post by: poynt99 on March 24, 2011, 05:19:13 AM
The problem being overlooked by many here, is that the battery scope measurement is meaningless unless taken directly across the battery terminals.

Clearly you have not done this Rose, evidenced by the large magnitude of ringing, and the fact that the scope probes in your video are placed on the proto-board somewhere, NOT on the battery terminals.

This really is important, and Stefan you ought to be asking for that imo. All the numbers will come out quite different if this is done.

You would be wise Rose, to make an input power measurement using the two DMM/RC filter method. I think you may be surprised. You are already half way there by using the DMM to measure the voltage of 60V (shown in your video).

.99
Title: Re: Rosemary Ainslie circuit demonstration on Saturday March 12th 2011
Post by: poynt99 on March 24, 2011, 05:20:05 AM
Yes Neptune, you are correct about what I was trying to get at regarding the voltage divider. ;)

.99
Title: Re: Rosemary Ainslie circuit demonstration on Saturday March 12th 2011
Post by: Rosemary Ainslie on March 24, 2011, 05:25:56 AM
The problem being overlooked by many here, is that the battery scope measurement is meaningless unless taken directly across the battery terminals.

Clearly you have not done this Rose, evidenced by the large magnitude of ringing, and the fact that the scope probes in your video are placed on the proto-board somewhere, NOT on the battery terminals.

This really is important, and Stefan you ought to be asking for that imo. All the numbers will come out quite different if this is done.

.99

Poynty.  What you actually mean is that you HOPE all the numbers will come out differently.  Unfortunately - the scope probes cost a FORTUNE and they simply do NOT physcially - SPAN those batteries.  Nor can it be arranged that they do - UNLESS OF COURSE ONE ADDS WIRES?   ::)

Quite apart from which, Poynty Point - if they are WRONG then explain the voltage on the DRAIN.  Is that also a 'spurious' effect?  Whatever the battery is doing - the fact is that the energy is CLEARLY going through them in both directions.  Isn't that the point?  Poynty?

Rosemary
Title: Re: Rosemary Ainslie circuit demonstration on Saturday March 12th 2011
Post by: poynt99 on March 24, 2011, 05:31:45 AM
The Drain scope trace is irrelevant for your input power measurement.

You need the battery voltage and the battery current. That's it, done.

Remove all your probes and use them near your battery array if you wish to try the scope again for input power. You will need another CSR in series with the battery.

Otherwise, use one DMM to measure the DC current, and another to measure the voltage across the batteries as you are already. Multiply the two, and you have your input power. The meters should provide enough averaging to give you an accurate number. The voltage seemed stable enough, it's just a matter of how stable the current through the meter will be. If it is stable (DC current setting btw), then you are off to the races. ;)

.99
Title: Re: Rosemary Ainslie circuit demonstration on Saturday March 12th 2011
Post by: Rosemary Ainslie on March 24, 2011, 05:37:56 AM
The Drain scope trace is irrelevant for your input power measurement.

You need the battery voltage and the battery current. That's it, done.

Remove all your probes and use them near your battery array if you wish to try the scope again for input power. You will need another CSR in series with the battery.

Otherwise, use one DMM to measure the DC current, and another to measure the voltage across the batteries as you are already. Multiply the two, and you have your input power. The meters should provide enough averaging to give you an accurate number. The voltage seemed stable enough, it's just a matter of how stable the current through the meter will be. If it is stable (DC current setting btw), then you are off to the races. ;)

.99

When you find a DMM that can manage the frequency at those oscillations then let me know. 

And what does that mean ' off to the racees '?  I've never heard the expression.

Regards,
Rosemary
Title: Re: Rosemary Ainslie circuit demonstration on Saturday March 12th 2011
Post by: poynt99 on March 24, 2011, 05:46:34 AM
When you find a DMM that can manage the frequency at those oscillations then let me know. 

And what does that mean ' off to the racees '?  I've never heard the expression.

Regards,
Rosemary

Are you measuring the battery voltage with a DMM in your video? I seem to recall seeing both a ~60VDC measurement, and a ~50VDC measurement.

How did the meter manage the high frequency at those two measurements?

Off to the races:
http://idioms.thefreedictionary.com/off+to+the+races

.99
Title: Re: Rosemary Ainslie circuit demonstration on Saturday March 12th 2011
Post by: Rosemary Ainslie on March 24, 2011, 06:03:34 AM
Guys,  it is very evident that the only way these results can be refuted is to look to AVERAGING everything in reach.  If one relies on averages - then I am reasonably certain that one could also, thereby deny the measurements.  BUT.  It would need to be applied in the face of the required classical measurement protocols.  This is Poynty's and Humbuggers last ditch argument.

The ENTIRE reason that we put up those two demonstrations was to SHOW that what is known of in 'school classical' as 'parasitic oscillation' has got exploitable advantages that have NOT been evaluated - thus far - by that same school classical.  Those oscillations move in both directions across zero indicating that energy is both delivered and returned.  They correspond to the voltages measured at the drain so there is clear evidence that current is flowing first from and then back to the supply source.  The ONLY appropriate question then is this.  Is there more or less energy being returned?  What the Our team boffins are trying to imply here is that NO significant energy is being returned and this can be SHOWN , SOMEHOW?  by looking at the results on a DMM.  Which is interesting.  Becuase there is no DMM that can show this happening.  What the DMM will do is 'average' that value.  Essentially the argument is this.  DO NOT LOOK AT THE EVIDENCE THROUGH A MICROSCOPE.  Just use your eyes.  I am entirely satisfied that if we did just use our eyes - then we would indeed not be able to evaluate that advantage. 

We do, indeed, use a DMM to show the overall voltage on the battery only to double check that this corresponds to the mean average voltage that we show on our scope.  But we are absolutely NOT interested in that average.  We are interested in the moment by moment benefit of that oscillation.  Unless, of course, there is some merit in refusing to do a detailed evaluation.  Then we can just claim that the retained level of charge on the battery is the anomaly and this would then NEVER be able to proven.  You catch the drift - I hope.  We would then be left arguing which battery gives the best benefit - which is absolutely a never ending argument - and, as intended, will entirely obscure the actual questions that have been addressed.

Poynty.  Stop scraping that barrel.  You and Humbugger are tediously trying to refute these measurments.  I see that Cheeseburger is now claiming that there was no-one at the demo.  Tell him, from me, that we did that video at about 4 o'clock in the afternoon - having shown those results during that extended time period - from 11 am through to 4 pm.  Indeed, at 4 there were only 6 of us still there.

What ludicrous depths will you two go to to deny all this.

Regards,
Rosemary
Title: Re: Rosemary Ainslie circuit demonstration on Saturday March 12th 2011
Post by: poynt99 on March 24, 2011, 06:09:46 AM
Guys,  it is very evident that the only way these results can be refuted is to look to AVERAGING everything in reach.  If one relies on averages - then I am reasonably certain that one could also, thereby deny the measurements.  BUT.  It would need to be applied in the face of the required classical measurement protocols.  This is Poynty's and Humbuggers last ditch argument.

The ENTIRE reason that we put up those two demonstrations was to SHOW that what is known of in 'school classical' as 'parasitic oscillation' has got exploitable advantages that have NOT been evaluated - thus far - by that same school classical.  Those oscillations move in both directions across zero indicating that energy is both delivered and returned.  They correspond to the voltages measured at the drain so there is clear evidence that current is flowing first from and then back to the supply source.  The ONLY appropriate question then is this.  Is there more or less energy being returned?  What the Our team boffins are trying to imply here is that NO significant energy is being returned and this can be SHOWN , SOMEHOW?  by looking at the results on a DMM.  Which is interesting.  Becuase there is no DMM that can show this happening.  What the DMM will do is 'average' that value.  Essentially the argument is this.  DO NOT LOOK AT THE EVIDENCE THROUGH A MICROSCOPE.  Just use your eyes.  I am entirely satisfied that if we did just use our eyes - then we would indeed not be able to evaluate that advantage. 

We do, indeed, use a DMM to show the overall voltage on the battery only to double check that this corresponds to the mean average voltage that we show on our scope.  But we are absolutely NOT interested in that average.  We are interested in the moment by moment benefit of that oscillation.  Unless, of course, there is some merit in refusing to do a detailed evaluation.  Then we can just claim that the retained level of charge on the battery is the anomaly and this would then NEVER be able to proven.  You catch the drift - I hope.  We would then be left arguing which battery gives the best benefit - which is absolutely a never ending argument - and, as intended, will entirely obscure the actual questions that have been addressed.

Poynty.  Stop scraping that barrel.  You and Humbugger are tediously trying to refute these measurments.  I see that Cheeseburger is now claiming that there was no-one at the demo.  Tell him, from me, that we did that video at about 4 o'clock in the afternoon - having shown those results during that extended time period - from 11 am through to 4 pm.  Indeed, at 4 there were only 6 of us still there.

What ludicrous depths will you two go to to deny all this.

Regards,
Rosemary

Thank you for that confirmation regarding the DMM battery voltage measurement being valid. Now, do the same with another such meter, but this time use it as a current meter.

It is perfectly valid to heavily average both the battery voltage and battery current measurements for INPUT power only. Multiply the two averaged values together to obtain the average input power from the batteries.

It's that simple Rose.

.99
Title: Re: Rosemary Ainslie circuit demonstration on Saturday March 12th 2011
Post by: Rosemary Ainslie on March 24, 2011, 06:23:07 AM
Thank you for that confirmation regarding the DMM battery voltage measurement being valid. Now, do the same with another such meter, but this time use it as a current meter.

It is perfectly valid to heavily average both the battery voltage and battery current measurements for INPUT power only. Multiply the two averaged values together to obtain the average input power from the batteries.

It's that simple Rose.

I confirm that the DMM can do an AVERAGE.  Now.  Tell me, if you can, how an analysis of those averages accommodates the advantage of the phase angles - that 180 degree phase angle?  Or is it that this will be entirely obscured?  And is this - perhaps - why you so URGENTLY require this? 

Again,
Rosemary
Title: Re: Rosemary Ainslie circuit demonstration on Saturday March 12th 2011
Post by: Rosemary Ainslie on March 24, 2011, 08:16:18 AM
Guys - Stefan - all - I really need to make this clear.  There are readers on this forum that are not that used to the spreadsheet analysis and the significance of this.  Many of you are - like me - amateurs.  And the most of you interested in experimenting on the claims in these threads.  But this point needs saying and I hope you can bend your mind around it.   For those who already know this - apologies for stating the obvious.

Power measurements are based on wattage which is determined by vi dt.  The more samples to determine that voltage the more exact is that value likely to be.  Now.  What surprised me is how accurate is this.  One example is that one can take a voltage sample across the battery and it never defaults past zero - and one can take the voltage average of the drain - and nor does this cross zero.  And yet - when you do an instantaneous analysis of this - being a product of the battery voltage and the drain voltage - then that voltage can CERTAINLY show a repeated zero crossing.  And that also, PERFECTLY reflects the shape of the waveform across the load resistor as evidenced.  Perhaps Humbybumble can check this out.  He seems to think that two postives can NEVER result in a negative.  Little does he know.

I'm entirely unschooled.  So this was REALLY interesting to me.  The more so as this gave an exact depiction of the waveform across that resistor as shown in the scope shots that we managed off our Fluke (borrowed for a VERY short time).

The same principle is evident in the actual wattage delivered to and from the battery.  Here we have evidence that the shunt is recharging the battery when the battery voltage is at its highest - and that it's discharging the battery when the battery voltage is at it's lowest.  Therefore the battery recharge always trumps the discharge.  I'll try and download some spread sheet shots.  God knows how this is done - but it must, surely be possible.

Meanwhile - just to recap the principle.  The 'clockwise' flow of current is multiplied by the battery battery voltage - multiple samples through that entire period.  Then the the 'anti clockwise flow of current is multiplied by the battery voltage - multiple samples through that entire period.  That way, and ONLY in that way - can one take the actual phase of the two voltages into account.  Stefan I do hope you get this. The ONLY way to determine the energy delivered from those batteries is, as Poynty et al first claimed and are now ANXIOUSLY denying - is to take INSTANTANEOUS WATTAGE ANALYSIS.  If you rely on mean average voltages then - by all means - feel free.  But it is absolutely NOT correct power analysis.  I HOPE THIS IS CLEAR.  I seem to keep having to say it.

AND this is for ALLCANADIAN.  It is ABSURD  to claim that collapsing fields - in whichever direction - can exceed the resistance of an opposing diode.  Just rethink this please.  If the current flow is negative - then - in relation to the drain it will show POSITIVE.  That absolutely DOES NOT MEAN that current has continued to flow in the same direction.  What a load of nonsense.

If you think about this in terms of an AC current flow through a rectifier - then here's what happens.  Above zero - the current flows clockwise.  Below zero the current flows anti clockwise.  with reference to the drain - BOTH will appear to be above zero.  BUT that is absolutely NOT a relfection of the paths they have taken through that circuitry.

Regards,
Rosemary

ADDED.  Btw.  What worries me is that I have to explain this.  I'm the amateur guys.  What gives?  Is there an agenda here?  Or is it that you really don't know these things?  Golly.  ???  ::)
Title: Re: Rosemary Ainslie circuit demonstration on Saturday March 12th 2011
Post by: Rosemary Ainslie on March 24, 2011, 09:32:24 AM
And Guys, in this repeated effort to cast aspersions - as freely as confetti at a wedding - is the new claim that the VV math trace is, confused by us all, as a reflection of wattage.  I challenge ANY ONE OF THOSE MISINFORMANTS ON POYNTY'S FORUM to show any SINGLE reference by any one of us - either in the demonstration or on any posts here - or on my blog that  we have referred to that math trace representing a WATTAGE VALUE.

This, again, is in the hopes of spreading the general impression that none of us know whereof we speak.  As it is, right now, I'm rather concerned that they really do NOT know.  Because if they do - then why are they going to such extraordinary lengths to misinform everyone.  What we reference is that the math trace represents the product of two voltages.  That's the limit of the math capability on those DSO's - as it does not offer us a formula option.  Or if it does, then the fault is mine.  I do not know how to apply it.  But the product of two voltages is an accurate guide because, if it is negative - then that will reflect in the wattage analysis.  And if it is positive then that too will reflect in the analysis.  It is a GUIDE.  And we only ever reference it as a GUIDE.

I'm heartily sick of having to refer to these things.  And if I don't, then - as has happened before - there is the chance that those who are interested in this - will simply assume that all is based on ERROR.  And that is the one thing that I cannot allow to happen again.  There is always risk associated with posting on these forums.  There are many who are actively engaged in refuting all.  When the claims are small and the evidence weak - then those poor experimentalists get some kind of license to continue.  But when they're strong - then - as sure day follows night - we/they will be dogged by attacks that are personal, inappropriate or entirely erroneous.  In my case I've been accused of every possible criminal motive coupled with every possible psychotic afflication, coupled with every possible lack of ability, training or intelligence.  Makes one think.   To the best of my knowledge I don't think that there has ever been this scale of attack on any other technology as has been mounted against us here.  And - frankly - therein is my comfort.  Why would they bother if they weren't somehow deeply concerned?  It doesn't help that there are also those who are sincerely blinded to this reach and march alongside and trumpet all that denial.  And this,  simply because they don't have the intellectual acumen required to analyse the facts for themselves.

And what's doubly frightening is that they manage to discourage - not only us the poor ou promotors - who are already confronting mainstream and classical school - but those that dare replicate or take these claims seriously.  Everyone has been calling for careful measurement.  I think we've obliged.  Certainly to extent of my pocket and our combined skills.  yet is seems that there's still an ongoing need, apparently, is to devote huge chapters of my time - trying to rescue the evidence from a concerted attempt at diminishing it.  If it's within my capability - I will not let that happen again. 

Kindest regards,
Rosemary



Title: Re: Rosemary Ainslie circuit demonstration on Saturday March 12th 2011
Post by: Rosemary Ainslie on March 24, 2011, 04:13:07 PM
Guys,  I can't get the test up again until Saturday.  Meanwhile this is for Harti.  It will be a whole wack of screen shots - and I'll give comments against each one.  So.  Apologies for this but there'll be multiple posts following.

This one.
Channel 1 = Rshunt
Channel 2 = Vbatt
Channel 3 = Gate
Channel 4 = Drain

These settings never vary.


a - cycle mean rshunt
b - math trace a x c
c - mean average vbatt
d - mean average rshunt

Typically an example of very high wattage disssipation at the load.  In this case > 44 watts
Note that the cycle mean is negative - the mean average is positive. 
Math trace - as in all examples stays negative.

Included here to remind you all that high wattage dissipation does not automatically result in a postive cycle mean average.  AGAIN.  That example used in the demonstration was intended to highlight the concern related to the phase condition of those voltages that result in an infinite COP.

Added

Title: Re: Rosemary Ainslie circuit demonstration on Saturday March 12th 2011
Post by: Rosemary Ainslie on March 24, 2011, 04:19:55 PM
2nd example.

Settings the same as previous.  This an example of a 'runaway' heat rise that required quick disconnection.  No idea of the actual wattage output.  Certainly in excess of 44 watts.  Shown here to again highlght the point that we do not ALWAYS get a positive mean average voltage across the shunt.  And again.  It was simply used in the demonstration to highlight the advantage of the phase angles that result in an infinite COP.

Note that the cycle mean and the mean average voltages are negative.
Note also that the spikes are no longer periodic.  They're all over the place.

Also.  The spikes on the mosfet are VERY HIGH.  This was always our guide that we were stressing the system.  When I saw this we disconnected - at speed.  Max temperature measured was to 220 degrees centigrade.  Didn't risk taking it higher.
Title: Re: Rosemary Ainslie circuit demonstration on Saturday March 12th 2011
Post by: Rosemary Ainslie on March 24, 2011, 04:33:03 PM
3rd example
Settings same as previous

This one to show that on a range of samples limited to the 'oscillation' only - then there is INVARIABLY the mean average voltage across the shunt in the negative.  But I'll redo some of these at the weekend and post them here as Harti requires.  The cycle mean result here is meaningless as the sample range does not include a full cycle.  But the principle holds.  It's always negative.  Hopefully I'll find another example.





Title: Re: Rosemary Ainslie circuit demonstration on Saturday March 12th 2011
Post by: Rosemary Ainslie on March 24, 2011, 04:41:53 PM
4th example
Settings same as previous

I'll make this my last example.  Just to highlight the typical waveforms that we were showing at the demo.  No apparent advantage - and YET.  The instantaneous wattage analysis shows an infinite COP.

I hope I've made  the demo objectives clearer now.

Kind regards,
Rosemary

Title: Re: Rosemary Ainslie circuit demonstration on Saturday March 12th 2011
Post by: Rosemary Ainslie on March 24, 2011, 04:49:36 PM
So guys.  I hope that now clarifies things.  We are well able to fine tune the circuit to get a negative mean average over the shunt.  Even at runaway wattage levels evident from the resistor element.  That wasn't what we were pointing to.  We were showing that the hidden benefit is always in the 180 degree antiphase relationship between the battery and the shunt.  Or that was the intention.  It seems to have eluded you all - and no doubt - I should have made this clearer. 

The point is this.  When that burst oscillation mode is evident - then also, there is invariably a gain - based on instantaneous wattage analysis.  So.  I hope that's clearer.

Kindest regards,
Rosemary
Title: Re: Rosemary Ainslie circuit demonstration on Saturday March 12th 2011
Post by: Rosemary Ainslie on March 24, 2011, 05:19:23 PM
Actually I've found 1. But I'll definitely post more of these at the weekend.

Regards,
Rosemary
Title: Re: Rosemary Ainslie circuit demonstration on Saturday March 12th 2011
Post by: cHeeseburger on March 24, 2011, 05:22:12 PM
And Guys, in this repeated effort to cast aspersions - as freely as confetti at a wedding - is the new claim that the VV math trace is, confused by us all, as a reflection of wattage.  I challenge ANY ONE OF THOSE MISINFORMANTS ON POYNTY'S FORUM to show any SINGLE reference by any one of us - either in the demonstration or on any posts here - or on my blog that  we have referred to that math trace representing a WATTAGE VALUE.


I assume your challenge here is open to anyone.  So...please observe the presentation video starting at 8:25 in (very near the end).  The mystery presenter clearly points to the VxV math trace and says clearly that it shows 5 Watts.  So your challenge is rather easy, Rosemary.

On a different subject, but related, is another observation that I think is worth considering.  Seems we have all in the past (self included) assumed that the current in the shunt represents the current in the battery.  To and from, as it were.  This would certainly be the case under a DC analysis, where the MOSFET gate is correctly considered an open circuit without current flow.

At a frequency of 1.5MHz and each MOSFET having (from the data sheet) 2800pF of capacitance from Gate to Source, with five in parallel that is 14nF or 0.014 microfarads  which is substantial.  We see the 1.5MHz oscillations appear on the gate voltage traces in Rosemary's scope shots. 

That means substantial RF current is circulating in the resonant LCR tank consisting of the MOSFET input capacitance, the Shunt resistance and inductance, the wiring inductances and the complex impedance of the gate drive cable, which, by the close-up photos, is not a 50 ohm coaxial cable matched to the generator and is of unknown characteristic impedance and length.  This RF current loop includes the shunt but does not include the battery.  Thus the shunt current is not the same as the battery current.

The energy circulating in this resonant circuit is what is responsible for wiggling the gate and causing the 1.5MHz oscillations and the currents involved are fairly significant.  The energy to sustain the current circulation in the gate loop is injected from the drain node of the MOSFET via the drain-gate capacitance as the drain voltage swings up and down by hundreds of volts.

Lastly, for anyone trying to figure out what the difference is between the high power and low power modes, it's quite simple:

In the low power mode, the gate drive high voltage is always kept below the 3-4V gate turn-on threshold.  When the gate drive gets close to or briefly hits the turn-on threshold, it stops the oscillations but does not result in actual turn-on of the MOSFETs.  This is why no current flows during the non-oscillating portions of the drive duty cycle.  And why the load heat drops to a few watts as supplied by just the oscillating portion of the burst envelope.

In the high power mode, the drive offset is adjusted so that during the non-oscillating half of the period the MOSFETs are actually turned on and DC current flows out of the battery through the load.  This normal DC current adds a great deal more heat to the load, so we get 44W now.  50W flows out of the battery.

These numbers are not made up.  They are there for all to see.  The scope traces show that when the MOSFET gates are driven above 3-4V there is always positive current flow.  Please don't take my word for this...check out the facts yourself.  There are no real mysteries involved.

cHeeseburger
Title: Re: Rosemary Ainslie circuit demonstration on Saturday March 12th 2011
Post by: neptune on March 24, 2011, 05:50:08 PM
Hi Rosemary .The scope shots look convincing to me but I would like to see comments from Harti . I know that you get overwhelmed with info , but bear this in mind .Harti suggested replacing the Function generator with a DC power supply , and you said it might be hard to obtain one . You can get the same effect using just TWO CHEAP COMPONENTS . The gate will draw no current , so get a 9 volt transistor radio battery , and a 1K potentiometer . The pot will have 3 terminals . Connect the center one to the Fet Gate . Connect the other 2 to the 9 volt battery terminals . Now run a wire from the battery positive terminal to the ground of your device .Job done . You now have a neg potential on the gate which can be varied from zero to 9 volts by the 1K pot . Try it when you get time .
Title: Re: Rosemary Ainslie circuit demonstration on Saturday March 12th 2011
Post by: markdansie on March 24, 2011, 05:50:36 PM
I received a private email today from someone that suggested that you are looking for ways to measure the outcomes to suit your thesis.  I and many others have also reached that conclusion some time ago. This reminded me to a visit I had in the USA to a large research institute. I was talking about analysing data with the head of one of the research programmes and two PHD graduates. We all agreed it is common problem even amongst academics of sometimes looking at measuring methodologies or selective data to suit ones bias towards a hypothesis rather than a rational look at all methodologies. This is why Peer Review is so important.
Several people have made excellent suggestions, and offers.  Sadly you only talk to those who concur with you and ignore the others.
So please take a fresh approach of analysing what you have done to date and how you could better do it. Until you do come up with methodologies that satisfy the industry professionals, you will never be taken seriously by mainstream.
I am writing this as helpfull advice, not to shoot you down. Go back again , read what has been said and device a new methodology. People want to help.
Kind Regards
Mark
Title: Re: Rosemary Ainslie circuit demonstration on Saturday March 12th 2011
Post by: Feynman on March 24, 2011, 07:13:33 PM
Thanks for posting the higher-res scope shots.  I am very busy with other projects at the moment, but I'll be interested to see how this turns out.
Title: Re: Rosemary Ainslie circuit demonstration on Saturday March 12th 2011
Post by: Rosemary Ainslie on March 24, 2011, 07:46:33 PM
Hi Rosemary .The scope shots look convincing to me but I would like to see comments from Harti . I know that you get overwhelmed with info , but bear this in mind .Harti suggested replacing the Function generator with a DC power supply , and you said it might be hard to obtain one . You can get the same effect using just TWO CHEAP COMPONENTS . The gate will draw no current , so get a 9 volt transistor radio battery , and a 1K potentiometer . The pot will have 3 terminals . Connect the center one to the Fet Gate . Connect the other 2 to the 9 volt battery terminals . Now run a wire from the battery positive terminal to the ground of your device .Job done . You now have a neg potential on the gate which can be varied from zero to 9 volts by the 1K pot . Try it when you get time .

Hello Neptune.  You make this sound so easy.  I'll ask if Marco can set this up - but I must admit I'm reluctant to change that artefact.  Anyway.  I'll CERTAINLY try the Power supply number as that's within my competence.  But that test needs to wait until the guys are back from a conference.  Sometime next week.  That's the soonest.  I'll do more waveforms at the weekend and - hopefully - show you some more of those really complex numbers where the battery average itself falls to something weird.

added - sorry Neptune.  Yes.  If the guys can set this up for me - I'll test it.  It seems such an elegant solution.

And Feynman, I'd be glad if you get on board here eventually.  I"m still battling to find some way of showing those spreadsheets.

Kindest regards,
Rosemary
Title: Re: Rosemary Ainslie circuit demonstration on Saturday March 12th 2011
Post by: Sprocket on March 24, 2011, 08:06:24 PM
Rosemary, I've just been going through your blog-Report - you really should do something about the images there, though 'click-able', they don't expand much if at all, and are almost unreadable!  But I made a discovery - despite all your talk of negative voltages on the gate from the get-go, I always took this to mean zero-volts! Rank-amateur and sad but true, it also kinda explains why I had a negative result the first time round - I was using a pulse-generator, 0->5v range, not the the 555 circuit.

Do you have a link to where someone could buy the heater element you used?  The company "Specific Heat" you list in the report doesn't google anything relevant.
Title: Re: Rosemary Ainslie circuit demonstration on Saturday March 12th 2011
Post by: Rosemary Ainslie on March 24, 2011, 08:22:41 PM
Rosemary, I've just been going through your blog-Report - you really should do something about the images there, though 'click-able', they don't expand much if at all, and are almost unreadable!  But I made a discovery - despite all your talk of negative voltages on the gate from the get-go, I always took this to mean zero-volts! Rank-amateur and sad but true, it also kinda explains why I had a negative result the first time round - I was using a pulse-generator, 0->5v range, not the the 555 circuit.

Do you have a link to where someone could buy the heater element you used?  The company "Specific Heat" you list in the report doesn't google anything relevant.

Sprocket - this is beginning to sound promising.  Yes. I can definitely pm you on this.  But PLEASE.  There is absolutely NO requirement for a precise component EVER.  I need to make this very clear.  I'm not sure of the cost but those are standard immersion heaters.  What it shows is that it works very well.  Plus/minus 10 Ohms.  Guys - for anyone wanting to experiment on this or aspects of this test - it is absolutely NOT frequency dependent and nor is it component dependent. I KNOW that this can be shown on just about any variation and variety.  Look even at the configuration that Mags has shown.  All that is needed - as I see it - is that there is the generation of BEMF - or - maybe - FEMF as Mags calls it.  BUT.  To generate that amazing burst oscillation - then I THINK you all that is needed are those mosfets in parallel and some kind of negative triggering.  That's it.  I would be really sorry to find that anyone gets ensnarled again in attempting a precise replication.  It's not needed.  Look at all the varieties that I've shown.  And I've only given a fraction of what our data shows.  And you guys are skilled.  You could very easily take this to some kind of application.  That would be so nice.  Just to tempt you.  I think you could unplug your hot water cylinders with between 6 and 8 of those batteries.  I'm reasonably certain that we were dissipating in excess of 200 watts and that with just 4 batteries.  If you do this and if you manage it - then let us all know.  It would be most enouraging.

Kindest regards,
Rosemary
Title: Re: Rosemary Ainslie circuit demonstration on Saturday March 12th 2011
Post by: neptune on March 24, 2011, 08:30:46 PM
@Sprocket . As you have worked out for yourself , a simple function generator without a voltage offset control will only give a square wave out put that toggles between a positive value [say 5 volts] and zero . The 555 timer circuit is just the same except that the positive part of the square wave is at a higher voltage , approaching the voltage of the battery supplying the 555 circuit . Rosemarys function generator has a voltage offset control . What this does in effect is move the zero line of the voltage graph up the page , so the pulses are alternately positive and negative . note that depending on the control setting these pos and neg voltages are not necessarily equal . In other words you can move that zero line as far up or down as desired . Note that In its published form the 555 timer can NOT give negative pulses . I have a circuit in my head that could enable it to do so , but I do not know how to put it on the computer .The simple battery and pot circuit I describe above simply keeps the gate at a constant negative voltage .
Title: Re: Rosemary Ainslie circuit demonstration on Saturday March 12th 2011
Post by: woopy on March 24, 2011, 11:16:24 PM
Hi  Hartiberlin

in response to your inquiry on youtube

hope i have undesrtood your mind

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RQFD1cDlEUU

good luck at all

Laurent
Title: Re: Rosemary Ainslie circuit demonstration on Saturday March 12th 2011
Post by: Magluvin on March 25, 2011, 12:05:12 AM
Hi  Hartiberlin

in response to your inquiry on youtube

hope i have undesrtood your mind

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RQFD1cDlEUU

good luck at all

Laurent

Hey Woopy

In teslas igniter pat, he uses a very low ohm primary of another transformer let say, in series with your switch across the cap.

The switch has 2 ON functions.   

1 When closed, the large inductor is put directly across the source, so the freewheeling builds much quicker and stronger. Now when the switch opens, the inductor charges the cap really high, because it takes a lot to bring the inductors freewheeling to a halt, because its spinning so fast. ;]
Like a bullet from a gun, if I throw the bullet at you, you might just laugh at me, but from a gun, a lot of speed and speed is power. ;]

2  When the switch closes, it doesnt just short out the charge in the cap, it dumps it into the low ohm primary of the transformer, while the source is getting the inductor going.  Get it?  Tesla was pure genius. So efficient in all ways.

So instead of charging the cap as you are, and just sorting it out to discharge or sending it elsewhere via another way, the one switch does it all.  If you have another microwave transformer or an automotive spark coil, you can use its primary in series with the switch
and keep the first transformer you have been using as the flywheel.
Now while you demonstrate, we get to see big sparks from the output.   :o  be careful, we dont know what the output will be till you try. ;]

Keep uP the good work woops. Ill be joining you in a few days with this, as i have something I need to test on these bi-toroid theories.
I thing there can be many ways to separate the secondary induced fields from the primary field, and that is key for not having an increase in primary current as secondary load current increases. And safe, its just a transformer. ;]  i like safe, no like nuke. have you read today about where we store used fuel rods these days? Same as Japan, and they are holding more than they should, at every plant. =[

Mags
Title: Re: Rosemary Ainslie circuit demonstration on Saturday March 12th 2011
Post by: Magluvin on March 25, 2011, 12:16:54 AM
Woops, one more thing

Ive been told that those caps have a built in resistor, that looks like why your charge voltage is declining as it sits. Some of these caps have the resistor welded to the outside terminals and can be removed.  these caps can hold very high voltages. Ive picked up a few charged caps in my time that I was shocked, literally and not ;], at what 200 or 300v in a tiny cap can feel like, but up to 2000v   :o  Thats why they have the resistor so the voltage doesnt stay in the cap when not in use.
;]
Magz
Title: Re: Rosemary Ainslie circuit demonstration on Saturday March 12th 2011
Post by: Sprocket on March 25, 2011, 12:27:57 AM
@Rosemary - Thanks for the info. Yes, I am definitely thinking of specific applications as well, hence my reason for wanting a 'real-world' heater element.  I presumed that the one you were using was somewhat specialised as it seemed fairly low-power - most of the heater elements I've googled were in the 2-4KW range.  Since any garden-variety should do, I'll probably source one locally.

@neptune - that certainly describes my pulse-generator, simple - just pulses, nothing else, and definitely no offset option.  I've been threatening to get a decent function-generator for years but inconveniences like eating/beer etc. always seem to win out!  And recently one of the channels went in my scope.  I finally managed to trace the fault, but the needed i.c. (UB1202AM) has been relegated to the status of "obsolete stock" so it's gonna take mucho deneros if I opt to fix it - most US firms will only sell wholesale and don't even respond to emails, but I managed to find a Chinese supplier who will sell me a minimum of 5 for $10 each, so we're talking at least 100 bucks. The function-generator will have to wait for another while.  As for the 555 circuit, I'm sure I will be able to scare up something to generate the required waveform without too much difficulty.
Title: Re: Rosemary Ainslie circuit demonstration on Saturday March 12th 2011
Post by: Magluvin on March 25, 2011, 01:21:48 AM
Hey Woops

I stuck us in the Tesla Igniter thread as it is appropriate and this is Roses deal here and the cap shorting is getting away from mine and her discussions. Shorting the cap is just putting direct source across the inductor, thus more voltage seen, and more current seen. ;]   The idea though is on the same lines with the flywheel effect.

You can check us out over there Rose. =]  Always welcome. And I have another treat for ya. Its a way to use 1 energy 2 times, well almost 2 times. Very simple.  ;]

Mags
Title: Re: Rosemary Ainslie circuit demonstration on Saturday March 12th 2011
Post by: cHeeseburger on March 25, 2011, 03:41:45 AM

On a different subject, but related, is another observation that I think is worth considering.  Seems we have all in the past (self included) assumed that the current in the shunt represents the current in the battery.  To and from, as it were.  This would certainly be the case under a DC analysis, where the MOSFET gate is correctly considered an open circuit without current flow.

At a frequency of 1.5MHz and each MOSFET having (from the data sheet) 2800pF of capacitance from Gate to Source, with five in parallel that is 14nF or 0.014 microfarads  which is substantial.  We see the 1.5MHz oscillations appear on the gate voltage traces in Rosemary's scope shots. 


Here I forgot to mention that the very large narrow spikes we see in all the shunt current traces all correspond to the switching pulses from the pulse generator charging and discharging the gate capacitance through the shunt.

The shunt inductance enlarges these spikes.  They are confined to the gate-source current loop and thus do not appear in the actual battery current.

To obtain an accurate waveform and measure of the battery current ONLY, I would recommend highly that a Kelvin-sensing shunt of extremely low inductance be used, placed on the battery minus side of the common ground point (rather than on the MOSFET source side).

Such a shunt can be easily fabricated in a few minutes for about $5.00 US.  See the picture below for the details.

Kindest regards,

Bryan

CHeeseburger
Title: Re: Rosemary Ainslie circuit demonstration on Saturday March 12th 2011
Post by: hartiberlin on March 25, 2011, 04:43:13 AM
Hi  Hartiberlin

in response to your inquiry on youtube

hope i have undesrtood your mind

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RQFD1cDlEUU

good luck at all

Laurent


Okay, thanks,
but I meant , what would happen,
if you pulse the power supply
to the circuit, not shorting the capacitor.

Anyway, as you did it looks good and you
could use a incandescent lamp like
a 12 Volts 10 Watts Halogen lamp
in series with your switch when you short out the cap,
then this lamp will light up.

P.S: I will move this Forward EMF discussion postings to a different
thread, as it does not apply to the Rosemary circuit..
Regards, STefan.
Title: Re: Rosemary Ainslie circuit demonstration on Saturday March 12th 2011
Post by: hartiberlin on March 25, 2011, 04:46:38 AM
Here I forgot to mention that the very large narrow spikes we see in all the shunt current traces all correspond to the switching pulses from the pulse generator charging and discharging the gate capacitance through the shunt.

The shunt inductance enlarges these spikes.  They are confined to the gate-source current loop and thus do not appear in the actual battery current.

CHeeseburger

Yes, through the switching of the function generator
additional energy can be flown into the circuit via the
Gate Source and Gate Drain capacitances.

So it will be wise to just use a negative DC power
supply on the Gates to start and keep the oscillations.
Title: Re: Rosemary Ainslie circuit demonstration on Saturday March 12th 2011
Post by: Magluvin on March 25, 2011, 04:59:38 AM
Hey Stefan
If it is ok, you could put the posts in the igniter thread. If you insert them just before my first post today, it will fit the time period as there wasnt any posts for a long time. In it fits.  =]  Just a suggestion.


Thanks
Mags
Title: Re: Rosemary Ainslie circuit demonstration on Saturday March 12th 2011
Post by: Rosemary Ainslie on March 25, 2011, 05:00:09 AM
Yes, through the switching of the function generator
additional energy can be flown into the circuit via the
Gate Source and Gate Drain capacitances.
Really?  Where is this energy coming from?  The plug?  Or from ground?  I can prove that it does not come from the plug and I intend proving that it does not come from ground through the simple expediency of applying a groundless connection.  And that capacitance would need to generate in the order of 60 amps in BOTH directions.  The ONLY supply that is capable of that much current is from the battery.

Rosemary
Title: Re: Rosemary Ainslie circuit demonstration on Saturday March 12th 2011
Post by: hartiberlin on March 25, 2011, 05:00:21 AM
Rosemary,
please measure the battery voltage directly across the battery terminals
with the scope, not inside the circuit.


Here are the 2 scopeshots.
You decide which areas are bigger, the
red ones (positive ones) above the black
ground line or the green areas below the ground
line (negative current recharging the battery).

The math function of the scope says, the green area, is bigger.
You decide !

The question is, when the low potential of the
function generator also oscillates with 1.5 Mhz,
does this supply much power from the function generator
into the circuit via the capacity of gate to drain and source ?

As the funtion generator has about 50 Ohms output resistance,
I just calculated that it could add about 0.5 Watts max into the
circuit at these oscillation amplitudes via the capacitive coupling.

Regards, Stefan.
@ Poynt, please post your simulation file.
Thanks.
Title: Re: Rosemary Ainslie circuit demonstration on Saturday March 12th 2011
Post by: Rosemary Ainslie on March 25, 2011, 05:15:27 AM
Rosemary,
please measure the battery voltage directly across the battery terminals
with the scope, not inside the circuit.
I would do this with PLEASURE.  I cannot use the oscilloscope probes.  I've written this in an email reply to you.  I've mentioned this to Poynty here on this thread.  THE SCOPE PROBES DO NOT SPAN THOSE TERMINALS.  I can CERTAINLY do it if I add wire.  But then we're back to where we started. 
 
Here are the 2 scopeshots.
You decide which areas are bigger, the
red ones (positive ones) above the black
ground line or the green areas below the ground
line (negative current recharging the battery).
Good point Harti.  I would say that there's more above than below which definitely CONFLICTS with the displayed values.  I suspect that this was taken from a stored shot of a full cycle.  Else the numbers would have adjusted accordingly.  I intend looking into this tomorrow.

The question is, when the low potential of the
function generator also oscillates with 1.5 Mhz,
does this supply much power from the function generator
into the circuit via the capacity of gate to drain and source ?
This can be easily proved or disproved.  And this will CERTAINLY be tested tomorrow.  I'll let you know.

As the funtion generator has about 50 Ohms output resistance,
I just calculated that it could add about 0.5 Watts max into the
circuit at these oscillation amplitudes via the capacitive coupling.
That EXACTLY matches the energy that we measured.

Stefan, will you PLEASE carefully read the email that I sent you.  We're missing each other by a mile.

Kindest regards,
Rosemary
Title: Re: Rosemary Ainslie circuit demonstration on Saturday March 12th 2011
Post by: hartiberlin on March 25, 2011, 05:23:02 AM
When the function generator has the low signal,
then the oscillation is running.

Then the oscillation amplitude of the 1.5 Mhz overlayed on the low
signal of the function generator is around 5 Volts
at maximum.
If we calculate the gate to drain-source resistance as a short
at this high frequency, there is only the limiting
resistor of 50 Ohms at the output of the function
generator.

Thus the maximum power can only be 5 Volts ^2 /50 Ohm / 2
cause the maximum power can be put out, when the
gate to drain-source capacitive resistance would be equal
to the internal output resistance of the function generator.

So at 5 Volts oscillation amplitude it could be a maximum
of 0.25 Watts.
( the function generator output resistance and the
gate to drain-source capacitive resistance are voltage
dividers and thus at the gate to drain-source capacitive resistance
only 1/2 of the output voltage of the function generator can occur at maximum)

At 10 Volts oscillation amplitude of the overlayed 1.5 Mhz signal it would be about 1 Watts max, what the
function generator could provide into the circuit.

Regards, Stefan.
Title: Re: Rosemary Ainslie circuit demonstration on Saturday March 12th 2011
Post by: Rosemary Ainslie on March 25, 2011, 05:28:40 AM
Stefan - here again is the point.

Energy is vi dt.  Therefore we multiply the current determined by voltage across the shunt with the voltage at the battery. 

We addressed this at the demo.  We used a TYPICAL waveform - that SHOWS NO NEGATIVE MEAN AVERAGE - and showed that the antiphase condition of those voltages - across the battery and across the shunt - INEVITABLY results in COP INFINITY.  This is because the battery voltage is at its LOWEST when energy is delivered and at its HIGHEST when energy is being returned.  That way - REGARDLESS - the gain is ALWAYS to the battery.

The anomaly is this.  If we apply CLASSICAL PROTOCOLS then the result is Infinite COP.  The question - as you rightly point out - is does the energy go through the battery?  I do not know.  But what I do know is that it is in line with the voltage measured through the drain.  If it is argued that this energy on the drain is from the FET - then the FET would need to be discharging something in the region of 60 amps.  I think this is unlikely.  But I'll try and find a condition that can prove this more conclusively.

Rosemary
Title: Re: Rosemary Ainslie circuit demonstration on Saturday March 12th 2011
Post by: hartiberlin on March 25, 2011, 05:32:41 AM
I would do this with PLEASURE.  I cannot use the oscilloscope probes.  I've written this in an email reply to you.  I've mentioned this to Poynty here on this thread.  THE SCOPE PROBES DO NOT SPAN THOSE TERMINALS.  I can CERTAINLY do it if I add wire.  But then we're back to where we started. 


Yes, add some thick wires there and measure with the scope
head directly at the positive terminal
and with a thick diameter wire connected directly
connect the ground line of the scope to the neative pole of the battery.

Quote
Good point Harti.  I would say that there's more above than below which definitely CONFLICTS with the displayed values.

Hmm, but it could also be, that the green area is bigger all in all.
As the scope says it is a negative nanoVolts ,
the negative area seems to be only very minuscule bigger...



Regards, Stefan.
Title: Re: Rosemary Ainslie circuit demonstration on Saturday March 12th 2011
Post by: Rosemary Ainslie on March 25, 2011, 05:34:29 AM
When the function generator has the low signal,
then the oscillation is running.

Then the oscillation amplitude of the 1.5 Mhz overlayed on the low
signal of the function generator is around 5 Volts
at maximum.
If we calculate the gate to drain-source resistance as a short
at this high frequency, there is only the limiting
resistor of 50 Ohms at the output of the function
generator.

Thus the maximum power can only be 5 Volts ^2 /50 Ohm / 2
cause the maximum power can be put out, when the
gate to drain-source capacitive resistance would be equal
to the internal output resistance of the function generator.

So at 5 Volts oscillation amplitude it could be a maximum
of 0.25 Watts.
( the function generator output resistance and the
gate to drain-source capacitive resistance are voltage
dividers and thus at the gate to drain-source capacitive resistance
only 1/2 of the output voltage of the function generator can occur at maximum)

At 10 Volts oscillation amplitude of the overlayed 1.5 Mhz signal it would be about 1 Watts max, what the
function generator could provide into the circuit.

Regards, Stefan.

Ok.  This is more comforting.  We put a .5 Ohm resistor at the gate to measure the energy.  We established that there was something in excess of 5 watts - but that this was being returned to the functions generator.  One of the guys there said that there was enough capacitance associated with the generator to absorb this energy.  I am not qualified to comment.

Regards.
Rosemary
Title: Re: Rosemary Ainslie circuit demonstration on Saturday March 12th 2011
Post by: hartiberlin on March 25, 2011, 05:39:31 AM
Stefan - here again is the point.

Energy is vi dt.  Therefore we multiply the current determined by voltage across the shunt with the voltage at the battery. 



The problem is, you did NOT measure the voltage at the battery !
Only inside the circuit, where you have a long cable to the batteries,
which has too much inductance at 1.5 Mhz !

Please measure the voltage directly at the batteries with very big cables !
Title: Re: Rosemary Ainslie circuit demonstration on Saturday March 12th 2011
Post by: Rosemary Ainslie on March 25, 2011, 05:43:40 AM
The problem is, you did NOT measure the voltage at the battery !
Only inside the circuit, where you have a long cable to the batteries,
which has too much inductance at 1.5 Mhz !

Please measure the voltage directly at the batteries with very big cables !

Still not sure what you mean.  Do I add wires across the batteries?  Or do I leave the cables there and simply apply the probe directly to them?  I'll gladly do whichever - or both, as required.

Rosemary
Title: Re: Rosemary Ainslie circuit demonstration on Saturday March 12th 2011
Post by: cHeeseburger on March 25, 2011, 05:51:50 AM
Yes, through the switching of the function generator
additional energy can be flown into the circuit via the
Gate Source and Gate Drain capacitances.

So it will be wise to just use a negative DC power
supply on the Gates to start and keep the oscillations.

Yes, this will eliminate the giant spikes but still a Kelvin sensing ultra-low inductance shunt should be placed on the battery side of the common ground point to eliminate the currents in the gate-source circuit loop resulting from the oscillations at 1.5MHz (as well as any gate drive spikes, which will go away if the circuit can be made to oscillate with just a DC bias).

Stefan, you must remember that it is not only energy that comes from the sig-gen flowing in the gate-source current loop (and showing up in the shunt even though it is not flowing in the larger circuit loop that includes the batteries). 

Ok.  This is more comforting.  We put a .5 Ohm resistor at the gate to measure the energy.  We established that there was something in excess of 5 watts - but that this was being returned to the functions generator.  One of the guys there said that there was enough capacitance associated with the generator to absorb this energy.  I am not qualified to comment.

Regards.
Rosemary

So Rosemary's team acknowledges that 5W of 1.5MHz RF is circulating in the gate circuit when there is no dynamic transition signal coming from the signal generator.

We see this clearly when the 1,5MHz oscillations are going and there is AC voltage at the gate having to exist across the 14nF of gate capacitance.  That represents significant power that is neither coming from the sig-gen nor flowing through the larger outer circuit loop and battery.  But it appears on the shunt because the shunt is inside both the smaller and larger current loops at present.  This why the shunt should be moved to the battery side of ground and thus taken out of the gate-source current loop.  If the goal is to measure just the battery current flow by itself, this must be done.

If this is done, please note that the polarity reverses on the shunt.  Think about that carefully and you will see that when current flows in the normal direction out of the battery (draining the battery) a shunt on the left (battery) side of the ground point will show a negative voltage below ground while a shunt on the right side (MOSFET source) of the common ground will show a positive voltage above ground.  Remember the two shunts are in series with ground at the center tap.

Regarding that non-driven approach (DC bias without input pulses) Rosemary might find it won't readily begin oscillating.  In my simulation, I used a DC bias and got continuous oscillation but I needed to have one single sharp pulse to get it to start going.  I'm not predicting one way or the other, just noting a minor point that I found using the simulator.  The actual hardware may be different.

Bryan
Title: Re: Rosemary Ainslie circuit demonstration on Saturday March 12th 2011
Post by: Goat on March 25, 2011, 06:10:37 AM
Dear Rosemary

Please forgive the intrusion in your thread, there seems to be a lot of issues about the measurements in your experiment.

A simple question if you will. 

Have you ever ran your circuit for a longer period of time than would be possible on a battery (or bank of batteries) than without your circuit to the heat resistive element?

Seems like your circuit and your goal as intended to generate heat without depleting the source battery (or bank of batteries) to pre-heat water or other uses could run this circuit once started and tuned indefinitely. If you don't mind me asking, how long have you ran this circuit without interruption?  I know you mentioned pushing the circuit and that the battery was still charged, but can you keep it running endlessly if not pushing it too much and still go past the C20 capacity rating for the battery?

Sorry for all the questions, I know you're busy but if you could answer the above I don't see what all the fuss about measuring is if you can keep the battery powering extra heat indefinitely :) 

Regards,
Paul
 

Title: Re: Rosemary Ainslie circuit demonstration on Saturday March 12th 2011
Post by: Rosemary Ainslie on March 25, 2011, 06:17:15 AM
Have you ever ran your circuit for a longer period of time than would be possible on a battery (or bank of batteries) than without your circuit to the heat resistive element?

Seems like your circuit and your goal as intended to generate heat without depleting the source battery (or bank of batteries) to pre-heat water or other uses could run this circuit once started and tuned indefinitely. If you don't mind me asking, how long have you ran this circuit without interruption?  I know you mentioned pushing the circuit and that the battery was still charged, but can you keep it running endlessly if not pushing it too much and still go past the C20 capacity rating for the battery?

Sorry for all the questions, I know you're busy but if you could answer the above I don't see what all the fuss about measuring is if you can keep the battery powering extra heat indefinitely :) 

Regards,
Paul

It's a good question Paul - and I've sort of answered it all over the place.  It seems to be a preferred way of proving things because it's so logical.  I have NOT managed to find any loss on our own batteries - used pretty well continuously for 5 or so months.  But the batteries are HUGE.  I'll try and find the post that refers to this and then repost it.  If you're asking this still then there are others with the same question. 

Hang ten - I'll post it hereunder - when I find it?  Not the quickest around this internet thing.  LOL

Kindest regards,
Rosemary
Title: Re: Rosemary Ainslie circuit demonstration on Saturday March 12th 2011
Post by: Goat on March 25, 2011, 06:39:33 AM
It's a good question Paul - and I've sort of answered it all over the place.  It seems to be a preferred way of proving things because it's so logical.  I have NOT managed to find any loss on our own batteries - used pretty well continuously for 5 or so months.  But the batteries are HUGE.  I'll try and find the post that refers to this and then repost it.  If you're asking this still then there are others with the same question. 

Hang ten - I'll post it hereunder - when I find it?  Not the quickest around this internet thing.  LOL

Kindest regards,
Rosemary

Thank you for your quick reply Rosemary, I am humbled at your statement "If you're asking this still then there are others with the same question." because it seems like your thread and purpose here has become mired in measurement issues. 

When you mentioned above "I have NOT managed to find any loss on our own batteries - used pretty well continuously for 5 or so months.  But the batteries are HUGE."  How HUGE was the battery as opposed to the resistive element and did the extended use show more heat than the battery bank could supply? 

If so, mission accomplished :)

Regards,
Paul
Title: Re: Rosemary Ainslie circuit demonstration on Saturday March 12th 2011
Post by: happyfunball on March 25, 2011, 06:40:53 AM
It's a good question Paul - and I've sort of answered it all over the place.  It seems to be a preferred way of proving things because it's so logical.  I have NOT managed to find any loss on our own batteries - used pretty well continuously for 5 or so months.  But the batteries are HUGE.  I'll try and find the post that refers to this and then repost it.  If you're asking this still then there are others with the same question. 

Hang ten - I'll post it hereunder - when I find it?  Not the quickest around this internet thing.  LOL

Kindest regards,
Rosemary

It's a simple question, what is the longest time you've run the circuit off the batteries? Why don't you know this offhand? Seems fairly important. May I suggest trying tinselkoala's requests on the bottom of page 1 as a starting point to answering questions which seem to be going around in circles.

Thanks.
Title: Re: Rosemary Ainslie circuit demonstration on Saturday March 12th 2011
Post by: Goat on March 25, 2011, 06:57:05 AM
@ happyfunball

Rosemary said that the batteries ran the circuit for 5 months so she did answer that question but she also mentioned that the batteries were HUGE so it remains to be seen what size the battery bank was and what heat was being generated.

Rosemary did say she brought this up before so please be patient with the rest of us while she gathers her information and answers us.

Regards,
Paul
Title: Re: Rosemary Ainslie circuit demonstration on Saturday March 12th 2011
Post by: Rosemary Ainslie on March 25, 2011, 07:22:17 AM
happyfunball.  Another gross misnomer.  LOL Your posts read like the prophets of doom. I've just trailed through a page of them.  Your denial of OU is somewhat brutal.  They're about as inspirational as as a tall glass of tepid tap water.   And you're wrong of course.   Measurements are given all over the place.  It's just when the stack up to contradict what you clearly require - then they're ignored - or considered fallacious.

Just to fill you in here I'll say this again.  When BP (SA)  evaluated these results - some decade ago - they insisted that it would ONLY be proved on batteries.  I was involved in a series of the most boring tests that I have ever been involved with.  All the more arduous as I am - absolutely not - an experimentalist.  I won't here go into the protocols.  But it required close testing of controls against the experiment and run concurrently.    The timing of those batteries was determined like this.  When either one of those supply banks depeleted their PD from 24 v's to 20 volts or when each battery depeleted from 12 to 10  - then the tests were terminated.  That constituted the 'test period'.  What was evidenced is that the controls were entirely 'flat' when the test had barely lost a fraction of a volt.  On the strength of these results PB (SA) allowed us to use their names as accreditors of that early test.  Those early tests are on record as showing a COP>17.  In effect we proved that the test batteries outlasted its watt hour rating against the control.

Now.  When it came to giving a published report on those definitive tests - the PUBLISHER refused to allow ANY REFERENCE TO THE CONTROL.  The publication was a technical journal.  The editor was advised by an electrical engineering academic.  They determined - regardless of my protests - that any reference to battery duration was entirely IRRELEVANT to the argument.  Therefore was I not allowed to reference batteries.  I ASSURE YOU - that as often as you guys state that the battery needs to be tested to it's full duration - just as often will that evidence be ignored.   Batteries vary - one from another.  Some batteries retain their charge and then collapse in moments - to nothing.  Others distribute their charge more gradually.  Others require small currents to match their ratings.  Others don't.  The electrolytes vary - one from another.  So.  If I was to test one then - for conclusive results - I'd need to test them all.

Then.  We have hooked up as many as 7 of those very large batteries in one single test -  apparently discharging nothing.  Now.  The artefact matters.  When this experiment finally gets to our academies, then equivalent and nonequivalent capacities will need to be tested.  In these tests we only used that same bank.  And we could measure absolutely zero loss over a 5 month period.  Exactly how long would it be required to run those tests?  Would it take 2 years to prove it?  10? 6 months?  What?  What exactly would satisfy you?  And how then does one run a control?  Must we SHOW that under normal operating conditions a battery will discharge?  I would have thought that that much could be relied on.  And even then.  I am ready to put money on it that while the most of you engineers require it - our learneds will, to a man, insist that the battery duration is irrelevant.    I wonder if I can state this more plainly.  They're right.  The minute you start evaluating the battery performance - then you are trying to resolve a result in line with specific commodity with a market supply that has varieties that are probably counted in their thousands if not their hundreds of thousands.  That's an awful lot of testing. 

What is intersting is this.  We have an energy returned to the supply that is far greater than the energy delivered from that supply.  Now.  Here's the thing.  If, as is widely assumed by mainstream - that energy is lost to a battery when it discharges current flow - then - by the same token one would expect the energy to be increased in line with a recharge cycle.  In point of fact the batteries voltages varied under test conditions.  The stronger the current discharge the quicker the decline.  But OF INTEREST - is that immediately thereafter it systematically climbs - within minutes - to it's previous high.  Not higher.  Perhaps there are those subsequent tests that may take it higher.  In previous tests we have certainly found a climb to a higher 'start condition'.  But in these tests we did not.  It never exceeded its 'kick off' voltage level. 

I would modestly propose  therefore, that there is a fixed amount of energy that is available from that potential difference - and that no new material - electrons or whatever classical assumption requires - has been introduced to the system.  That's interesting.  That implies that this may be a closed system. It also implies a whole lot of other things.  But for now - just consider that.  That is, if you are not 'happily' out to throw more of that tepid tap water on this research.

Rosemary

Got there.  Strangely this was in answer to Happyfunball.  Seems like he either missed the post or the sense in that post.  I will not again get embroiled in evaluating the battery draw downs.  Anyone feel strongly about this feel free to do your own tests.  Meanwhile - as a reminder - if I had to rely on battery performance then it would eliminate one half of a very strong argument.  My intention is to show that these gains apply to AC or DC supplies.

Thanks for the defense here Paul.  I'm always grateful for this.  It seems that either my personality or the facts of these experiments tends to polarise opinions. 

Kindest regards,
Rosemary
Title: Re: Rosemary Ainslie circuit demonstration on Saturday March 12th 2011
Post by: Rosemary Ainslie on March 25, 2011, 08:22:34 AM

And Guys, in this repeated effort to cast aspersions - as freely as confetti at a wedding - is the new claim that the VV math trace is, confused by us all, as a reflection of wattage.  I challenge ANY ONE OF THOSE MISINFORMANTS ON POYNTY'S FORUM to show any SINGLE reference by any one of us - either in the demonstration or on any posts here - or on my blog that  we have referred to that math trace representing a WATTAGE VALUE.

I assume your challenge here is open to anyone.  So...please observe the presentation video starting at 8:25 in (very near the end).  The mystery presenter clearly points to the VxV math trace and says clearly that it shows 5 Watts.  So your challenge is rather easy, Rosemary.

Golly.  Humbugger.  If I didn't know better I'd think you were 'spinning'.  Actually, I'd be inclined to think that this was a HUMDINGER of a lie.  I'll post a link to the video in question.  There is NOTHING in that math trace that is referred to as watts.  Unless - that is - that you are concluding that -5VV that Donovan points to - is somehow meant to relate the the measured plus/minus 44 watts dissipated. 

Sorry.  I forgot to add the link to the video.  Here it is.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fyOmoGluMCc

It reminds me of the time when you related that joke to us all where you got clearance from some rather weighty Governmental laboratories - on one of TK's videos.  You pointed out that, notwithstanding evidence to the contrary - they had found a 'hidden' wire that was therefore appropriate to that junction.  Remeber that Cheesie?   For those readers that may be interested here's that link. 

http://newlightondarkenergy.blogspot.com/2011/01/36-pretender.html

I've said this before.  If I were inclined to suspicions and general paranoia - then I'd be inclined to think that you had some kind of agenda here. 

And - if you need to explain those 'spikes' as coming from the capacitance in the MOSFETs - then you'd need to explain how it is that they generate in excess of 60 amps in both directions through the circuit.  It would take a miracle of some considerable proportions to manage that argument and still sound sane.

Rosemary
EDITED
Title: Re: Rosemary Ainslie circuit demonstration on Saturday March 12th 2011
Post by: cHeeseburger on March 25, 2011, 09:06:58 AM
Yes, add some thick wires there and measure with the scope
head directly at the positive terminal
and with a thick diameter wire connected directly
connect the ground line of the scope to the neative pole of the battery.

Hmm, but it could also be, that the green area is bigger all in all.
As the scope says it is a negative nanoVolts ,
the negative area seems to be only very minuscule bigger...



Regards, Stefan.

Remember that there are long wires in between each of the batteries too, so just moving the probes to the +/- terminals of the end batteries will not get rid of the large inductive voltage swings. 

The reality is that the battery voltage as measured by the DMM seems to always exactly or very closely match the mean battery voltage as reported by the scopes.  We all know the battery voltage itself is DC and has only a very small AC ripple due to its internal impedance.  So the only problem is that the wild 100V+ AC voltage swings that Rosemary is feeding into the scope math as the battery voltage plus the current waveform due to the shunt inductance are giving bad numbers when multiplied on an instantaneous basis.

It's really simple to measure the input power.  The battery voltage is a DC quantity with negligible AC ripple.  All we need now is a good low inductance shunt placed properly to sense ONLY the battery current.  Then get the average of that either by using the mean function on the scope or by a simple low-pass filter consisting of a single resistor (10K) and a single capacitor (1uF) on the shunt with a simple DMM measurement.  Calculate the current considering the shunt value. Then multiply.  Power!  The end.

Bryan
Title: Re: Rosemary Ainslie circuit demonstration on Saturday March 12th 2011
Post by: nul-points on March 25, 2011, 09:16:48 AM
hi Rosemary

thanks for posting the finer detail scopeshots

it seems to me (an old stager, who still remembers progamming computers with punched cards, paper tape & front-panel switches!) that for some reason you're on the receiving end of an unwarranted amount of flak

i put it down to a mismatch of experimental approaches between conventional and unconventional

i believe that it's possible to ride this out with large measures of goodwill and patience on both sides (and there's no doubt that you've led the way, there)

...
My intention is to show that these gains apply to AC or DC supplies.
...

Rosemary

that sounds good!

you've done the 'DC supplies' bit

i think you'll find that you'll quickly satisfy the eager demand for data on your experiment by progressing now to the 'AC supplies' bit

there is sufficient power in the equipment to be measured on easily available wall-socket meters (eg. Kill-o-Watt, true power versions)

- plug the K-o-W type meter into the wall socket;
- plug the SigGen and a DC Power suppply (up to, say, 60V, 3A?) into the K-o-W type meter;
- switch on the 2 pieces of equipment, set to their operating levels (obtained from a pre-run);
- read the baseline power draw shown on K-o-W type meter;
- connect your experimental circuit, switch on & ensure tuning is correct
- read K-o-W type meter;
- compare and report readings;

job done (as our Chief Technician used to say "No Fuss, No Dust!")

good luck!  :)
np


http://docsfreelunch.blogspot.com/ (http://docsfreelunch.blogspot.com/)
 

Title: Re: Rosemary Ainslie circuit demonstration on Saturday March 12th 2011
Post by: Rosemary Ainslie on March 25, 2011, 09:32:47 AM
Thanks NP.  Always a pleasure to read an upbeat post.  I have a problem with the ac supply source.  For reasons which will entirely exahust everyone's patience - the circuit would probably need to carry two loads - negative to one load and positive to another.  I can't see it working through a supply with a rectified current.

But I've undertaken to test this which, hopefully, will not be too far away.  Otherwise, I agree.  With the caveat that the circuit is configured with two entirely separate loads - then indeed - the numbers should stack up.

Kindest regards,
Rosemary
Title: Re: Rosemary Ainslie circuit demonstration on Saturday March 12th 2011
Post by: cHeeseburger on March 25, 2011, 09:40:38 AM
I assume your challenge here is open to anyone.  So...please observe the presentation video starting at 8:25 in (very near the end).  The mystery presenter clearly points to the VxV math trace and says clearly that it shows 5 Watts.  So your challenge is rather easy, Rosemary.


Golly.  Humbugger.  If I didn't know better I'd think you were 'spinning'.  Actually, I'd be inclined to think that this was a HUMDINGER of a lie.  I'll post a link to the video in question.  There is NOTHING in that math trace that is referred to as watts.  Unless - that is - that you are concluding that -5VV that Donovan points to - is somehow meant to relate the the measured plus/minus 44 watts dissipated. 

Sorry.  I forgot to add the link to the video.  Here it is.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fyOmoGluMCc

It reminds me of the time when you related that joke to us all where you got clearance from some rather weighty Governmental laboratories - on one of TK's videos.  You pointed out that, notwithstanding evidence to the contrary - they had found a 'hidden' wire that was therefore appropriate to that junction.  Remeber that Cheesie?   For those readers that may be interested here's that link. 

http://newlightondarkenergy.blogspot.com/2011/01/36-pretender.html

I've said this before.  If I were inclined to suspicions and general paranoia - then I'd be inclined to think that you had some kind of agenda here. 

And - if you need to explain those 'spikes' as coming from the capacitance in the MOSFETs - then you'd need to explain how it is that they generate in excess of 60 amps in both directions through the circuit.  It would take a miracle of some considerable proportions to manage that argument and still sound sane.

Rosemary
EDITED

Anyone can listen, starting at 8:25 in the video.  I quote: "And finally, the most important aspect of it would be the actual instantaneous WATTAGE calculation as can be seen on the LeCroy."  The camera then zooms to the LeCroy and he refers us to the red math trace and the VV number FIVE shown.  How this equates to me being a liar by simply referring to what was said in the video...your video...I cannot fathom.

You seem to be reverting again to name-calling and vicious ad hominem attacks, Rosemary.  You make a big deal over something that you acknowledge was just a joke.

Regarding the 60A spikes coming from the gate capacitance, I have no idea what you are talking about.  There are currents flowing in the gate circuit loop that get into the shunt, positioned as it is.  Some of them (the large spikes) come from energy supplied by the driving pulses that come out of the signal generator. 

Other currents that represent the 1.5MHz oscillations at the gate are also appearing on the shunt.  You reported that these represent about 5W of power.  Neither of these currents are flowing into or out of the battery.  They should not be included in any measurement of battery current.  This can be accomplished by moving the shunt out of the gate/source leg and putting it in the battery leg, as I have shown.

Please stick to the subject and stop the personal flame war, Rosemary.  As you may have noticed, that's what I am doing.  Just the facts and helpful relevant solid technical observations and suggestions regarding accurate measurement methods, no insults and no name-calling.  You will not bait me into a flame war if that's what you are trying to do.   :)

Bryan
Title: Re: Rosemary Ainslie circuit demonstration on Saturday March 12th 2011
Post by: nul-points on March 25, 2011, 10:55:23 AM
Thanks NP.  Always a pleasure to read an upbeat post.

 I have a problem with the ac supply source.
...
 - the circuit would probably need to carry two loads - negative to one load and positive to another
...
 

upbeat is good!  :)

there shouldn't be a problem replacing your battery bank - which is currently connected as a unipolar supply, i believe - with a unipolar output power supply** unit fed from the AC supply

one benefit of this scheme is that you can transfer your experiment without needing to change any of the wiring

(** need to use a simpler, non switched-mode type supply, so that your circuit can return energy to the output ballast capacitor - which must be directly across output, with no 'non-return' diodes)

if you mean that you want to use a split-supply (ie., Pos-Gnd-Neg), then that will still work with the Kill-o-Watt type test scheme outlined above - just replace the unipolar supply with a split-supply unit, and connect to your circuit as you wish)

looking forward to hearing about any 'AC supplied' results!

all the best
np


http://docsfreelunch.blogspot.com (http://docsfreelunch.blogspot.com)
 
Title: Re: Rosemary Ainslie circuit demonstration on Saturday March 12th 2011
Post by: neptune on March 25, 2011, 12:02:20 PM
Hi Rosemary .Rearrange your batteries into a U shaped line , so that the input and output terminals are physically close together . Now your scope probes will reach .If you lived closer I would get on my bike and come and help you lift them! .Upbeat as ever , Neptune .
Title: Re: Rosemary Ainslie circuit demonstration on Saturday March 12th 2011
Post by: Rosemary Ainslie on March 25, 2011, 12:23:01 PM
Hi Rosemary .Rearrange your batteries into a U shaped line , so that the input and output terminals are physically close together . Now your scope probes will reach .If you lived closer I would get on my bike and come and help you lift them! .Upbeat as ever , Neptune .

LOL.  Yet again Neptune.  I clearly have that dysfunctional IQ that Poynty keeps pointing to.  Of course.  But that too will need to wait until tomorrow.  I will, God willing, and assuming that I survive the night - solemnly undertake to show those waveforms directly across the battery. 

Golly.  Clearly in need of more intellect.   ::) 

Regards,
Rosemary
 ;D
Title: Re: Rosemary Ainslie circuit demonstration on Saturday March 12th 2011
Post by: Rosemary Ainslie on March 25, 2011, 03:11:57 PM
Guys,  I need to alert you all - again - to the fact that for those of you who contribute to this thread - then you are all, any one of you, likely to be the recipients of personal messages or emails - from one of three members and ex members to this forum.  They will, inevitably be intended to throw doubt on these numbers and these test results and their intention is to systematically errode any credibility related to these test results.

The latest is, apparently, that I am 'skewing' the results to accommodate my thesis.  I CANNOT skew results.  They are carefully recorded and that record is NOT made by me but by a machine.  And I am INDEED using the evidence in support of the thesis.  The thesis preceded this test as can STILL be PROVED.  I make NO APOLOGY for this.  It is my rights to do so.  But NOR have I FORCED that thesis onto this thread.  Therefore no-one is obliged or even expected to familiarise themselves with it.  Good heavens.  Should I be apologising for this?  For some reason?

Rosemary
Title: Re: Rosemary Ainslie circuit demonstration on Saturday March 12th 2011
Post by: poynt99 on March 25, 2011, 03:21:05 PM
Rose,

If you can not arrange the batteries such that the first and last in the series are next to each other, then YES, use a length of wire (it does not have to be heavy wire as it is not carrying any current) necessary to reach the probe tip.

Try to keep this wire as short as possible, and avoid having this sense wire running along side parallel with any of the current-carrying wires, to avoid induction to the measurement wire.

Stefan, attached are the PSpice simulation files.

.99
Title: Re: Rosemary Ainslie circuit demonstration on Saturday March 12th 2011
Post by: Rosemary Ainslie on March 25, 2011, 03:33:50 PM
Rose,

If you can not arrange the batteries such that the first and last in the series are next to each other, then YES, use a length of wire (it does not have to be heavy wire as it is not carrying any current) necessary to reach the probe tip.

Try to keep this wire as short as possible, and avoid having this sense wire running along side parallel with any of the current-carrying wires, to avoid induction to the measurement wire.

Stefan, attached are the PSpice simulation files.

.99

Poynty - I know how to do this.  I only need to wrap a small wire around the neck of the terminals.  Neptune has explained this.  We need to arrange the batteries that the negative first in series is next to the positive last in series.  That way the probes can span both.

Now.  I've set a good example here Poynty Point.  I'm bending over backwards to accommodate your ask.  Please return the favour and give us a picture of those simulations.  I'm not sure if others struggle as I do.  But it would be so nice to alleviate any struggles at all.  Just size it that it doesn't fall off the page.  Ta muchly Poynty.

Kindest regards,
Rosie
Title: Re: Rosemary Ainslie circuit demonstration on Saturday March 12th 2011
Post by: poynt99 on March 25, 2011, 03:51:39 PM
Please return the favour and give us a picture of those simulations.  I'm not sure if others struggle as I do.  But it would be so nice to alleviate any struggles at all.  Just size it that it doesn't fall off the page.  Ta muchly Poynty.

Kindest regards,
Rosie

I've already posted the sim scope shots and schematic in png format. The file above only contains the necessary files to run the simulation on PSpice.

.99
Title: Re: Rosemary Ainslie circuit demonstration on Saturday March 12th 2011
Post by: Rosemary Ainslie on March 25, 2011, 04:46:54 PM
I've already posted the sim scope shots and schematic in png format. The file above only contains the necessary files to run the simulation on PSpice.

.99

Sorry Pointy.  Good stuff.  I was hoping you were giving us a shot without any discharge across the shunt.  Have you tried this yet?  It would be interesting to see if can be done.

Kindest regards,
Rosie
Title: Re: Rosemary Ainslie circuit demonstration on Saturday March 12th 2011
Post by: neptune on March 25, 2011, 08:06:14 PM
Dear Rosemary . I believe you are now very close to a sort of breakthrough . By that , I mean that it will become much clearer to everyone  just what is happening in your device . Once the scope shots across the battery are plain for all to see , that will eliminate one source of doubt . If you can get the oscillation going with just the 9volt battery and pot on the gate , That will basically make the device Much easier to duplicate . I foresee a time when it will be possible to duplicate this with a simple kit of parts , and no more equipment than a soldering iron , a multimeter , and a cheap AM radio to listen to the 1.5 Mhz oscillations on . Constructors will use smaller cheaper batteries to enable shorter run tests .I know how important it is to you to convince academia . Why not take a leaf out of Rossi Book [cold fusion reactor] and short circuit academia , making their opinion irrelevant ? Maybe after 10 years of people getting free hot water , they will wake up and take you seriously .Hang in there rose and stay positive [except on the gate where I hope you can stay negative!]
Title: Re: Rosemary Ainslie circuit demonstration on Saturday March 12th 2011
Post by: woopy on March 25, 2011, 08:08:12 PM
Hi Rose

With Magluvin we think it is better to transfer the discussion of the freewheeling circuit to the "igniter" thread. So not to disturb here.

Good luck and another time BRAVO for your pugnacity.

A last video here and i go. Of course your comments are welcome on the other thread.

Bye

Laurent

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Auv_66Ke-iw
Title: Re: Rosemary Ainslie circuit demonstration on Saturday March 12th 2011
Post by: Rosemary Ainslie on March 25, 2011, 08:23:44 PM
Very kind of you Neptune.  I'm not that interested in replications though.  Please guys.  We need to work this to applications.  Tempus fugit.

Also Woopy - sorry to lose you.  I'm not sure I'll spot your thread.  Not too good at this sort of thing.  As a for instance, when this thread falls off the page I'm forever lost.  Have no idea how to retrieve it.  Except that I can still go to my trash emails and link in from there.  So.  PLEASE.  Give us a link here.  And all the best.  I LOVE hearing of results that fly in the face of.  Always a pleasure.

Thanks again.  I've got that rare feeling of support.

Kindest regards,
Rosemary
Title: Re: Rosemary Ainslie circuit demonstration on Saturday March 12th 2011
Post by: Pirate88179 on March 25, 2011, 08:42:50 PM
Rose:

Finding topics you have posted in is easy.  At the top left of the page, to the right of your photo should look like this:

     Show unread posts since your last
     Show new replies to your posts
     Total time logged in

IF it does not, go to the top right of the page under the photo of the famous people and next to the date and you will see a little square with a - in the middle.  Click that and that will open the above listed choices next to your photo on the left.

Then, all you ever have to do is come to the site and click on the choice

"Show new replies to your posts"

and every topic you ever posted in will be shown and then you can click on it and it will take you to as far as you have read in that topic.  This is the easiest way to keep up with things.  This way, you never have to worry about a topic falling off the front page.

I hope this helps.

Bill
Title: Re: Rosemary Ainslie circuit demonstration on Saturday March 12th 2011
Post by: Rosemary Ainslie on March 25, 2011, 08:47:58 PM
Rose:

Finding topics you have posted in is easy.  At the top left of the page, to the right of your photo should look like this:

     Show unread posts since your last
     Show new replies to your posts
     Total time logged in

IF it does not, go to the top right of the page under the photo of the famous people and next to the date and you will see a little square with a - in the middle.  Click that and that will open the above listed choices next to your photo on the left.

Then, all you ever have to do is come to the site and click on the choice

"Show new replies to your posts"

and every topic you ever posted in will be shown and then you can click on it and it will take you to as far as you have read in that topic.  This is the easiest way to keep up with things.  This way, you never have to worry about a topic falling off the front page.

I hope this helps.

Bill

Thanks Bill.  You've tried teaching me this before.  I've now copied your post into my word files.  I always find my way around them.  LOL.  At least I'll have a reminder of what to do.  But Mags and Woopy must still PLEASE give the link in this thread - at some stage.  Much appreciated.

Kindest,
Rosie
Title: Re: Rosemary Ainslie circuit demonstration on Saturday March 12th 2011
Post by: happyfunball on March 25, 2011, 10:05:47 PM
@ happyfunball

Rosemary said that the batteries ran the circuit for 5 months so she did answer that question but she also mentioned that the batteries were HUGE so it remains to be seen what size the battery bank was and what heat was being generated.

Rosemary did say she brought this up before so please be patient with the rest of us while she gathers her information and answers us.

Regards,
Paul

The question was what is the longest time she's run the circuit continuously off the batteries.
Title: Re: Rosemary Ainslie circuit demonstration on Saturday March 12th 2011
Post by: Magluvin on March 25, 2011, 10:53:57 PM
Thanks Bill.  You've tried teaching me this before.  I've now copied your post into my word files.  I always find my way around them.  LOL.  At least I'll have a reminder of what to do.  But Mags and Woopy must still PLEASE give the link in this thread - at some stage.  Much appreciated.

Kindest,
Rosie


Hey Rose

Which link are you speaking of?  =]

Mags
Title: Re: Rosemary Ainslie circuit demonstration on Saturday March 12th 2011
Post by: neptune on March 25, 2011, 11:01:17 PM
First let me say that I think replications , especially ones that prove to work for extended periods , are important .People are then far more likely to invest precious time and money on building their own device  . There was a time when I could have thrown 500 dollars at a project like this and not worried too much if it failed . Sadly , for me and a lot of others , those days are gone . Given a working device , I am convinced that I could develop it into a useful water heater , and probably other applications .Talking of applications , I keep trying to think of a commercial heating element that resembles the coiled shape of Rosemarys heater . Here in the UK most heating elements are at least 30 ohms . which probably does not matter . I think bending an element into a coil shape would most likely destroy the internal insulation . So for most of us the starting point is nickel chrome wire on a ceramic former . I am not sure it is relevant , but does anyone know the break down or avalanche voltage of the zener diode inside the fet ?
Title: Re: Rosemary Ainslie circuit demonstration on Saturday March 12th 2011
Post by: Magluvin on March 25, 2011, 11:05:03 PM
Oh i understand now.  here is the link Rose.
http://www.overunity.com/index.php?topic=8841.msg279320#new

=]
Mags
Title: Re: Rosemary Ainslie circuit demonstration on Saturday March 12th 2011
Post by: twinbeard on March 25, 2011, 11:29:47 PM
Hi Rosie,

Very kind of you Neptune.  I'm not that interested in replications though.  Please guys.  We need to work this to applications.  Tempus fugit.

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
Title: Re: Rosemary Ainslie circuit demonstration on Saturday March 12th 2011
Post by: Rosemary Ainslie 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
Title: Re: Rosemary Ainslie circuit demonstration on Saturday March 12th 2011
Post by: Rosemary Ainslie 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
Title: Re: Rosemary Ainslie circuit demonstration on Saturday March 12th 2011
Post by: hartiberlin 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.
Title: Re: Rosemary Ainslie circuit demonstration on Saturday March 12th 2011
Post by: Rosemary Ainslie 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?

Title: Re: Rosemary Ainslie circuit demonstration on Saturday March 12th 2011
Post by: Rosemary Ainslie 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



Title: Re: Rosemary Ainslie circuit demonstration on Saturday March 12th 2011
Post by: neptune 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 .
Title: Re: Rosemary Ainslie circuit demonstration on Saturday March 12th 2011
Post by: poynt99 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
Title: Re: Rosemary Ainslie circuit demonstration on Saturday March 12th 2011
Post by: Rosemary Ainslie 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
Title: Re: Rosemary Ainslie circuit demonstration on Saturday March 12th 2011
Post by: Rosemary Ainslie 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
Title: Re: Rosemary Ainslie circuit demonstration on Saturday March 12th 2011
Post by: Rosemary Ainslie 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
Title: Re: Rosemary Ainslie circuit demonstration on Saturday March 12th 2011
Post by: neptune 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.
Title: Re: Rosemary Ainslie circuit demonstration on Saturday March 12th 2011
Post by: teslaalset 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.
Title: Re: Rosemary Ainslie circuit demonstration on Saturday March 12th 2011
Post by: Pirate88179 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
Title: Re: Rosemary Ainslie circuit demonstration on Saturday March 12th 2011
Post by: poynt99 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
Title: Re: Rosemary Ainslie circuit demonstration on Saturday March 12th 2011
Post by: Rosemary Ainslie on March 26, 2011, 07:24:17 PM
yes - agreed

Rosemary
Title: Re: Rosemary Ainslie circuit demonstration on Saturday March 12th 2011
Post by: neptune on March 26, 2011, 07:30:52 PM
@teslaalset .Great idea on the mug heaters .They are also available in 12 and 24 volt varieties with resistance values of 1.2 ohms and unspecified resistance/wattage at 24volt .These may be better as they are nearer in resistance to Roses experiments . They cost about£5 each on Ebay . Several could be used in series if required . @Pirate , do we know the application and resistance of the element you show ?
Title: Re: Rosemary Ainslie circuit demonstration on Saturday March 12th 2011
Post by: poynt99 on March 26, 2011, 07:48:19 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. 
Yes Rose, that would be excellent if you could do this.

Quote
Will there now be no evidence of that wild voltage oscillation at the battery?  Or will it simply stay level? With the occassional ripple?
Correct. Assuming you can achieve the self-oscillation as before with a single 12V battery, the battery voltage measurement taken directly across its terminals will show a 12VDC value, with an estimated 350mVpp of oscillation ripple riding on top of that.

Quote
Will the antiphase condition between the voltage and the shunt now change?  Will this be out of phase and therefore 'no advantage'?
The small ripple voltage seen riding on the 12VDC may still be in anti-phase with the shunt oscillation, but the fundamental battery v(t) x i(t) product is going to look and compute quite differently.

Quote
If I apply the math trace - a product of the battery and shunt voltages - will they now show 'positive' as opposed to negative?
You will ostensibly have a steady 12V x  your same oscillating Vcsr voltage. Your battery voltage trace during the oscillation phase may vary from between 11.8V to 12.2V as opposed to what you have now, where Vbat varies between 0V and +250V.

Quote
Will the mean average across the shunt change to default always to positive?
I can not reliably predict what the shunt voltage wave form will look like at 12VDC supply (assuming you can make it work at 12VDC), vs. the operation at the 60VDC supply, but the fact that you are measuring the battery voltage at a different point will not affect the shunt voltage measurement, as you will measure that at the same point as before.

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

.99
Title: Re: Rosemary Ainslie circuit demonstration on Saturday March 12th 2011
Post by: poynt99 on March 26, 2011, 07:57:26 PM
yes - agreed

Rosemary

Right, Part 2 then.

What will happen to our PVbat calculation if rather than using this agreed upon equation:

PVbat = V(P1 - P4) x V(P3 - P4)/0.25

we make a small change and use this instead:

PVbat = V(P2 - P4) x V(P3 -P4)/0.25

What happens to the PVbat calculation?

.99
Title: Re: Rosemary Ainslie circuit demonstration on Saturday March 12th 2011
Post by: Rosemary Ainslie on March 26, 2011, 08:00:01 PM
Ok.  Now.  2 things.  Give me the balance of your argument. And are you able to apply any kind of  moderation on your forum.  Call off your dogs POYNTY.  Or is there a 'free for all' when it comes to trashing my character?  IN which case why am I speaking to you?

You really need to apply some constraint there.  Your forum is losing credibility.  Just look at the readership levels. As for the latest incursion by Fuzzytomcat.  Why do you allow it?  Is it because it satisfies your argument somehow?   Not good Poynty.  Not at all.  I may be an idiot - I may even be a moron.  I don't know.  But I sure as hell am NOT a liar.

Rosemary

PS our posts crossed and I've got a visitor.  I'll get back here tomorrow.

R
Title: Re: Rosemary Ainslie circuit demonstration on Saturday March 12th 2011
Post by: hartiberlin on March 26, 2011, 08:07:24 PM
Right, Part 2 then.

What will happen to our PVbat calculation if rather than using this agreed upon equation:

PVbat = V(P1 - P4) x V(P3 - P4)/0.25


Okay. 49.99 milliwatts flowing out of the battery.


Quote
we make a small change and use this instead:

PVbat = V(P2 - P4) x V(P3 -P4)/0.25

What happens to the PVbat calculation?

.99
Hmm,
what should this be now ?
Only half the power..
Title: Re: Rosemary Ainslie circuit demonstration on Saturday March 12th 2011
Post by: Pirate88179 on March 26, 2011, 08:10:43 PM

Correct. Assuming you can achieve the self-oscillation as before with a single 12V battery, the battery voltage measurement taken directly across its terminals will show a 12VDC value, with an estimated 350mVpp of oscillation ripple riding on top of that.
.99

.99:

Am I missing something here?  If Rose is feeding energy back to the single 12 volt bat. in the form of amps and volts, would this not show up on the bat. terminals?  What I mean is, checking only across the battery terminals will not show which way the energy is flowing, only the energy available at the terminals correct?

Example: 

12 volts at the terminals,  circuit off.  Circuit ON and feeding back 5 volts (just a number for this example) to the battery from the running circuit, would you not measure 17 volts at the terminals with a DMM?

Bill
Title: Re: Rosemary Ainslie circuit demonstration on Saturday March 12th 2011
Post by: poynt99 on March 26, 2011, 08:27:37 PM
.99:

Am I missing something here?  If Rose is feeding energy back to the single 12 volt bat. in the form of amps and volts, would this not show up on the bat. terminals?  What I mean is, checking only across the battery terminals will not show which way the energy is flowing, only the energy available at the terminals correct?

Example: 

12 volts at the terminals,  circuit off.  Circuit ON and feeding back 5 volts (just a number for this example) to the battery from the running circuit, would you not measure 17 volts at the terminals with a DMM?

Bill

Bill,

In order to send power back into the battery, the voltage and current have to be in anti-phase, i.e. a positive voltage higher than the terminal voltage, AND a current going in the direction of the battery (a negative current), both at the same "time".

A DMM will measure the average voltage on the battery terminals. So, if there is a consistent higher voltage and negative current, the DMM will measure that increased voltage.

The goal of this exercise however, is to establish if the present battery voltage measurement is valid. If there is a significant difference between the measurement made directly on the battery terminals vs. on the other end of 22 feet of wire, then there is an obvious problem that must be addressed, and this puts the claims and measurements into question. Do you agree?

.99
Title: Re: Rosemary Ainslie circuit demonstration on Saturday March 12th 2011
Post by: hartiberlin on March 26, 2011, 08:38:49 PM
Okay. poynt99,
I now know what you mean,
you wanted to say, that the first 1000 Ohm resistor
is like the resistance(impedance) of the cable
going from the battery to the circuit.

Yes, there are losses there, but you have seen,
that you also have a small positive ripple in your simulation,
that means the battery voltage rises, when the current at the shunt
is negative, i.e. it is recharging the battery.

So it would be good that if the measurements of the battery voltage
will be taken directly at the battery terminals, but you will see only
a small ripple as in your simulation there.

The only question I still have is, if the inductances of the shunts
distort the measurements, so that the mean average values of the
current shows a total negative current, also, if 6 or 40 Watts of power
are heating the heater element ?

Rosemary probably did not run the circuit 5 months contineously,
but only a few times in the 5 months during measurements, so longer
testing times are needed to see, how the battery voltage is
going up or down.

As a lead acid battery is full at about 12.5 to 12.8 Volts
and is nearly empty already at 12.0 Volts,
these voltage changes must be noted and at only 6 Watts of heating,
it should be let run for about 1000 hours, if all the 5 batteries have 100 Amphours
capacity. Only then the 5 batteries should be empty and the battery voltage
should fall to 60 Volts.

Regards, Stefan.
Title: Re: Rosemary Ainslie circuit demonstration on Saturday March 12th 2011
Post by: poynt99 on March 26, 2011, 08:51:32 PM
Okay. poynt99,
I now know what you mean,
you wanted to say, that the first 1000 Ohm resistor
is like the resistance(impedance) of the cable
going from the battery to the circuit.

Yes, there are losses there, but you have seen,
that you also have a small positive ripple in your simulation,
that means the battery voltage rises, when the current at the shunt
is negative, i.e. it is recharging the battery.
Actually no, that's not really what I am trying to say. My point was to show that the two measurements are not the same. If the two measurements are not the same, one of them must be incorrect. I wasn't expecting anyone else to answer the question, as I had hoped Rose herself would be allowed to see the point I am trying to make.

Quote
So it would be good that if the measurements of the battery voltage
will be taken directly at the battery terminals, but you will see only
a small ripple as in your simulation there.
You will see the actual voltage across the battery, which is the required goal for obtaining the correct PVbat. A small ripple is precisely what you should see. You seem to be thinking contrary to this....why?

.99
Title: Re: Rosemary Ainslie circuit demonstration on Saturday March 12th 2011
Post by: neptune on March 26, 2011, 09:43:34 PM
Here is a crazy thought if we really want to be pedantic .What is magic about the battery terminals . These are just the point at which the lead "wires" [bus bars] inside the battery change to copper wires outside the battery .Should we not really put our probes INSIDE the battery on the actual plates?
Title: Re: Rosemary Ainslie circuit demonstration on Saturday March 12th 2011
Post by: poynt99 on March 26, 2011, 10:27:38 PM
Here is a crazy thought if we really want to be pedantic .What is magic about the battery terminals . These are just the point at which the lead "wires" [bus bars] inside the battery change to copper wires outside the battery .Should we not really put our probes INSIDE the battery on the actual plates?

It is unfortunate that you perceive me as being pedantic.

The issue of where the battery voltage is measured is paramount to obtaining a valid battery power computation by the scope.

How was your post helpful in any way?

.99
Title: Re: Rosemary Ainslie circuit demonstration on Saturday March 12th 2011
Post by: hartiberlin on March 26, 2011, 10:33:35 PM
Actually no, that's not really what I am trying to say. My point was to show that the two measurements are not the same. If the two measurements are not the same, one of them must be incorrect. I wasn't expecting anyone else to answer the question, as I had hoped Rose herself would be allowed to see the point I am trying to make.

Well the second is wrong, but I don´t understand what your point is here...what you want to say with it..
hmm...a bit confusing..

Quote

You will see the actual voltage across the battery, which is the required goal for obtaining the correct PVbat. A small ripple is precisely what you should see. You seem to be thinking contrary to this....why?


No, I don´t think contrary.
The voltage will be almost constant, just only a small ripple, i.e. rising of the voltage,
when the battery current is negative and a bit falling, when the current is positive.
But the differences  will be only in the MilliVolts range, as the internal
resistance of the batteries is pretty low.

The battery works here as a big capacitor, where the voltage can not jump on it,
so only a small ripple will be seen on the DC supply voltage.

This is why we can neglect the ripple voltage and can calculate with
a "constant" battery supply voltage and just
observe the current on the shunt.

When the current trace area below the ground line , which I painted green
in the posted scope shots on the shunt, is bigger than the
area above the ground line(painted red), then we can already see, if energy
is flowing back into the battery or energy is flowing out of the
battery. Then we don´t need the battery voltage.

Hope this helps.
Regards, Stefan.

Title: Re: Rosemary Ainslie circuit demonstration on Saturday March 12th 2011
Post by: poynt99 on March 26, 2011, 11:47:02 PM
Stefan,

One of the two battery measurements is incorrect. That is problem number one that needs attention.

Second, now that you bring up the current measurement, that too has it's problems.

Referring to your post; your area fill-in of the csr voltage is going to come out very close to equal when comparing both halves. First inaccuracy is that cycle mean is being used, and there are multiple cycles displayed. This is not the intended way to use cycle mean. Furthermore, the scope can not know what constitutes one cycle (it simply looks for zero-crossings), and therefore it completely missed that fact that one full switching cycle includes the portion of the cycle I highlighted.
http://www.overunity.com/index.php?topic=10407.msg279211#msg279211

Second (see scope shot below), realize that you are only looking at about half of the cycle. The other half clearly shows that there is positive current sourced from the battery. I have highlighted this in a red elipse.

In summary; the shunt voltage mean value shown is of no use, and does not reflect what the real average current is for that measurement.

.99
Title: Re: Rosemary Ainslie circuit demonstration on Saturday March 12th 2011
Post by: cHeeseburger on March 27, 2011, 12:37:20 AM
Now, Stefan and Poynt, we are converging on the truth finally.  The battery is a fixed DC potential with millivolts of actual ripple due to its internal resistance.  The battery voltage does not actually have the 150VAC 1.5MHz signal Rosemary is feeding the 'scope.

The importance is now properly focused on the shunt and the actual current flow there.

This demonstration shows the difference between the waveforms obtained across the inductive shunt and the resistive portion of same shunt.  The scale factors are identical (1V per division) on both traces.  Notice three super-important  things:

1)  The amplitude when we include the inductance is way higher and does not agree at all with the actual current measured just across the resistor.  The inductance allows a much larger voltage swing, fooling us into thinking the current is much larger than it really is.

2)  Look at the areas above and below zero.  In the larger (inductance included) trace, by eyeball, it looks like the areas are close to even or maybe even slightly more negative.  But in the real current trace it is clear that the area above zero is easily greater than that below zero.

3)  There is significant phase skew between the two waveforms and this will ruin the accuracy of any multiplied samples.  The true current (across just the resistive part of the shunt) does not peaqk at the same time as the false, inductor-polluted "current" trace and is in fact not always the same polarity at a given instant in time.  Notice the inductive shunt trace is approximately at its peak at the zero-crossings of the real current:  almost 90 degrees phase shift.  Basic fundamentls when the L vastly dominates the R of shunt!

So, the amplitude, waveshape and phase angle of the "current" signal Rosemary is feeding into the scope is by no means an accurate picture of the true instantaneous current flowing in the circuit. When the "battery" voltage also has an enormous misrepresentation due to series inductance inside the measuring points, and we multiply the data samples point by point, the numbers are so far from any believable reality that it boggles the mind and the results could come out anywhere and are totally meaningless, sorry to say.

Here is a challenge for Rosemary:  Submit this post to your favorite Tektronix Applications Engineer.  He or she is a certified oscilloscope measurement expert and is called on all the time to sort out these kinds of measurement questions.  Ask him or her to write a paragraph about it, agreeing or disagreeing with what I have wriiten here, attach his or her name to it, and publish it here for us.

Cheeseburger
Title: Re: Rosemary Ainslie circuit demonstration on Saturday March 12th 2011
Post by: Rosemary Ainslie on March 27, 2011, 04:38:32 AM
Right, Part 2 then.

What will happen to our PVbat calculation if rather than using this agreed upon equation:

PVbat = V(P1 - P4) x V(P3 - P4)/0.25

we make a small change and use this instead:

PVbat = V(P2 - P4) x V(P3 -P4)/0.25

What happens to the PVbat calculation?

.99

Poynty - Still not called off your dogs?  Shame on you.

Now.  Regarding that equation.  P never, to the best of my knowledge - is represented in any of those equations that you've put forward.  Power is ALWAYS vi dt.  Or Volts x amps x time.  THAT's it.  You can try and argue this till the cows come home Poynty.  This is the fundamental requirement for wattage analysis and this over time = POWER.  NOTHING ELSE.

SO.  Take that example that you've given us.  I'm looking at your schematic.  The amount of current discharged from your batteries will be determined by the amount of resistance in the path of that current.  Therefore resistance will be R1 + R2 + R3.  IF R1 = 1 Ohm and R2 = 1000 Ohms and R3 = 0.25 - then the total resistance determined by that circuit will be 1001.25 Ohm. 

Let us further assume that VBatt = 24 volts.  Therefore the current discharged by that supply source will be 24/1001.25 = 0.024 amps.  THEREFORE  vi dt = 24 (vbatt) x 0.024 (amps) = 0.575 watts x (say) 5 minutes would be 0.575 x 60 x 5 = 172.5 Joules.  THAT'S IT.  The ONLY correct way to determine that power.

So.  To get back to your question.  The Ohmage in the path of that P value that you refer to cannot be considered in isolation to the power over the entire circuit which will be distributed according to the resistance over the whole circuit.  You CANNOT look at one isolated part of the equation and expect it to represent a true value.

Now.  To get back to that same circuit that you drew and REPLACE R2 with a whole pile of MOSFETs in parallel.    Then.  Replace the R1 @ 1 Ohm with R = 10.86 Ohm.  NOW.  Apply a switch that the battery is ONLY connected during 20% of the time and for 80% it is disconnected and THEREFORE NO POWER IS DELIVERED. 

P = vi dt.  THEREFORE.  10.86 (R1) and 0.25 (R3) + 0 resistance at the MOSFET.  Therefore R = 11.11 Ohms.  THEREFORE if Vbatt = 24 then 24/11.11 = 2.16 amps.  24 (v) x 2.16 (i) = 51.85 watts.  Assume a 5 minute run time.  Therefore 51.85 x 60 x 5 = 15.552KJ. 

The actual question here is what happens during the period when the switch is open and the battery APPARENTLY is not able to discharge any current flow.  Hopefully you're looking at this.

Rosemary
Title: Re: Rosemary Ainslie circuit demonstration on Saturday March 12th 2011
Post by: Rosemary Ainslie on March 27, 2011, 04:52:03 AM
Stefan,

Second (see scope shot below), realize that you are only looking at about half of the cycle. The other half clearly shows that there is positive current sourced from the battery. I have highlighted this in a red elipse.

In summary; the shunt voltage mean value shown is of no use, and does not reflect what the real average current is for that measurement.

.99

Well Poynty.  I hope this is still on the same page that we can still reference that RED ELIPSE.  You forgot to add those BIG SPIKES AT THE TRANSITIONAL PHASES OF THE SWITCH.  Roughly 10 volts above zero and 30 volts below zero.  During THAT moment we have 10/0.25 = 40 amps from the battery and 30/0.25 = 120 volts being returned to the battery.  AS WE ALL KNOW the one spike never manifests at the same time as another.  THEREFORE over time 40 amps * vbatt was deliverd and THEN 120 amps * vbatt was returned.  Factor that in together with the amount of time that the current was flowing during the 'ON' time of the switch or we'd be inclined to think that you're only looking at one side of your argument.

Now.  Assume that the battery average is applied during those spikes.  P = vi dt - therefore during those two moments we have 40 amps * 73.3 volts = a staggering 2 932.00 WATTS discharged and 120 amps * 73.3 volts returned = an even more staggering 8 798 WATTS returned to the battery.  And that's not all.  We then also have another problem.  The actual voltage during the flow of that 40 amps FROM THE BATTERY trends to less than 73.3 volts.  And the actual voltage during the flow of 120 amps BACK TO THE BATTERY trends to more than 73.3 volts. 

Rosemary
Title: Re: Rosemary Ainslie circuit demonstration on Saturday March 12th 2011
Post by: poynt99 on March 27, 2011, 04:52:58 AM
Folks,

I tried.   :-\

.99
Title: Re: Rosemary Ainslie circuit demonstration on Saturday March 12th 2011
Post by: Poit on March 27, 2011, 05:03:06 AM
@ Rosemary:
In a nut shell, what do you plan to do? patent your device and sell it? or open source it and give it to the world?
Title: Re: Rosemary Ainslie circuit demonstration on Saturday March 12th 2011
Post by: Rosemary Ainslie on March 27, 2011, 05:10:26 AM
@ Rosemary:
In a nut shell, what do you plan to do? patent your device and sell it? or open source it and give it to the world?

Poit.  It is absolutely and categorically and empirically and in fact and in truth - ENTIRELY UNPATENTABLE - is the first point.  It is that well known.  It is therefore NOT mine to sell and nor is it mine to GIVE.  All we've done is try - really, really hard - to show you what you've all been throwing away - simply because Mr Kirchhoff has claimed an EQUIVALENCE in the transfer of electromagnetic energy - WHICH HAS NEVER BEEN REQUIRED BY Mr Faraday.  We're not even breaking the rules here.  IT'S THAT SIMPLE.
Title: Re: Rosemary Ainslie circuit demonstration on Saturday March 12th 2011
Post by: Rosemary Ainslie on March 27, 2011, 05:20:38 AM
Folks,

I tried.   :-\

.99

Poynty - that's a COP OUT.  You make an obscure point which NO-ONE on the forum gets and then you throw your hands up in exasperation.  And then you and your dogs will continue to MUTTER about the incompetence and the lack of understanding and God knows what else that afflicts ALL EVERYWHERE ELSE.  If there was a simple answer then I'm entirely satisified that - not me - but those that I've been working with - would MOST CERTAINLY have found it.  We're looking.  You're trying to stop us from looking.  WHY?

AND WHY do you want to AVERAGE everything when that obscures the classically required method of determining wattage?  BY DEFINITION vi dt requires an exact approximation to time.  Are you saying school classical is WRONG?

Rosemary

ADDED
Sorry.  'Exact approximation' is tautological.  What I really mean is as precise a relationship to time as can be managed.  And it's very, very well managed on the sampling range offered by our LeCroy.

STILL WRONG.  Not tautological.  Mutually exclusive.  Something like that.  In any event.  It can't be both exact and an approximation.  Golly.  I'll get there eventually.

LOL  You've probably got it right -  Poynty Point.  It's presumptuous of me to consider myself an idiot as you've already pointed out.    :o ;D
Title: Re: Rosemary Ainslie circuit demonstration on Saturday March 12th 2011
Post by: cHeeseburger on March 27, 2011, 05:56:49 AM
Well Poynty.  I hope this is still on the same page that we can still reference that RED ELIPSE.  You forgot to add those BIG SPIKES AT THE TRANSITIONAL PHASES OF THE SWITCH.  Roughly 10 volts above zero and 30 volts below zero.  During THAT moment we have 10/0.25 = 40 amps from the battery and 30/0.25 = 120 volts being returned to the battery.  AS WE ALL KNOW the one spike never manifests at the same time as another.  THEREFORE over time 40 amps * vbatt was deliverd and THEN 120 amps * vbatt was returned.  Factor that in together with the amount of time that the current was flowing during the 'ON' time of the switch or we'd be inclined to think that you're only looking at one side of your argument.

Now.  Assume that the battery average is applied during those spikes.  P = vi dt - therefore during those two moments we have 40 amps * 73.3 volts = a staggering 2 932.00 WATTS discharged and 120 amps * 73.3 volts returned = an even more staggering 8 798 WATTS returned to the battery.  And that's not all.  We then also have another problem.  The actual voltage during the flow of that 40 amps FROM THE BATTERY trends to less than 73.3 volts.  And the actual voltage during the flow of 120 amps BACK TO THE BATTERY trends to more than 73.3 volts. 

Rosemary

The answer to all these completely unbelievable numbers and where they come from is, once again, already explained thoroughly.

1) Your shunt is not 0.25Ohms and it is not primarily a resistor,  It is more like 1.5 Ohms and primarily an inductor (at 1.5MHz)

2)  The spikes you see at the transitions of the gate drive signal contain even higher frequency energy than the 1.5MHz waves,  Therefore, the shunt impedance, being primarily inductive, is far higher yet to these spikes, probably around 10 or more Ohms.  As I hope you know, the voltage spike on an inductance does not relate to the value of the current but only to how fast the current is changing (di dt).  This is why even low inductances in a shunt for high frequency work ESPECIALLY WHEN SAMPLING AND MULTIPLYING are being used to derive instantaneous POWER points is STRICTLY TABOO.

3)  Those current spikes, on the order of an Ampere or two peak in reality, are contained entirely in the current loop that is constrained to the gate-source, signal generator and shunt loop and do not even appear at the battery

This has all been explained very clearly several times before,

Kindest Regards


Humbugger
Title: Re: Rosemary Ainslie circuit demonstration on Saturday March 12th 2011
Post by: Magluvin on March 27, 2011, 06:14:22 AM
Hey Rose  =]

Was wondering.  How did you get involved in this project?  What were the the beginnings that got you started in this pursuit? 

Mags
Title: Re: Rosemary Ainslie circuit demonstration on Saturday March 12th 2011
Post by: cHeeseburger on March 27, 2011, 06:24:20 AM

Now.  Regarding that equation.  P never, to the best of my knowledge - is represented in any of those equations that you've put forward.  Power is ALWAYS vi dt.  Or Volts x amps x time.  THAT's it.  You can try and argue this till the cows come home Poynty.  This is the fundamental requirement for wattage analysis and this over time = POWER.  NOTHING ELSE.


Rosemary,

I have frequently noticed your Power Equation P = vi dt and refrained from commenting.  Now that you have asserted that so ferociously and implied that Poynt is ignorant when he says P=V*I simply (which is correct), I feel I must comment.

The term "dt" in electronics, statistics and math in general means RATE and refers, of course, to time.  .  dv/dt is the rate of change of a voltage and is given in Volts per second.  di/dt is the rate of change of current, given in Amperes per second.

Power is the rate of energy usage per unit time.  Power is also simply Voltage times current and is an instantaneous quantity apart from time.  It is measured in Watts.  Pwatts = Vvolts x Iamperes.   There is no "dt" involved in calculations of power except where energy consumed or supplied (i.e. rate of change or transfer) per unit time is known and one wishes to find the power:  p = dw/dt where w is energy in Joules, p is power in Watts and t is seconds.  Saying p = vi dt makes no sense given that p = vi, plain and simple.

Energy is Power times Time, pt.  One Watt that is available for one second is one Joule or one Watt-second.  Ten Watts that is available for 10 seconds is 100 Joules or 100 Watt-seconds.

If you have 1 billion Watts for 1 nanosecond, you have one Joule of energy.

But I know you already know this...I've seen you use these relationships correctly many times.

Neither p (instantaneous power) nor P (average Power over time) is correctly expressed as vi dt.  The equation for average power in a repeating non-sinusoidal waveform is far more complex and involves a DC component and the amplitude and phase relationships of all the AC sinewave voltage and current components as derived from a Fourier Series. 

This is essentially what your scopes are doing in a somewhat different way AND THE AMPLITUES AND PHASE ANGLES BETWEEN THE VOLTAGE AND CURRENT AT ALL PRESENT FREQUENCIES MUST BE ACCURATELY FED INTO THE SCOPE OR IT JUST DOESN'T WORK OUT THE RIGHT ANSWER.

Cheers,

Humbugger
Title: Re: Rosemary Ainslie circuit demonstration on Saturday March 12th 2011
Post by: Poit on March 27, 2011, 06:26:24 AM
@ Rosemary:

Thank you for your response.

Please forgive my stupid questions, but heres another :)

Could you please explain in a short paragraph what exactly you have? (i.e demonstrating). I understand it is some sort of heating device. I've tried reading the posts surrounding this demonstration, but get quickly bamboozled by all the tech talk. I would consider my self a novice inventor and have a keen interest in OU, not a great understanding of electronics (but enough to get by - i.e basics, what the components do and why etc etc).

If this question has anoyyed you, please disregard, as I would understand if you declined to answer (due to the ignorance on my half) - sorry

Poit (Peter)

P.S If this is something that is unpatenable and something that you feel members here have missed, would it be feasible for a step by step guide to build this invention? again sorry for the ignorant questions :) Thank you
Title: Re: Rosemary Ainslie circuit demonstration on Saturday March 12th 2011
Post by: Rosemary Ainslie on March 27, 2011, 06:28:03 AM
Hey Rose  =]

Was wondering.  How did you get involved in this project?  What were the the beginnings that got you started in this pursuit? 

Mags

Hello Mags.  SO NICE TO SEE YOU AROUND.  You don't want to know.  It's a long story.  I was trying to prove a magnetic field model.  It needed the electromagnetic force to be controlled by - or based on - a one dimensional magnetic field.  The strong nuclear force needed to be based on a 2 dimensional field.  And gravity on a three dimensional field.  I could only PROVE it on the electromagnetic force.  Which is why I put that circuit together.  So.  The argument is that ALL is magnetic.  In other words it's a FUNDAMENTAL force and it has its own particles.  It's just that - in a field - they move at faster than light speed.  So.  Light can't find it.  It's invisible.  And since our astrophysicists are LOOKING FOR precisely this 'invisible' particle or 'dark energy' in a 'dark force' - then I'm inclined to think that it's right here.  In the magnetic field.  It's way too prosaic and too obvious to appeal to our learneds.  And, unfortunately, it's apparently too complex to appeal to the general public.  So.  I've fallen between two chairs. 

But that's a really long argument.  To me it was as clear as daylight.  So far there are precisely 6 people that I know understand it and possibly another dozen or so who are not owning up to understanding it.  So.  To my surprise - it's actually not that clear at all. 

But I would absolutely not recommend you get embroiled in it.  It's not for the faint hearted and it's not relevant to what this proof shows.  What's needed here are APPLICATIONS.  IF, that is, we can convince anyone at all.  Neptune suggests we stop trying to convince the academics and just concentrate on the possible uses.  And it's probably a good suggestion.
Title: Re: Rosemary Ainslie circuit demonstration on Saturday March 12th 2011
Post by: Rosemary Ainslie on March 27, 2011, 06:43:16 AM
@ Rosemary:

Could you please explain in a short paragraph what exactly you have? (i.e demonstrating). I understand it is some sort of heating device. I've tried reading the posts surrounding this demonstration, but get quickly bamboozled by all the tech talk. I would consider my self a novice inventor and have a keen interest in OU, not a great understanding of electronics (but enough to get by - i.e basics, what the components do and why etc etc).

Poit - it's a good question.  The 'how to' is probably best explained by Neptune et al.  The 'what we have' is - we think - a means of getting an energy efficiency which our measurments show is pretty jolly good.  We have great difficulty in measuring any energy at all 'supplied' by an energy supply source - for a great deal of energy 'dissipated'.  The arguments are that there are errors in measurements.  It's a valid argument.  We need to explore WHERE those errors may be.  But - thus far - we've not found them.  Poynty et al - who probably represent the 'control' in a sort of experimental way - claim that we are wrong because we're not AVERAGING the values.  But - as I've been trying to point out - mainstream will NOT ALLOW AN AVERAGING.  Even if they did - we can get the experiment to show that EVEN WITH AVERAGING we have a gain. 

Hope that makes it clearer.

P.S If this is something that is unpatenable and something that you feel members here have missed, would it be feasible for a step by step guide to build this invention? again sorry for the ignorant questions :) Thank you
It probably would.  But I am most reluctant to recommend 'replications'.  This because a previous excursion in this direction resulted in a jealous attempt to appropriate that as a discovery.  This is counter productive.  It would deny the thesis that preceded the claim and it would open it to patenting options which we've been at GREAT PAINS AND EXPENSE to avoid.  And more to the point - PRECISE replications are IMPOSSIBLE.  How may ways are there to generate Back electromotive force?  And how many ways can one generate parasitic oscillations?  I'm not sure it could EVER be determined.  What we're trying to encourage people to do is to look at the value in that - and to stop throwing it away.  Because, according to the numbers that we show - there's a surprising evidence of an awful lot of energy that is also very exploitable.

Again.  Hopefully that helps explain things.

Kindest regards,
Rosemary
[/quote]
Title: Re: Rosemary Ainslie circuit demonstration on Saturday March 12th 2011
Post by: Poit on March 27, 2011, 06:49:15 AM
Thank you :)
Title: Re: Rosemary Ainslie circuit demonstration on Saturday March 12th 2011
Post by: Magluvin on March 27, 2011, 06:59:31 AM
Hey Rose

Very cool.    So you've been in the deep end of the pool.  ;]

I always blew off ideas of aether, or energy from the vacuum, dark energy/matter.  But once I got into the Faraday Paradox, a lot of things look different to me.  Just the fact that the magnet could move with the conducting plate and current was still produced, opens doors. 
Imagine a magnet/coil and led arraignment that you could just attach to the spokes of a bicycle wheel and as the wheel spins, led lights.

My beginnings was in 7th grade. Found books in the library on perpetual motion. I made many wheels. My grand father helped. =]
He was an inventor as was his dad.  I think Great grandpa Carl may have known Tesla, as they both had dealings with Westinghouse in Pittsburgh, 60 miles from home.
Carl had a setup in the early 1910s that was what looked like 2 motors connected at the shaft and all wires connected to a box with a switch.  Flip the switch and spin the shaft by hand and off it went.
He had shown it around town, so ha had many witnesses. But the men in black of 1910 came and made threats. He dismantled the device.

So here we are. I think we are on the edge of rediscovering many things that were discouraged many years ago.

This Gabriel transformer is a huge discovery.  It is described in a Tesla pat  433702.  We could have had this back then. Less power in than out.  Thank God for Tesla, and having the paperwork still available to find.  Its hard to decipher the intentions of his patents. But once you get one of them, you learn how to read into others the same and you get more out of it.

;]

Mags 
Title: Re: Rosemary Ainslie circuit demonstration on Saturday March 12th 2011
Post by: kEhYo77 on March 27, 2011, 07:00:43 AM
I have found interesting bit of information about parasitic oscillations of MOSFETs in PARALLEL (the condition is to have more than one!):
www.microsemi.com/micnotes/APT0402.pdf (http://www.microsemi.com/micnotes/APT0402.pdf)
Title: Re: Rosemary Ainslie circuit demonstration on Saturday March 12th 2011
Post by: Rosemary Ainslie on March 27, 2011, 07:08:30 AM
Hello KeHYo.  I also saw that link.  Very interesting.  And note that the only recommendation is to get rid of it.  LOL.  What fixates my attention is that zero crossing.  I wonder if we shouldn't try and digest the implications here.  It's very telling.

And Mags, very interesting.  I think once one gets into aether energy - then one just becomes obsessed.  It's the nature of the beast.  It just calls for so much attention.  Hopefully we've got aether energy here or dark energy or whatever anyone wants to call it.  We need all that abundance.

Good stuff guys.  I'm off for the day.  Nice mornings postings.

Rosemary
Title: Re: Rosemary Ainslie circuit demonstration on Saturday March 12th 2011
Post by: atomicX on March 27, 2011, 07:09:00 AM
Congratulation Rose... Sorry I'm late. :)
Title: Re: Rosemary Ainslie circuit demonstration on Saturday March 12th 2011
Post by: rensseak on March 27, 2011, 08:52:59 AM
I have found interesting bit of information about parasitic oscillations of MOSFETs in PARALLEL (the condition is to have more than one!):
www.microsemi.com/micnotes/APT0402.pdf (http://www.microsemi.com/micnotes/APT0402.pdf)

PETT oscillations, PETT = P lasma E xtraction  T ransit  T ime.

http://www.mourick.com/parasitic_oscillations.html
Title: Re: Rosemary Ainslie circuit demonstration on Saturday March 12th 2011
Post by: nul-points on March 27, 2011, 10:00:33 AM
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.
...
Rosemary

hi Rosemary

i was reading the PDF on parasitic oscillations linked by kEhYo77 and wondered if the following excerpt might be reason for the circuit not working at the moment

  "Such an oscillation condition...can cause over-voltage transients on the gate...and can even lead to uncontrolled, sustained oscillation and destruction of one or more devices"
 
is it possible that one or more of the MOSFETs has died and is stopping the correct switching action of the remainder?

just an idea

regards
np

<<EDIT #1>>
interesting, also, that rensseak's link to PETT describes the parasitic oscillation as a negative resistance event!  (although i don't recall it clarifying whether it's negative differential resistance, or the real thing)

<<EDIT #2>>
i've been a bit concerned about the suggestions to generate the parasitic oscillations by just connecting a negative voltage across the gate - the driving waveform from the SigGen is after all a dynamic waveform, not just a collection of two DC levels - ie., it also contains transients

so we shouldn't overlook the possibility that the parasitic oscillation is 'triggered' by a transient, before being able to sustain during a suitable state of the input (ie. the negative level)

this possibility seems to be supported by some of the info in the links mentioned above (eg., example oscillations are shown to follow either the 'ON' or the 'OFF' signal transient, or both, at the gate, depending on gate input resistance, production characteristics of the MOSFET die, and/or parasitic inductances in the circuit under test)


http://docsfreelunch.blogspot.com (http://docsfreelunch.blogspot.com)
 
Title: Re: Rosemary Ainslie circuit demonstration on Saturday March 12th 2011
Post by: neptune on March 27, 2011, 12:06:40 PM
@Poynt99 .What I actually said in my post was ,"If we want to be pedantic" . I did not specifically say you were pedantic . You ask , how was my post helpful in any way . I was hoping to encourage people to think outside the box , and see things in a new perspective . So I still say there is nothing magical about the battery terminals . I did not say there is anything wrong with measuring there . So please , lets avoid flame wars and leave it at that
@nul-points . You say that applying a constant negative voltage at the gate may not work because there are no transients and you could be right . Harti makes the point that it might be necessary to disconnect and reconnect the 9 volt battery a few times to start the oscillation . And HE could be right . And for less than $5 we could find out the truth .     
Title: Re: Rosemary Ainslie circuit demonstration on Saturday March 12th 2011
Post by: nul-points on March 27, 2011, 01:23:18 PM
@nul-points . You say that applying a constant negative voltage at the gate may not work because there are no transients and you could be right . Harti makes the point that it might be necessary to disconnect and reconnect the 9 volt battery a few times to start the oscillation . And HE could be right . And for less than $5 we could find out the truth .     

hi Neptune, greetings from the sunny south of England!

i agree

my point is that in electronics (as in so many things), the history of how something reached a state can be as germaine as the state itself

i'm not saying that we shouldn't try a DC negative gate drive setup - or that it is mistaken

i'm saying that the 'low' state of a SigGen output is only half the picture of what happened immediately prior to the start of the parasitic oscillations - and that we should bear that in mind when we try to understand what is happening on Rosemary's experiment

my EDIT #2 above gave some supporting evidence from those links that such oscillations *can* be caused by transitions (in either direction)

our job as 'ou investigators' should be to discover what is 'necessary and sufficient' to recreate unusual energy phenomena

in this case, a negative gate drive may well be 'necessary' - but not 'sufficient'


i didn't mean to be contentious - just thorough

there seems to be an abundance of woolly-thinking in the OU field - and i've certainly contributed my share!  ;)


kind regards
np


PS in your quote above, it appears that Harti & i are essentially saying the same thing - just using a 9V DC gate drive on its own may not be sufficient to start the oscillations - it may be necssary also to add transitions to the steady DC condition

Harti quite rightly suggests that this could be achieved by simply disconnecting & reconnecting the 9V DC a few times

of course, in a circuit with plenty of reactance, we shouldn't ignore the possibility of frequency playing a part, either - so it *could* turn out that just the addition of a few transitions is not sufficient to trigger the oscillations - this could bring us back possibly to a SigGen being necessary to provide frequent/regular transitions!

who said 'breaking the stranglehold' of Classical scientific dogma was going to be easy?!?  :)


http://docsfreelunch.blogspot.com (http://docsfreelunch.blogspot.com)
 
Title: Re: Rosemary Ainslie circuit demonstration on Saturday March 12th 2011
Post by: neptune on March 27, 2011, 03:10:14 PM
Hi Nul-points, and Greetings from Lincolnshire in the cold misty North of England . You are preaching to the converted , so to speak, in that I agree 100% with your last post .We must leave no stone unturned . The 9 volt battery and pot idea is a simple cheap starting point . As Rosemary says this effect is not frequency dependent , mechanical switching becomes possible for experiment . Rose talks about frequencies as low as one cycle every 3 seconds!. If the constant neg bias does not work , we could use two battery and pot circuits to pulse the gate pos and neg alternately using a microswitch to change them over .Microswitch could be operated with a variable speed DC motor driving a cam , or you could even operate it with a pendulum .These methods might be easier for some than 555 circuits which normally only pulse between pos and zero .With two bias batteries , you could vary the voltage of pos and neg pulses independently . My point is that experimentation at this level could be cheap .Not everyone has a function generator
Title: Re: Rosemary Ainslie circuit demonstration on Saturday March 12th 2011
Post by: neptune on March 27, 2011, 04:02:07 PM
Just read the article linked bykEho77 in reply number385 , and also the one linked by rensseak in reply388 . We can learn much from these .For a start , if we can not get the circuit to oscillate , try different wire lengths on the gate connections . If driving the gate with a pulse generator , a potentiometer of 100 ohms to 1Kohms between the generator and gate is desirable . Further study needed here . There is talk of the gate wiring acting as an aerial .Is this the purpose of the aerial, picking up electronic noise ,on Ismael Avisos car ?
Title: Re: Rosemary Ainslie circuit demonstration on Saturday March 12th 2011
Post by: Rosemary Ainslie on March 27, 2011, 04:15:11 PM
Right, Part 2 then.

What will happen to our PVbat calculation if rather than using this agreed upon equation:

PVbat = V(P1 - P4) x V(P3 - P4)/0.25

we make a small change and use this instead:



PVbat = V(P2 - P4) x V(P3 -P4)/0.25

What happens to the PVbat calculation?

.99
Ok.  Poynty Point.  Still struggling to find relevance here.
 
"PVbat = V(P2 - P4) x V(P3 -P4)/0.25" refers.

Actually I'm going to change this entirely.  You tell me.  And this time look at the entire circuit assuming R = 1 Ohm.  What is the current flow here?  And how do you calculate this?  Then.  What is the current flow at R2 given that R = 1000 Ohms and what is the current flow at R3 given that R = 0.25 Ohm.

Let us know Poynty.

Kind regards
Rosemary

CHANGED 
Title: Re: Rosemary Ainslie circuit demonstration on Saturday March 12th 2011
Post by: Rosemary Ainslie on March 27, 2011, 04:35:32 PM
And guys, the switch is now switching like an angel but I can't get any power through to the load.  I think we've shaken a cable loose and I can't, myself, get in there.  I'll try and get someone to fix this tomorrow. 

Sorry about the delay Poynty.  The probes still positioned as required.  Hang fire.  We'll get there. 

Kindest as ever,
Rosemary

BTW - Many thanks for the good wishes Atomicx.  But the credit is not mine - I assure you.  The team rallied with that demo.  I was just a spectator.

Kindest as ever,
R

And rensseak and nul-points - nice references and nice points.  I also have no idea how that oscillation is actually triggered.  It was a big surprise.  But it seems to just want to keep going.  And there's no question that there's some heavy duty current there.  It shows up in the battery voltage drop - and climb.  But I still have to show that with the probe directly across a 24 volt supply. 

And another point for our Poynty.  I can't span a 12 volt battery.  I made a mistake.  The best I can do here is 24.  But that should do the trick - presumably.  I'll keep those connections to the barest minimum.  And I'll film it.  So you'll see where the probes are positioned. 

Again,
Rosemary 
Title: Re: Rosemary Ainslie circuit demonstration on Saturday March 12th 2011
Post by: Rosemary Ainslie on March 27, 2011, 04:59:19 PM
Rose talks about frequencies as low as one cycle every 3 seconds!.

Neptune?  I'll see if I can find that scope shot.  It's not one cycle per 3 seconds.  It's actually one cycle per 2.7 MINUTES at the lowest setting.  I'll see if I can find it to post it.  Actually just recalculated this.  More like 2.5 minutes.  But that's still a long time.  And no evident ringing down or up at each transition.

Hang 10. I'll see what I can do.  Not the best around this internet thing.

I think this is it.  Here's hoping.  Yes.  Just look at the 50sec per division in the top left hand corner. 

Kindest, as ever,
Rosie

edited
Title: Re: Rosemary Ainslie circuit demonstration on Saturday March 12th 2011
Post by: Rosemary Ainslie on March 27, 2011, 05:17:56 PM
Here's another one.  It shows it more clearly.

I've actually got these printed in colour and intend framing them. 

ENJOY

 ;D

The channels
1 = shunt
2 = battery
3 = gate
4 = drain

The math trace - on D - is the product of v shunt and v battery.  NOT WATTS.  But in as much as it's negative then vi is definitely negative indicating energy returned to the battery.  As I've mentioned - an embarrassment of riches.  Because at this level of power that battery should be cooking with charge.  UNLESS, as I'm hoping, current flow turns out to have nothing whatsoever to do with the flow of electrons.  That's the ONLY departure from mainstream thinking that we've introduced.  And even here - there are those theoretical purists who have known this since forever.

Rosemary

ADDED - and since I'm on a role here, and if anyone's interested.  Here's some comments related to electron current flow.  Possibly a bit critical.  LOL.

http://newlightondarkenergy.blogspot.com/2010/11/more-on-inconvenient-truths.html
Title: Re: Rosemary Ainslie circuit demonstration on Saturday March 12th 2011
Post by: Bubba1 on March 27, 2011, 05:31:26 PM
 
Power is ALWAYS vi dt.  Or Volts x amps x time.  THAT's it.  You can try and argue this till the cows come home Poynty....

Rosemary

Power is volts x amps.  Volts x amps x time is Energy.
Title: Re: Rosemary Ainslie circuit demonstration on Saturday March 12th 2011
Post by: Rosemary Ainslie on March 27, 2011, 05:34:11 PM
Power is volts x amps.  Volts x amps x time is Energy.

Exactly my point Bubba.  vi dt.
Title: Re: Rosemary Ainslie circuit demonstration on Saturday March 12th 2011
Post by: alexandre on March 27, 2011, 05:46:39 PM
Instantaneous Power : P = V * I

Energy is the integration of instantaneous power over time.

Only if the instantaneous power is constant you can forget the integration and just multiply V*I*t

Hope we can narrow the uncertainties.

-Alex
Title: Re: Rosemary Ainslie circuit demonstration on Saturday March 12th 2011
Post by: neptune on March 27, 2011, 05:53:33 PM
Sorry Rosemary . Another Senior Moment there! This business of one cycle every 3 Minutes is just so Gobsmacking that my subconscious keeps trying to tell me its 3 seconds . This makes it even easier to drive the microswitch at realistic frequencies for experiment with a pendulum .Although at one cycle/3 minutes you would need one hell of a pendulum . As I said a while back you could actually switch it manually with a stopwatch .
Title: Re: Rosemary Ainslie circuit demonstration on Saturday March 12th 2011
Post by: Rosemary Ainslie on March 27, 2011, 05:59:09 PM
Sorry Rosemary . Another Senior Moment there! This business of one cycle every 3 Minutes is just so Gobsmacking that my subconscious keeps trying to tell me its 3 seconds . This makes it even easier to drive the microswitch at realistic frequencies for experiment with a pendulum .Although at one cycle/3 minutes you would need one hell of a pendulum . As I said a while back you could actually switch it manually with a stopwatch .

LOL  I also took a day or two to realise that it was minutes not seconds.  And then only because it was pointed out to me by one of our academics.  Interestingly there is NO drop in temperature over the resistor.  Also - if you disconnect - for 3 minutes then the temperature drops dramatically.  It's not in the material of the iron.  So?  Here's the question.  How come the batteries are 'retaining  charge' and yet dissipating energy?   You see why it is that our academics are closing there eyes here?  LOL.

So glad we've got you to deal with the practicalities of this design Neptune.  I have no skills here - at all. 

Kindest as ever,
Rosie

added
BTW Neptune.  The ideal would be to get it to 'trigger' into oscillation mode and then just leave it to do it's thing.  No need for any further switching - I'd have thought?  It's holding the temperature - so it's doing work - and it's not - apparently, losing any charge at the batteries.  It would be a really good test - if you guys - someone?  can set this up.  I'm going to give it at go at this end but, because I'll be relying on others to do your circuit - then it'll take time. 
Title: Re: Rosemary Ainslie circuit demonstration on Saturday March 12th 2011
Post by: neptune on March 27, 2011, 07:25:21 PM
Hi Rosemary . Yes all points noted . If experiment shows that transients are necessary , and just switching on and off that 9 volt battery does not do the job , I would think the next step would be having two batteries each with its own pot and the hand operated microswitch idea . That way we have alternate pos and neg pulses on the gate , and we can adjust the voltages of the pos and neg pulses independently .When the oscillations start , just release the switch and it defaults to a steady neg condition . I am more of a practical guy than a theoretician  , but from reading the article about prevention of parasitic oscillation in parallel Mosfets , I get the impression that 2 is the minimum number of mosfets to use , But choose the value of your load resister so as not to draw more current than 2 mosfets can handle . Rose I understand you are waiting for someone to help set up experiments but I am sure we will get there soon.
Title: Re: Rosemary Ainslie circuit demonstration on Saturday March 12th 2011
Post by: Magluvin on March 27, 2011, 07:33:59 PM
So?  Here's the question.  How come the batteries are 'retaining  charge' and yet dissipating energy?   You see why it is that our academics are closing there eyes here?  LOL.



Kindest as ever,
Rosie



Could it be,  hmmm,  could it be that the heat created in the resistor is not really a loss felt by the batteries, and it is just an artifact of current flow.   If we think about it, as the resistor heats up, the resistance will become higher as the heat becomes hotter.  As the resistance becomes higher, and current becomes lower, yet the heat is higher.   More heat for less energy?

This was just a blurt.  I have to think about this.

Mags
Title: Re: Rosemary Ainslie circuit demonstration on Saturday March 12th 2011
Post by: Bubba1 on March 27, 2011, 07:59:08 PM
Exactly my point Bubba.  vi dt.

vi dt is not power, it is energy. power is vi.
Title: Re: Rosemary Ainslie circuit demonstration on Saturday March 12th 2011
Post by: Rosemary Ainslie on March 27, 2011, 08:12:42 PM
Guys - there's someone contacted me who may be prepared to fund the required to take this to an application for LED's.  Neptune - if you're game - let me know - or anyone who wants to take this further.  It's nothing to do with me.  I'm just  go-between.  But if you're up for it. PM me and I'll send on the details.

Kindest regards,
Rosemary

Also possibly Mags, nul-points  - whoever.  It may be a way of getting this tested DIRECTLY onto a limited application.  And I'm sure that there'll be some compensation for the outlay.  Just let me know.  I'm back here later tonight or tomorrow morning early.  I like the thinking.  Just get it up and running and explain how it works after.  Something like that.  You'd be able to test the battery durations and the whole gamut. 

Title: Re: Rosemary Ainslie circuit demonstration on Saturday March 12th 2011
Post by: Rosemary Ainslie on March 27, 2011, 08:18:56 PM
vi dt is not power, it is energy. power is vi.
Bubba - why are you going on about this?  Energy and power are generic terms.  Applied to electric energy then Power is still volts times amps x time.  And when time is factored in then its represented as Joules.  I just don't see your point.

Rosemary
Title: Re: Rosemary Ainslie circuit demonstration on Saturday March 12th 2011
Post by: alexandre on March 28, 2011, 12:19:09 AM
Hello,
I was wondering how much would the batteries last, if they weren´t getting any charge. This is a very crude aproximation:

If you use 6 12v batteries to power a DC load dissipating 50 watts, the current is around 50/72 which is 0.7 amps .  Dividing the AH rating of the batteries, lets say 100 AH, by the current, we get the run time of 142.8 hours.

If the load is pulsed, it seems there will be extra run time, even more so with lead acid batteries.

What is needed is replication and continuous operation of the heater, this is better than the the measurements route. Any takers?

A simple PIC microcontroller + drive transistor could set the gate voltage and provide a safety circuit breaker function.

Best,
Alex
Title: Re: Rosemary Ainslie circuit demonstration on Saturday March 12th 2011
Post by: cHeeseburger on March 28, 2011, 12:44:24 AM
For anyone dubious about the idea that a shunt containing an inductance whose reactance is actually larger than the shunt resistance at the frequencies of interest could actually distort the direction of current flow and change the areas under the positive and negative portions of the trace, here is another even more astounding and revealing demonstration:

Here we have a current generator set up to ramp up and down linearly from zero to two Amperes.  The true current flow is always positive as shown by the trace taken across the pure shunt resistance.  It never once goes below zero.

Yet the voltage as taken across the R+L shows huge amounts of reverse (negative) “current flow”.  If we believed that, that is.

You see, the whole idea of a shunt is based on using a pure resistance to obtain the analog of the current flowing through it by looking at the voltage drop and applying Ohm’s law E=IR.  A resistor’s voltage drop across its terminals is a pure function of the instantaneous current flowing through the resistor.

The relationship between voltage drop and current is entirely different in inductors and capacitors.  In an inductor, the voltage measured across its terminals depends ONLY on how fast the current is changing and whether it is rising or falling and not at all on the actual amount or the polarity of current.  Inversely, in a capacitor, the current flow through it depends ONLY on how fast the voltage across its terminals is changing and not at all on the value of that voltage.

So, a pure inductor will have no voltage drop (zero) across its terminals no matter what the current flowing as long as that current is not changing.  If the current is changing at a steady rate (di/dt is a constant slope), the voltage across the inductor will be a non-zero value and will also remain steady.  If the current is rising, the voltage will be positive.  If the current is declining, the voltage will be negative.

If the rate of change of current (di/dt) suddenly changes from one slope to another, there will be a “spike” of voltage produced.  This is (di/dt)/dt, the rate of change of the rate of change.  That is why we see the spikes each time the slope of the current instantly changes on our trapezoid waveform, shown here.  If there were no resistance in series to damp these spikes, they would be infinite in amplitude if the change in slope was instantaneous NO MATTER HOW LARGE OR SMALL THE ACTUAL LEVEL OF CURRENT WAS.

So using a shunt that has internal inductance with a reactance far larger than its resistance at the frequencies of interest will primarily show the rate of change of the current and not the current’s actual value.

The scope traces here and in my sim of Rose’s circuit shown earlier prove the point that an inductive shunt can and does show negative voltages any time the true current is declining EVEN WHEN THE CURRENT ITSELF IS ALWAYS A POSITIVE NUMBER.

Humbugger
Title: Re: Rosemary Ainslie circuit demonstration on Saturday March 12th 2011
Post by: Bubba1 on March 28, 2011, 01:38:57 AM
Bubba - why are you going on about this?  Energy and power are generic terms.  Applied to electric energy then Power is still volts times amps x time.  And when time is factored in then its represented as Joules.  I just don't see your point.

Rosemary

Yeah, I see that.  Maybe it doesn't matter.
Title: Re: Rosemary Ainslie circuit demonstration on Saturday March 12th 2011
Post by: twinbeard on March 28, 2011, 09:45:21 AM
Hi Rosemary,

So back to applications.  In your opinion, would it be possible to drive the existing resistive heating element in an off the shelf home water heater appliance from this circuit?  If not, what is necessary to retrofit an existing heater with a replacement element suitable for use with the circuit?  I think it is a easier path to mass implementation to provide a modular kit suitable to upgrade the existing devices in use, as opposed to the larger manufacturing requirements and hence consumer investment required
to replace existing systems altogether.

Cheers,
Twinbeard
Title: Re: Rosemary Ainslie circuit demonstration on Saturday March 12th 2011
Post by: Rosemary Ainslie on March 28, 2011, 03:49:56 PM
Guys,  It seems that OUR.com have banned me from viewing their forum.  Not sure of the thinking here.  Poynty himself HOWLED when Harti separated him from his work.  Somehow he feels this is due to me.  Apparently they want a free field where I can do nothing to stop all that slander.  I think this is justified because?  Actually I'm not sure why.  I thought I was knee deep in a friendly discussion with Poynty.  How wrong can one be. 

I've now reported their abuse EVERYWHERE.  I may as well add it here.  Mookie has put out a general appeal for all to 'feel free' to come and comment.  But i think they're only accepting ADVERSE comment.  Never seen a more blatant example of bigotry and more sanctioned intentions to indulge in 'hate speech'.  But Poynty apparently justifies it under the banner 'opinion'.  I see NO opinions.  Unless they do some retrospective editing.  Poor Mookie is trying to advance the general impression that I'm always in my pyjamas - and that I live in a dusty little hole where I weave my fantasies at whim.  Again.  Not sure of the relevance - but could someone perhaps advise him that my living quarters are ample and really well serviced.

Rosemary
Title: Re: Rosemary Ainslie circuit demonstration on Saturday March 12th 2011
Post by: Rosemary Ainslie on March 28, 2011, 04:10:46 PM
Hello,
I was wondering how much would the batteries last, if they weren´t getting any charge. This is a very crude aproximation:

If you use 6 12v batteries to power a DC load dissipating 50 watts, the current is around 50/72 which is 0.7 amps .  Dividing the AH rating of the batteries, lets say 100 AH, by the current, we get the run time of 142.8 hours.

If the load is pulsed, it seems there will be extra run time, even more so with lead acid batteries.

What is needed is replication and continuous operation of the heater, this is better than the the measurements route. Any takers?

A simple PIC microcontroller + drive transistor could set the gate voltage and provide a safety circuit breaker function.

Best,
Alex

Alex I don't suppose that the batteries are more than 100 ah's but I'll check.  And we've certainly run them for longer than 142 hours.  But that's 142 x 8 and even then - it's assuming a .7 amp discharge.  We've never managed any evidence of discharge.  Nor have we seen any depletion of battery voltage.  But it's not an argument that we'll win.  Ever.  And I, for one won't try it again.  But it MAY be relevant if any of you guys do these tests on smaller battery capacities. 

Not so keen on replications.  It would be nice to try a small application. But either way - it's your choice.

Kindest regards,
Rosemary
Title: Re: Rosemary Ainslie circuit demonstration on Saturday March 12th 2011
Post by: Rosemary Ainslie on March 28, 2011, 04:14:26 PM
Hi Rosemary,

So back to applications.  In your opinion, would it be possible to drive the existing resistive heating element in an off the shelf home water heater appliance from this circuit?  If not, what is necessary to retrofit an existing heater with a replacement element suitable for use with the circuit?  I think it is a easier path to mass implementation to provide a modular kit suitable to upgrade the existing devices in use, as opposed to the larger manufacturing requirements and hence consumer investment required
to replace existing systems altogether.

Cheers,
Twinbeard

Hi Twin.  That's more or less what we were considering.  When we chose that element it was simply to see how far from 'standard' we'd need to move.  The surprise was that we didn't need to move away at all.  Those elements that the guys are showing seem good.  But small Ohmage may be preferred - just so that you can keep the battery voltage low.  We could up the voltage because we had a generous donation of all those batteries.

Nice thinking.

Rosemary
Title: Re: Rosemary Ainslie circuit demonstration on Saturday March 12th 2011
Post by: alexandre on March 28, 2011, 04:31:06 PM
Hello Rosemary,

I have been reading about it and I believe I have underestimated the capacity of the batteries. As for battery voltage, as pointed out already, it doesn´t represent the remaining charge. Especially when there is pulsing going on.

No consense on the mesurements either. IMO, more work is needed on this experiment. I would like to see continuous operation.

I hope you take this as constructive criticism.

Best
Alex
Title: Re: Rosemary Ainslie circuit demonstration on Saturday March 12th 2011
Post by: Rosemary Ainslie on March 28, 2011, 04:47:54 PM
Hello Rosemary,

I have been reading about it and I believe I have underestimated the capacity of the batteries. As for battery voltage, as pointed out already, it doesn´t represent the remaining charge. Especially when there is pulsing going on.

No consense on the mesurements either. IMO, more work is needed on this experiment. I would like to see continuous operation.

I hope you take this as constructive criticism.

Best
Alex

You all would.  And with good reason.  But I don't have the funds to get a continuous test going with the required constant supervision.   So. If even three experts stated that such a test would be definitive then that's another story.  I'd bend over backwards to get it going.  You see Alex - I'm anticipating a really slow but steady discharge from the battery.  Certainly, from previous experience - that's what was evident.  So.  I'd first run a control - say discharging 0.7 amps.  Then I'd need to run my own test.  The control would run for about 100 amp hours /0 .7 amps = about 142 hours x 6 batteries = 857 hours or a staggering 35 days.  Not too much of a problem because we'd be able to put that on a data logger.  Now comes our test.  Now we'd need constant supervision because it has a tendancy to trend into that heavy duty output mode which is hazardous.  So.  We'd first need to recharge those batteries then run it for the same period - another 35 odd days  before we got any kind of proof at all.  Then - to satisfy the picky complainers I'd probably have to run it for a further 35 days or to its point of absolute depletion - assuming it's depleting at all.  Then the argument will be to RERUN the control and the test because - you see -  the rate of charge at the start of both tests may have skewed the result.  That would take a further 34 - 35 days  each.  And at the end of it?  I'll be told that I'd simply fudged those results. 

I assure you - battery durations will never cut it as an argument.  And as I keep trying to remind you all - this is absolutely NOT the entire argument.  There is nothing - in prinicple or in fact - that prevents these applications on AC supplies.  What we've done should be more than enough as it depends on standard measurement protocols.

Kindest again,
Rosemary 

And I do take it as constructive suggestion.  I'm not sure that it's any kind of criticism at all.  It's just that what you're actually asking is the continually supervised for more than a month and possibly to be done twice.  I simply cannot afford it.

EDITED
I've had to change those numbers.  I multiplied instead of dividing.
Title: Re: Rosemary Ainslie circuit demonstration on Saturday March 12th 2011
Post by: Rosemary Ainslie on March 28, 2011, 05:10:08 PM
And guys - just a small ray of light in what, at the moment seems an endlessly dark tunnel.  It seems that we may yet be able to do a second demonstration - to a small but EXPERT audience.  This time I say this with a great deal of circumspection - but it does, indeed, seem MUCH more promising.  So far 2 are committed to coming and there may be more.  Who knows?  Perhaps we'll get that acknowledgement or, dare I say it, accreditation, after all. 

I guess the magic is always in the timing. Now I've got to get the circuit operational.  So I've crossed my fingers and am saying my prayers.

Kindest as ever,
Rosemary

Title: Re: Rosemary Ainslie circuit demonstration on Saturday March 12th 2011
Post by: Rosemary Ainslie on March 28, 2011, 05:33:01 PM
And by the way - it's being said that we are intending to claim an OU.com prize.   Stefan - for the record - we will not be accepting any prizes - ever.  Expert accreditation will be prize enough.  Not that I don't need money.  It's just not the point of this.  At all.  Not even close.  Personally - if there's a prize contender I think it should go to LaserSaber or to the Joule Thief developers.  And I also think both should have been considered - way back.  Actually there's been so much.  It's a shame that we all have to keep on struggling for recognition of this work.  Hopefully the day will yet come when there's open acknowledgement.

Rosemary
Title: Re: Rosemary Ainslie circuit demonstration on Saturday March 12th 2011
Post by: powercat on March 28, 2011, 05:53:43 PM
Hi Rosie
As far as claiming the prize I am not aware of anyone coming close, the criteria is for a 1 W device,
yes 1 Watt of free energy may seem a small amount to some people but it would be a revolution
anyway I am still waiting to see one,  maybe one year ::)
http://www.overunity.com/index.php?topic=5707.0
Title: Re: Rosemary Ainslie circuit demonstration on Saturday March 12th 2011
Post by: Poit on March 28, 2011, 07:24:17 PM
Hi Rosemary,
Can I ask what is your end goal?

For me, the end goal for a successful free energy device is this:
Make 6 - 10 working replications, make as fine detailed blueprints as I can (for easy replication - any one can do), then mail the 6 - 10 working replications to the top universities across the globe (America, China, India, Australia, New Zealand, Canada etc etc). And also mail it to key interest groups (like this and energetic forum). The day I mail it, I also apply for a GPL license with no royalties or anything, just the GPL so no one could patent it, carefully making sure it can be reproduced by anyone - also making it difficult for people to profit from it.

The result (hopefully):
Free energy for the world, and the governments would be powerless to cover and suppress it.

Poit
Title: Re: Rosemary Ainslie circuit demonstration on Saturday March 12th 2011
Post by: Rosemary Ainslie on March 28, 2011, 07:31:14 PM
Hi Rosie
As far as claiming the prize I am not aware of anyone coming close, the criteria is for a 1 W device,
yes 1 Watt of free energy may seem a small amount to some people but it would be a revolution
anyway I am still waiting to see one,  maybe one year ::)
http://www.overunity.com/index.php?topic=5707.0

Cat?  I think we're dealing with anything up to and more than 44 watts.  And we certainly don't see a cost.  What intrigues me is that we claim this - others claim all kind of ou results and YET none of us is believed.  What gives guys?  Must every piece of evidence just be ignored - forever?  And how more conclusively does one give evidence.  I think we've exhausted ourselves in this effort.  Frankly this is just way too depressing.  Poynty et al - deny on principle and the rest of you?  Out of habit? 

Rosemary
Title: Re: Rosemary Ainslie circuit demonstration on Saturday March 12th 2011
Post by: Rosemary Ainslie on March 28, 2011, 07:41:24 PM
Hi Rosemary,
Can I ask what is your end goal?

For me, the end goal for a successful free energy device is this:
Make 6 - 10 working replications, make as fine detailed blueprints as I can (for easy replication - any one can do), then mail the 6 - 10 working replications to the top universities across the globe (America, China, India, Australia, New Zealand, Canada etc etc). And also mail it to key interest groups (like this and energetic forum). The day I mail it, I also apply for a GPL license with no royalties or anything, just the GPL so no one could patent it, carefully making sure it can be reproduced by anyone - also making it difficult for people to profit from it.

The result (hopefully):
Free energy for the world, and the governments would be powerless to cover and suppress it.

Poit

Well.  That's more or less what we've done.  Interestingly - there's some small interest bubbling.  so.  Maybe it'll work.

Rosemary
Title: Re: Rosemary Ainslie circuit demonstration on Saturday March 12th 2011
Post by: powercat on March 28, 2011, 08:36:38 PM
Cat?  I think we're dealing with anything up to and more than 44 watts.  And we certainly don't see a cost.  What intrigues me is that we claim this - others claim all kind of ou results and YET none of us is believed.  What gives guys?  Must every piece of evidence just be ignored - forever?  And how more conclusively does one give evidence.  I think we've exhausted ourselves in this effort.  Frankly this is just way too depressing.  Poynty et al - deny on principle and the rest of you?  Out of habit? 

Rosemary

This is all very good research and you are very determined, the problem is if you have free energy
then why can't you or anybody else produce a self-runner (yes that did come out as words)
as we are now on your third thread and yet again having measurement disagreement  ::)
I feel that a self-runner it is the only answer left
I have seen many try to reproduced your work,some of them I know well and I trust them, yet they have also failed, I would love to make one of your circuits, if only I could believe in it.
Best of luck with the research I hope you win in the end you deserve it
 ;)

http://www.youtube.com/results?search_type=videos&search_query=Rosemary+Ainslie+circuit&search_sort=video_date_uploaded&suggested_categories=28&uni=3
Title: Re: Rosemary Ainslie circuit demonstration on Saturday March 12th 2011
Post by: Sprocket on March 28, 2011, 08:54:51 PM
Hi Rosie
As far as claiming the prize I am not aware of anyone coming close, the criteria is for a 1 W device,
yes 1 Watt of free energy may seem a small amount to some people but it would be a revolution
anyway I am still waiting to see one,  maybe one year ::)
http://www.overunity.com/index.php?topic=5707.0

Many people regard patents are simply an effective way of netting potential 'problematic' inventions, then either buying them outright our having them classified as having national-security implications - either way, they never see the light of day!  I see this $1 million as a similar scam.  Reminds me of the Great Randi's $1 million offer for proof of the paranormal - all smoke and mirrors as the 'terms & conditions' he stipulates are farcical.  There's actually a very well-made youtube video that highlight this perfectly, except it done from the wannabe-psychics perspective, hilarious but scripted directly along the lines of what Randi demands.  Idiot!

But I digress, I was considering an application for this tech and hit on something I am actually thinking of buying - a steam-distiller, the type for removing fluoride and chlorine etc. from tap-water.  I currently get all my water from a natural spring, but have to drive quite a long way for it.  They cost around $200, and seem to consume around 600W.  I'm sure one could be made for a small fraction of that cost.  But cooler still would be one that consumes little or no power!!!  Even with ordinary-tech, that 600W should be easy to improve on - how about one of those piezo-foggers coupled with a tiny element to flash-steam the sucker!  Just thinking out loud...

@Rosemary - You have a good brain, could you guesstimate what maximum output I could expect using your setup and a ton of Nokia 3.6V 1100mAH batteries connected in series - I have well over 100 of these guys that are begging to find an application!  I realise their combined series-resistance may rule them out as being practical but I was quite impressed having used just 5 in series, I was able to have them comfortably power a 20W mini-pc for almost 45min - a home-brew UPS!  btw, I ordered a 4KW heater element from China because it was so ludicrously cheap - $4 including shipping!  I was sure it must be a mistake but my payment went through, so we'll see!  Have no idea what I'm going to do with it though! :D

Edit:  Just re-read that and it's a pretty open-ended question!  Guess what I'm really asking is, do you think this thing is do-able with such small-sized batteries?
Title: Re: Rosemary Ainslie circuit demonstration on Saturday March 12th 2011
Post by: twinbeard on March 28, 2011, 10:20:11 PM
This particular device is designed to produce heat.  It does so with apparently little or no disturbance to the source dipole.  One way to recover energy to make a "self run" would be via peltier junction, but lets think in a little more practical terms.  A small photovoltaic panel would amply cover providing current to the batteries to replace any that may be lost covering the cost of switching in the circuit.  That is simply adding another input to our already open system, and adding that input at the source dipole, a point in the circuit that is critical to maintaining the resonance.  I'm sure we could charge up a cap or even a tuned LC in the circuit itself somewhere as well without critically altering the heating effect, and switch it with an SCR so it dumps that collected potential back across the battery as well, if need be.

If we are seeing energy radiate through the circuit in all directions that there is a path to a point of lower potential, even back into the source dipole, then it appears we have the desired effect already though.  Artificial stimulation of the environment to produce a resonant condition which creates harvestable electrostatic potentials.  Lightning in a bottle:)  If, at very worst, we have an incredibly efficient heater that draws very little current from a photovoltaic panel/battery array, then we have still done something important.

Cheers,
Twinbeard


This is all very good research and you are very determined, the problem is if you have free energy
then why can't you or anybody else produce a self-runner (yes that did come out as words)
as we are now on your third thread and yet again having measurement disagreement  ::)
I feel that a self-runner it is the only answer left
I have seen many try to reproduced your work,some of them I know well and I trust them, yet they have also failed, I would love to make one of your circuits, if only I could believe in it.
Best of luck with the research I hope you win in the end you deserve it
 ;)

http://www.youtube.com/results?search_type=videos&search_query=Rosemary+Ainslie+circuit&search_sort=video_date_uploaded&suggested_categories=28&uni=3
Title: Re: Rosemary Ainslie circuit demonstration on Saturday March 12th 2011
Post by: Rosemary Ainslie on March 28, 2011, 10:23:28 PM
Rosemary - You have a good brain, could you guesstimate what maximum output I could expect using your setup and a ton of Nokia 3.6V 1100mAH batteries connected in series - I have well over 100 of these guys that are begging to find an application!  I realise their combined series-resistance may rule them out as being practical but I was quite impressed having used just 5 in series, I was able to have them comfortably power a 20W mini-pc for almost 45min - a home-brew UPS!  btw, I ordered a 4KW heater element from China because it was so ludicrously cheap - $4 including shipping!  I was sure it must be a mistake but my payment went through, so we'll see!  Have no idea what I'm going to do with it though! :D
Hello Sprocket.  Golly.  That's a lot of batteries.  I'd be most interested to see if they'd work.  Can't see why not.  Why so many?  I don't own a hundred of anything.  Never been brave enough to buy in bulk.  My argument is that I'm not sure I'll live long enough to make use of it.  Well.  I have a Greek friend who tells me that they consider there's only 1 sin.  That's buying retail.  LOL.  So.  I've clearly got a lot to learn.

But I can't make predictions here - unfortunately.  You'll just have to find out. But that's certainly at least a potential 360 volts to apply.  It should be interesting.  And at that value you should also be able see how well they last.  Pity they're not rechargeable.  I'm not sure if that would be required to take advantage of that energy return.  I see Lawrence's device forever being compromised because of this lack.  That's the real advantage of those lead acid numbers.

Anyway.  Good luck.  Nice to see the questions being asked.  Wish I could answer them.

Kindest regards,
Rosemary

Title: Re: Rosemary Ainslie circuit demonstration on Saturday March 12th 2011
Post by: Rosemary Ainslie on March 28, 2011, 10:28:08 PM
This particular device is designed to produce heat.  It does so with apparently little or no disturbance to the source dipole.  One way to recover energy to make a "self run" would be via peltier junction, but lets think in a little more practical terms.  A small photovoltaic panel would amply cover providing current to the batteries to replace any that may be lost covering the cost of switching in the circuit.  That is simply adding another input to our already open system, and adding that input at the source dipole, a point in the circuit that is critical to maintaining the resonance.  I'm sure we could charge up a cap or even a tuned LC in the circuit itself somewhere as well without critically altering the heating effect, and switch it with an SCR so it dumps that collected potential back across the battery as well, if need be.

If we are seeing energy radiate through the circuit in all directions that there is a path to a point of lower potential, even back into the source dipole, then it appears we have the desired effect already though.  Artificial stimulation of the environment to produce a resonant condition which creates harvestable electrostatic potentials.  Lightning in a bottle:)  If, at very worst, we have an incredibly efficient heater that draws very little current from a photovoltaic panel/battery array, then we have still done something important.

Cheers,
Twinbeard

Nice thinking Twinbeard.   :)
Title: Re: Rosemary Ainslie circuit demonstration on Saturday March 12th 2011
Post by: Rosemary Ainslie on March 28, 2011, 10:39:09 PM
This is all very good research and you are very determined, the problem is if you have free energy
then why can't you or anybody else produce a self-runner (yes that did come out as words)
as we are now on your third thread and yet again having measurement disagreement  ::)
I feel that a self-runner it is the only answer left
I have seen many try to reproduced your work,some of them I know well and I trust them, yet they have also failed, I would love to make one of your circuits, if only I could believe in it.
Best of luck with the research I hope you win in the end you deserve it
 ;)


http://www.youtube.com/results?search_type=videos&search_query=Rosemary+Ainslie+circuit&search_sort=video_date_uploaded&suggested_categories=28&uni=3

Good point Cat.  I can't answer you here.  Actually I can.  But it would take me forever.  I expect something jolly close to a closed system though.  And - frankly - I think we've got exactly that.  But - as ever - time will tell.  I'm tired of trying to convince anyone at all.  I'll be happy when we get a few anomalies endorsed by our learned and revered as that may be a start towards something a little more positive.  At least we can show that continual negative number - on low and high outputs.  They'll have to digest that.   And hopefully they'll come with their flash drives - so they can do their own sums.  I'm also looking forward to their factoring in for that inductance when they do those integrations.  It only adds to our argument.

Where I really feel I earn the prize is that I'm doing any experiments at all.  It bores me to tears.

Kindest regards,
Rosie 
Title: Re: Rosemary Ainslie circuit demonstration on Saturday March 12th 2011
Post by: powercat on March 28, 2011, 10:50:25 PM
There are still more questions than answers  ::) as usual when all is said and done, more is said than done. ;D all I am saying is a self-runner is a very good way of proving your theory, if you have excess energy use it to make a self runner ???
oh how the world needs free energy now and I fully support any one trying to achieve this
 :-*
Title: Re: Rosemary Ainslie circuit demonstration on Saturday March 12th 2011
Post by: powercat on March 28, 2011, 10:59:59 PM
Sorry I must have been posting when you were,so I missed your last reply,
any advances that you make in the direction of efficiency is a great step forward,
I am like most people here dreaming of free energy,
enough from me tonight.
determination will get you there in the end
 ;)
Title: Re: Rosemary Ainslie circuit demonstration on Saturday March 12th 2011
Post by: Sprocket on March 29, 2011, 01:42:29 AM
Hello Sprocket.  Golly.  That's a lot of batteries.  I'd be most interested to see if they'd work.  Can't see why not.  Why so many?  I don't own a hundred of anything.  Never been brave enough to buy in bulk.  My argument is that I'm not sure I'll live long enough to make use of it.  Well.  I have a Greek friend who tells me that they consider there's only 1 sin.  That's buying retail.  LOL.  So.  I've clearly got a lot to learn.

But I can't make predictions here - unfortunately.  You'll just have to find out. But that's certainly at least a potential 360 volts to apply.  It should be interesting.  And at that value you should also be able see how well they last.  Pity they're not rechargeable.  I'm not sure if that would be required to take advantage of that energy return.  I see Lawrence's device forever being compromised because of this lack.  That's the real advantage of those lead acid numbers.

Anyway.  Good luck.  Nice to see the questions being asked.  Wish I could answer them.

Kindest regards,
Rosemary

I got them for nothing from a store that was closing down, and they're all brand-new!  They're also all rechargeable, (NiMH) so no problem there either.  Yes, I've got 300+ volts but I'm sure their combined resistance would prove a problem, especially where high current draw is involved - like here I expect!  But you're right, it needs to be tested...
Title: Re: Rosemary Ainslie circuit demonstration on Saturday March 12th 2011
Post by: Rosemary Ainslie on March 29, 2011, 08:17:22 AM
I got them for nothing from a store that was closing down, and they're all brand-new!  They're also all rechargeable, (NiMH) so no problem there either.  Yes, I've got 300+ volts but I'm sure their combined resistance would prove a problem, especially where high current draw is involved - like here I expect!  But you're right, it needs to be tested...

WOW.  Then I'll be really interested here Sprocket.  Just one thing.  Try and get that 'immersion' heater type coil.  We know that it works.  I think - frankly - that the higher the resistance - the more applied voltage required.  But with all those batteries - you'd have no need to hold back. 

Really good news.  I'd be very interested to see how well those batteries last.  And if they're rechargeable then it's relatively easy to set up your controls.  Can't wait Sprocket.  This is going to be interesting.  Just think of it.  An immersion heater element with, perhaps, it's own in built battery supply rig. That's got to be good for campers and even for those who are off grid.  We've got such - in the millions.  Adds exponential meaning to the concept of 'instant coffee'.

Kindest regards,
jRosie 
Title: Re: Rosemary Ainslie circuit demonstration on Saturday March 12th 2011
Post by: neptune on March 29, 2011, 12:19:50 PM
Morning all .Struggling a bit today because I fell off my bicycle yesterday! @ Sprocket .All those batteries sound like a good find .What I would do is find a heater first and then select your battery voltage to give a current within their capabilities .You do not have to use all the batteries . It would be interesting to see your results . I am in the process of reading everything that has been written on this circuit .It is a bit like reading Tolstoy's "War and Peace". I keep thinking that this circuit could be run without a square wave generator of any kind , either by using a steady neg bias on the gate , or using a "tickler coil" magnetically linked to the load resistor , and thus creating an Armstrong Oscillator [google it]
Title: Re: Rosemary Ainslie circuit demonstration on Saturday March 12th 2011
Post by: WilbyInebriated on March 29, 2011, 12:43:29 PM
I got them for nothing from a store that was closing down, and they're all brand-new!  They're also all rechargeable, (NiMH) so no problem there either.  Yes, I've got 300+ volts but I'm sure their combined resistance would prove a problem, especially where high current draw is involved - like here I expect!  But you're right, it needs to be tested...
get a bunch of thorium (camping lantern mantles, etc.), radium from clocks and some tritium (as a neutron moderator)... use the lithium from the batteries to purify the the thorium ash...

Title: Re: Rosemary Ainslie circuit demonstration on Saturday March 12th 2011
Post by: nul-points on March 29, 2011, 02:36:20 PM
Morning all .Struggling a bit today because I fell off my bicycle yesterday!
...
I keep thinking that this circuit could be run without a square wave generator of any kind , either by using a steady neg bias on the gate , or using a "tickler coil" magnetically linked to the load resistor , and thus creating an Armstrong Oscillator [google it]

hi Neptune

sorry to hear about the tumble :(

hope you and the bike get mended soon!


your suggestion about driving the MOSFET direct from its output just reminded me about a circuit i'd seen a while back...

that wiley old Marcus Wagner seems to have beaten us to it, 6 years ago!!!

the thread is at:
 
   http://www.overunity.com/index.php?topic=413.0 (http://www.overunity.com/index.php?topic=413.0)


of course, he used a double MOSFET series arrangement with the inductor, but the main switched current path is essentially the sort of thing we're looking at on this thread (the MOSFET body diodes still provide the same behaviour)

notice also that he rectifies the output pulses into a 1F cap which is across the battery, so again the same feedback to source (ie. looped) operation

(looks a bit like a MOSFET Joule Thief!)


i guess i should just add that i'm not suggesting this is a direct replacement for Rosemary's circuit with SigGen i/p - merely taking your idea to self-drive the circuit using feedback from the output

it could possibly be adapted to get it more into the mould of the RA circuit (eg, remove D1, change series MOSFETs to parallel, arrange drive signal to include some negative level, etc) 


hope this distracts you from the cuts & bruises!  ;)
np


http://docsfreelunch.blogspot.com (http://docsfreelunch.blogspot.com)
 
Title: Re: Rosemary Ainslie circuit demonstration on Saturday March 12th 2011
Post by: Sprocket on March 29, 2011, 02:51:57 PM
I'm disappointed, I have just done a head-count, it seems I only have a little over 50 - off by a factor of 2!

@Rosemary - Forgive me if you have answered this like 100 times already, did you try this with high-wattage wire-wound resistors? As far as I can make out these are all bifilar wound so their inductance would be negligible - is inductance an absolute requirement here?  What I envision doing is piezo-fogging the water, then piping it over the likes of a wire-wound resistor, which is contained in a close-fitting tube of some kind to vapourise the stuff.  Not an option if inductance is a prerequisite though. 

@neptune - what I've been trying to determine is what would be the minimum voltage feasible for this.  As you suggest, the maximum current they are capable of is the limiting factor - and the more of them I tie in series, the greater their combined series resistance, the more power that will be dropped across them in the form of heat.  And this does not seem to be a low-current operation!  Which had me thinking supercaps - these could supply 100's of amps, but at low voltages.  I actually have quite a lot of these as well (5 ->360F) which I planned on reselling but haven't got around to yet - too many other balls in the air!

@WilbyInebriated - ...followed by "Abracadabra" no doubt!!! :D  Sorry, I have no idea where you are going with this...
Title: Re: Rosemary Ainslie circuit demonstration on Saturday March 12th 2011
Post by: neptune on March 29, 2011, 03:14:34 PM
@Nul-points ,bike is OK .My knee is a bit stiff , but done 10 miles today to free it off , thanks .That's quite an interesting circuit from Marcus .I can see what you are getting at with that .@ Sprocket , I have no idea of the capacity of your cells .Let us assume they are capable of 1 amp .And assume your heater is 30 ohms . So you could try 30 volts worth of cells to start with . I don't know if you have a scope . Once you get it to oscillate , try the caps . hope this helps .Home made resistors are easy to make . see my earlier posts in this thread .
Title: Re: Rosemary Ainslie circuit demonstration on Saturday March 12th 2011
Post by: Rosemary Ainslie on March 29, 2011, 03:30:05 PM
Rosemary - Forgive me if you have answered this like 100 times already, did you try this with high-wattage wire-wound resistors? As far as I can make out these are all bifilar wound so their inductance would be negligible - is inductance an absolute requirement here?  What I envision doing is piezo-fogging the water, then piping it over the likes of a wire-wound resistor, which is contained in a close-fitting tube of some kind to vapourise the stuff.  Not an option if inductance is a prerequisite though. 

Guys - you are all getting into a level of complexity that I can barely undestand.  Which is a really good thing.  I have always assumed that high levels of inductance was a pre-requisite.  But apparently not.  I suspect it's the casing around the wire that is giving us this greater benefit.  But the precise requirement for that parasitic oscillation?  It's absolutely outside my competence.  I've always assumed that a cap is going to snuff out the benefits - but again.  I'm open to correction.  I can only point at what we've got.  And, out of necessity - the design is kept to its essential simplicity.  My own explanation for that high current flow is that it's from the back EMF that's induced on the load.  And we've never really seen what this is trying to do - precisely because not all that voltage could flow as current.  And that, because there was not enough 'path' given in a single Zener.  I'm also assuming a counter clockwise current flow.  And I know so little of classical thinking here - I'm not sure that even this much is exotic or if it's mainstream.  So.  Bottom line.  I'm afraid you're on your own here.  Which, again, is probably a good thing.

Kindest regards,
Rosemary 
Title: Re: Rosemary Ainslie circuit demonstration on Saturday March 12th 2011
Post by: Rosemary Ainslie on March 29, 2011, 03:44:55 PM
Nul-points ,bike is OK .My knee is a bit stiff , but done 10 miles today to free it off , thanks .That's quite an interesting circuit from Marcus .I can see what you are getting at with that .@ Sprocket , I have no idea of the capacity of your cells .Let us assume they are capable of 1 amp .And assume your heater is 30 ohms . So you could try 30 volts worth of cells to start with . I don't know if you have a scope . Once you get it to oscillate , try the caps . hope this helps .Home made resistors are easy to make . see my earlier posts in this thread .

Glad there was no major problems here Neptune.  If you're back up and riding then it was not too critical. 

I wonder if it wouldn't be better to simply find those old immersion elements - even second hand - if they haven't shorted.  I also see a similar type element in your average radial 'pancake shaped' element used on stoves.  I'm reasonably certain it would work as well.  And I imagine this could be fairly readily accessed from any kind of junk recycling shop.  I'm assuming that the exact shape is irrelevant.  Just the voltage against that resistive value may be quite important.  We've been using upwards of 24 volts on a resistance of 11 Ohms or thereby.  That may be a 'kick off' guide.  So sorry I can't be of more help. 

Kindest as ever,
Rosemary

BTW - Wilby - I would also love to understand where your thinking is going there. I'ts way over my head.  Are you looking to making a battery?

And another quick note.  I should get my circuit back and up an running by tomorrow.  Here's hoping.

ADDED
Title: Re: Rosemary Ainslie circuit demonstration on Saturday March 12th 2011
Post by: WilbyInebriated on March 29, 2011, 05:29:58 PM
@WilbyInebriated - ...followed by "Abracadabra" no doubt!!! :D  Sorry, I have no idea where you are going with this...
:)  the lithium is useful in the process to convert thorium to Th-233, and that will decay to U-233, which is fissionable...  the abracadabra is optional but it always adds a nice flair. ;) sorry for the off topic comment.
Title: Re: Rosemary Ainslie circuit demonstration on Saturday March 12th 2011
Post by: Sprocket on March 30, 2011, 12:01:23 AM
@Rosemary - It's surprising that you and your team hasn't tried to pinpoint the source of the extra energy, or at least narrow down the possibilities.  I'm going to order some wire-wound resistors anyway so we'll see what happens.  It's hard to see where the oscillations come from without inductance though.  I was reading up on some of your earlier posts and I see you mention that lower inductance seemed to enhance the effect. You also talked about where you increased the duty-cycle of your function generator to max - which was about 3min, that's a lot! - and during the mosfet-off stage, the parasitic oscillations continue for the duration, with no apparent reductance in heat produced, and for the full 3min, while there is no power being drawn from the battery!  The opposite in fact, the battery is apparently being charged during this time - am I reading this correctly?  If so, WOW!  In fact, is there any need for a periodic waveform at all?  Wouldn't a simple 555 monostable circuit do instead, something to basically just start it off?  Or even a push-switch? Anyway, I've lots to think about, but I can't do much till I order some stuff.

@neptune - yeah, I've got a scope, or half a scope rather - one of its channels went kaput recently. 

@WilbyEnebriated - my doctor said that I wasn't allowed to use my lithium for that.  Bummer..
Title: Re: Rosemary Ainslie circuit demonstration on Saturday March 12th 2011
Post by: Rosemary Ainslie on March 30, 2011, 12:50:29 AM
Rosemary - It's surprising that you and your team hasn't tried to pinpoint the source of the extra energy, or at least narrow down the possibilities.

Golly Sprocket.  Actually the entire circuit design was intended to prove the source of extra energy away from the battery and in the material of the circuit itself.  That much, to all of us, was a given.  But that's in the thesis and I've learned that there's not that much interest in the thesis.  Therefore I sort of hold back here. Certainly  I know that the interest on these forums is in the more practical side of things.

Broadly the argument is this.  If the amount of energy discharged by a supply is less than the amount of energy dissipated on the circuit - then where does that energy come from?  That was proved in our previous experiments.  Now this has changed rather profoundly.  It's now this.  If the amount of energy returned to a battery EXCEEDS the amount of energy delivered by the battery in the first instance - then where does that energy come from?

In effect our proof is more comprehensive and anomalous as it relates to classical prediction.  And it takes the evidence to infinite COP - which as we all know - begs a closed system.  Now.  We won't prove this on batteries.  It's an obvious step - but I'm not prepared to go that route.  If we keep to a discussion on batteries and battery performance it will be an argument that will outlast my lifetime.  Hopefully you guys will get there with your replications or applications.  But we most certainly can point to something that appears to be closed - as you point to hereunder.  And our intention is to keep the discussion relevant to classical measurement protocols. But all I've ever tried to do is to resolve the measurements to prove the thesis.  That's my entire focus.  Indeed.  It's why I put this circuit together in the first instance.  And the thesis most assuredly proposes where that extra energy is from.  What's intended is to show that there's an energy supply source in all bound matter which is based on Einsteins mass/energy equivalence.  But, here's the thing.  When that matter has inductive and/or conductive atomic or molecular material - then that can be exploited to become an electric energy supply source.  But it's a different discussion Sprocket.  I'm not sure that it's needed here.

Quote from: Sprocket link=topic=10407.msg279744#msg279744 date=1301436083
It's hard to see where the oscillations come from without inductance though.[/quote
Here the proposal is that there are two entirely separate currents flowing to and from their respective sources.  The one induces the other - in line with inductive laws.  They're able to sustain each other because their paths are enabled by those circuit components.  And that 'stack' of MOSFETS is the 'path' for the current flow induced in the circuitry.  The fact is that the current does not 'die down' and yet there's measurable evidence of work done in the heat across the laod resistor.  All very much predicted and very much in line with that thesis. 

[quote author=Sprocket link=topic=10407.msg279744#msg279744 date=1301436083I was reading up on some of your earlier posts and I see you mention that lower inductance seemed to enhance the effect. You also talked about where you increased the duty-cycle of your function generator to max - which was about 3min, that's a lot! - and during the mosfet-off stage, the parasitic oscillations continue for the duration, with no apparent reductance in heat produced, and for the full 3min, while there is no power being drawn from the battery!  The opposite in fact, the battery is apparently being charged during this time - am I reading this correctly?  If so, WOW!  In fact, is there any need for a periodic waveform at all?  Wouldn't a simple 555 monostable circuit do instead, something to basically just start it off?  Or even a push-switch? Anyway, I've lots to think about, but I can't do much till I order some stuff.
Indeed that oscillation lasts for nearly 3 minutes.  This is so nice.  It seems that the significance of this 'time' is getting through. Stefan has drawn a circuit design by Neptune to see if this can simply be triggered once - and then left to oscillate.  I'm hoping to perhaps get someone to build that circuit.  But no joy yet.  I think the team are all busy trying to earn a living.   

Nice stuff Sprocket.  Always a pleasure to see someone 'getting it'. 

Kindest regards,
Rosemary
Title: Re: Rosemary Ainslie circuit demonstration on Saturday March 12th 2011
Post by: DreamThinkBuild on March 30, 2011, 01:08:44 AM
Hi Rosemary,

Here are real world reference values from some of my heater collection.

Volts, Heater wattage rating, Ohms measured

12vdc, 40 watt , 10 ohms (Cattle/Horse tank warmer)
12vdc, 200 watt, 1 ohm   (Livestock tank de-icer)
12vdc, 600 watt, 0.5 ohm (Works good as a dump load)

120vac, 180watt, 146 ohm (Electric blanket)
120vac, 660watt, 30 ohm (Old style nichrome wire hot plate)
120vac, 1000watt, 15 ohm (Hot plate)
120vac, 1500watt, 6 ohms (Toaster oven, 1 heater bar)

240vac, 3800watt, 20 ohm (Water tank heater)
240vac, 5500watt, 10 ohm (Fast hot water tank heater)

Hi Neptune,

Got to watch out when riding a bike and catching a glimpse of a pretty lady walking down the street, glad your ok.  ;)
Title: Re: Rosemary Ainslie circuit demonstration on Saturday March 12th 2011
Post by: Rosemary Ainslie on March 30, 2011, 01:29:54 AM
Hello indeed, DreamThinkBuild.

That's a really nice collection of resistors.  Well done. 

 :)

Kindest regards,
rosemary
Title: Re: Rosemary Ainslie circuit demonstration on Saturday March 12th 2011
Post by: neptune on March 30, 2011, 01:16:56 PM
Good day everyone . Been out on the bike early today . Leg working much better , and thanks for kind comments . @ Sprocket . It is important to notice that during the 2.7 minutes of parasitic oscillation the gate is negative relative to ground . So although pulsing may be unnecessary once oscillation starts , the negative state could well be indispensable .The internet is great in that we have global communication , but it does not actually permit us to meet and swap parts and physically work together . A scope [or half scope] will enable you to see the parasitic oscillation . I would also be interested to hear of anyone hearing the oscillation on an AM radio . For commercial applications , RF screening may be necessary to prevent radio interference . There are well tried and tested ways to do this .
Title: Re: Rosemary Ainslie circuit demonstration on Saturday March 12th 2011
Post by: Sprocket on March 30, 2011, 02:55:15 PM
@Rosemary - Yikes, now I realise why you normally don't expand more on what you believe to be the true source of the energy, especially here - that's more along the lines of alchemy than electricity, I bet people have been lynched for lesser heresies! :D

@neptune - As I posted earlier, my first attempt at this was when Rosemary was posting at EF and all I managed to achieve then was blow a few mosfets.  What I wasn't doing was taking the gate negative, so I'm sure that it must be vitally important - at least I couldn't find anything interesting happening just taking it to zero.  Incidently, my 'element' then was a length of resistance-wire pulled from a toaster and wrapped around a tin-can, insulated of course.  14 Ohms resistance, I forget what the inductance measured was.  Not sure if this this helped or hindered...
Title: Re: Rosemary Ainslie circuit demonstration on Saturday March 12th 2011
Post by: Rosemary Ainslie on March 30, 2011, 03:43:45 PM
@Rosemary - Yikes, now I realise why you normally don't expand more on what you believe to be the true source of the energy, especially here - that's more along the lines of alchemy than electricity, I bet people have been lynched for lesser heresies! :D

LOL.  I think I've had my share of being publicly lynched.  In fact it never stops.  The latest is to be banned from even viewing OUR.com when I wasn't even a member.  So.  Banned from all 4 forums where I've ever posted -  and not less than 7 threads flamed and locked - possibly as many as 9.  Which none of it does much to promote me as a peace loving individual with more than just a passing interest in clean green.  I must say I'm enjoying an uncharacteristically long period of relative tolerance and calm.  And I think that's due to Harti's direct moderation.  Long may it last.  But I must say I'm anticipating the inevitable '1st post' of a newbie - who'll again remind me how unpopular these findings are.  And, as ever, I sincerely believe their reward for all that effort is more than just emotional.  But there you go.

I've said it before.  All that repetitious history marching alongside these our 'claims' and I've become a firm believer in conspiracies.  Which is widely dismissed as further evidence of my pathological paranoid delusions.  And, as ever, my excuse is that never before has anyone been so thoroughly deluded by so much evidence.  It would all be really comical if it weren't quite so sad.

Anyway - that was a nice little rant.  I'm feeling somewhat bruised at this latest intervention at OUR.com.   

Kindest regards
Rosemary

Title: Re: Rosemary Ainslie circuit demonstration on Saturday March 12th 2011
Post by: Rosemary Ainslie on March 30, 2011, 03:51:37 PM
Guys, just to get back on topic.  Regarding Sprocket 'giving up' as he did previously - due to lack of anything apparently happening -  I need to warn any replicators.  The actual resonance - be it from 1 MOSFET  for that single spike or from many to generate this new mad oscillation - please just know that tuning is everything.  It needs patience and possibly some time turning those pots or the settings on the FG.  Nothing easy about this.  I was speaking to a replicator the night before last about just this truth.  We've decided that God is forcing us to look hard to find the benefit.  In desperation I had to mark the settings on my functions generator to get a guide - and even then the actual moment is 'elusive'.  It's a really, really subtle moment.  So be warned.  And then you need a lot of patience.  If any of you get close to that then perhaps get in touch with me and I'll see if I can help you get there.  At least I can explain what to look for.

Kindest as ever,
Rosemary
Title: Re: Rosemary Ainslie circuit demonstration on Saturday March 12th 2011
Post by: FredWalter on March 30, 2011, 04:10:45 PM
It needs patience and possibly some time turning those pots or the settings on the FG.  Nothing easy about this.

Why not automate the tuning using software+a computer driving the frequency generator+something measuring the output that is fed back into the computer, so that software can monitor the frequency in versus the output?
Title: Re: Rosemary Ainslie circuit demonstration on Saturday March 12th 2011
Post by: Rosemary Ainslie on March 30, 2011, 04:34:59 PM
Why not automate the tuning using software+a computer driving the frequency generator+something measuring the output that is fed back into the computer, so that software can monitor the frequency in versus the output?

One of our team members mentioned this, way back.  It's apparently MORE than feasible.  Just not to hand - for me.  But you're right.  I'd forgotten this.  It can, indeed be automated through software.  This is definitely doable.

Rosemary
Title: Re: Rosemary Ainslie circuit demonstration on Saturday March 12th 2011
Post by: powercat on March 30, 2011, 04:42:46 PM
Guys, just to get back on topic.  Regarding Sprocket 'giving up' as he did previously - due to lack of anything apparently happening -  I need to warn any replicators.  The actual resonance - be it from 1 MOSFET  for that single spike or from many to generate this new mad oscillation - please just know that tuning is everything.  It needs patience and possibly some time turning those pots or the settings on the FG.  Nothing easy about this.  I was speaking to a replicator the night before last about just this truth.  We've decided that God is forcing us to look hard to find the benefit.  In desperation I had to mark the settings on my functions generator to get a guide - and even then the actual moment is 'elusive'.  It's a really, really subtle moment.  So be warned.  And then you need a lot of patience.  If any of you get close to that then perhaps get in touch with me and I'll see if I can help you get there.  At least I can explain what to look for.

Kindest as ever,
Rosemary

Wow Rosie
that was some statement.You now need to be a tuning magician to make what appears to be a simple circuit work, on top of being a mathematical genius to measure it properly,  Wow.

Now it makes sense why you have been on so many forums and so many threads for the last two years or so.

This really needs to be made simple (solid-state)I guess you've been relying on others to come up whit this solution, I can't blame you for that.

I think your problems will remain until things are simpler and your work can be replicate precisely by more people easier.
 :)
Title: Re: Rosemary Ainslie circuit demonstration on Saturday March 12th 2011
Post by: Rosemary Ainslie on March 30, 2011, 04:59:50 PM
Wow Rosie
that was some statement.You now need to be a tuning magician to make what appears to be a simple circuit work, on top of being a mathematical genius to measure it properly,  Wow.

Now it makes sense why you have been on so many forums and so many threads for the last two years or so.

This really needs to be made simple (solid-state)I guess you've been relying on others to come up whit this solution, I can't blame you for that.

I think your problems will remain until things are simpler and your work can be replicate precisely by more people easier.
 :)

Cat.  You don't need to be a mathematical genius to apply integrated power analysis.  That's absolutely standard.  And you certainly don't need to be a genius to implement battery controls and draw down tests.  Nor do you need to be a genius to recognise parasitic oscillations.  It's to deliberately generate them that is atypical and not within standard knowledge.  Just remember that paarastic oscillations have actually never been studied.  They've been 'snuffed' and - according to those links - there's a whole industry invested in the knowledge of how to get rid of them.  What we're doing now is trying to get them to come and do their thing.  That's different.

But the fact is that this resonating condition is required and we are certainly breaking new ground with this.  So.  We don't have all the answers.  But I'm sure it's a short learning curve.  And remember that we did - indeed - get a full on replication posted on this and on Energetic forum.  It was not for want of evidence for that claim that there was resistance.  I thought you knew this?  You seemed to have followed this history rather closely.

Anyway.  I'm doing my best here Cat.  I only want to see this technology progressed.  But perhaps I've taken it as far as I can and should let you guys just do your thing.

Kindest regards,
Rosemary
Title: Re: Rosemary Ainslie circuit demonstration on Saturday March 12th 2011
Post by: powercat on March 30, 2011, 05:08:11 PM
Cat.  You don't need to be a mathematical genius to apply integrated power analysis.  That's absolutely standard.  And you certainly don't need to be a genius to implement battery controls and draw down tests.  Nor do you need to be a genius to recognise parasitic oscillations.  It's to deliberately generate them that is atypical and not within standard knowledge.  Just remember that paarastic oscillations have actually never been studied.  They've been 'snuffed' and - according to those links - there's a whole industry invested in the knowledge of how to get rid of them.  What we're doing now is trying to get them to come and do their thing.  That's different.

But the fact is that this resonating condition is required and we are certainly breaking new ground with this.  So.  We don't have all the answers.  But I'm sure it's a short learning curve.  And remember that we did - indeed - get a full on replication posted on this and on Energetic forum.  It was not for want of evidence for that claim that there was resistance.  I thought you knew this?  You seemed to have followed this history rather closely.

Anyway.  I'm doing my best here Cat.  I only want to see this technology progressed.  But perhaps I've taken it as far as I can and should let you guys just do your thing.

Kindest regards,
Rosemary

from what I can remember of the successful replication (not enough of them)and a huge amount of arguments about the measurements
so at the moment it all as clear as mud to me
but I live in hope and wish you all the best

http://www.youtube.com/results?search_type=videos&search_query=Rosemary+Ainslie+circuit&search_sort=video_date_uploaded&suggested_categories=28&uni=3
Title: Re: Rosemary Ainslie circuit demonstration on Saturday March 12th 2011
Post by: Sprocket on March 30, 2011, 09:06:10 PM
Quote
"Whatever ideas are the most suppressed
are most likely to be the closest to the truth."
- Weidner's First Law of the Universe

"If a picture is worth a thousand words
then a symbol is worth a thousand pictures."
- Weidner's Second Law of the Universe

"The only people who call conspiracies
' theories' are the conspirators."
- Weidner's Third Law of the Universe

@Rosemary - I couldn't resist a Copy&Paste of Weidner's Three Laws - any conspiracy aficionado will know who he is!  The first and last pretty well describe the situation.  My first real taste of this here involved Archer Quinn, I personally remember checking stats on several of the most prolific posters then - several had user-names that had been registered years in advance, but had never posted! One in particular was then posting an average of 17 post per day, many huge in size!  All to crawl back into whatever holes they had been summoned from when the melee eventually died down!  I'm surprised I can remember this many details!  OUR is kinda bizarre, the format there tends to be, Grumpy suggests something, then everyone else tells him why it's impossible!  Apparently there's no interest in what's possible, only what's impossible - a kind of intellectual masturbation methinks.  But back on topic...

Regarding tuning, I was just yesterday trying to track-down some multi-turn pots to help in this regard.  The only one I could find was a 10K 5-turn pot, but that seemed a bit high for this.  Of course there are lots of trimmers available but I'd like to get a potentiometer for this.  First time round I was just using ordinary 3/4 turn ones.  I presume with all your fancy equipment, you were just adjusting the signals amplitude and offset?  My input was fixed. 
Title: Re: Rosemary Ainslie circuit demonstration on Saturday March 12th 2011
Post by: hartiberlin on March 31, 2011, 01:40:15 AM
I think,
as long as the function generator is still used these
measurement problems persist and the circuit is not very useable.

So better all replicators try it with the 9 Volt battery first
and try to get it running in this oscillation mode
without any function generator.

And please use low or almost zero inductance shunts, if you measure
the current as what Hummbugger has posted is true, that the
inductance of the shunts can mess up your scope shots.

Also use only Lead Acid batteries or maybe still NiMH
batteries with it, cause only these can stand the recharge pulses.

Don´t use Lithium accumulators, as they are easily blown
and can explode and cause severe fires from the BackEMF pulses !

Also you need to measure what power your load resistor is putting out
best calorimetrically heating water for example and then compare it to the
Watthours ( amphours x voltage)  your batteries are holding.

If you can run it longer than the stored Watthours of your batteries
the circuit goes overunity.

Good luck.

Regards, Stefan.
Title: Re: Rosemary Ainslie circuit demonstration on Saturday March 12th 2011
Post by: Goat on March 31, 2011, 05:32:44 AM
I think,
as long as the function generator is still used these
measurement problems persist and the circuit is not very useable.

So better all replicators try it with the 9 Volt battery first
and try to get it running in this oscillation mode
without any function generator.

And please use low or almost zero inductance shunts, if you measure
the current as what Hummbugger has posted is true, that the
inductance of the shunts can mess up your scope shots.

Also use only Lead Acid batteries or maybe still NiMH
batteries with it, cause only these can stand the recharge pulses.

Don´t use Lithium accumulators, as they are easily blown
and can explode and cause severe fires from the BackEMF pulses !

Also you need to measure what power your load resistor is putting out
best calorimetrically heating water for example and then compare it to the
Watthours ( amphours x voltage)  your batteries are holding.

If you can run it longer than the stored Watthours of your batteries
the circuit goes overunity.

Good luck.

Regards, Stefan.

Hi hartiberlin/Stefan

Because of your post at http://www.overunity.com/index.php?topic=9878.msg279916#msg279916 and the connection to this thread and you're above post wouldn't it make sense to use the ceramic Y5V
caps to absorb the heat from Rosemary's heater in the circuit to further exploit the circuit into a higher COP or a feedback to a large capacitor on the I/P (input) and remove the battery for a closed loop?

I don't know but this smells of Synchronicity!!!

Regards,
Paul
Title: Re: Rosemary Ainslie circuit demonstration on Saturday March 12th 2011
Post by: cHeeseburger on March 31, 2011, 06:29:32 AM
I think,
as long as the function generator is still used these
measurement problems persist and the circuit is not very useable.

So better all replicators try it with the 9 Volt battery first
and try to get it running in this oscillation mode
without any function generator.

And please use low or almost zero inductance shunts, if you measure
the current as what Hummbugger has posted is true, that the
inductance of the shunts can mess up your scope shots.


Stefan is correct here.  Rosemary has explained that she sees very large spikes in the shunt (reported by her to be +10V and -30V in amplitude) at the moments the function generator switches.  These come from the signal generator trying to suddenly change the voltage on the huge gate capacitance and are further hugely exaggerrated in amplitude by the fast-changing nature of the resulting current spike and the inductance of the shunt.  They are only present in the gate-current loop and are not present in the battery loop, as I explained.

I believe it is these spikes that she agrees are far more negative than positive which cause her scope average on the current trace to often show a small negative value (millivolts) which is then misinterpreted as battery charging current.  This only shows up in the scope-averaged current at the low-power operating level because the operating currents are very small, so these spikes throw off the average.  In the higher power mode of operation, these spikes still subtract from the measured average current, but that current is much larger in this mode so the overall average still always shows as a positive number.

To get a true measure of the actual battery current, either the function generator must be eliminated (as Stefan suggests) or the shunt must be moved out of the gate circuit loop and placed where it sees only battery currents.

In either case, the shunt must have an inductive reactance  that is far below the shunt resistance at 1.5MHz or the scope sampling and multiplying technique cannot be used due to large phase shifts in the apparent current versus the true current at any given sampling instant.  This is extremely difficult if not impossible to do, since even the length of a one inch straight wire will add 20nH to the shunt, causing many degrees of phase shift.  Even the very best "non-inductive" shunt resistors will exhibit several nanohenries of inductance and skew the phase at 1.5MHz significantly.

But all is not lost!  Even with a highly inductive shunt, as Rosemary is using, the true average current in the shunt is easy to obtain...without even using a scope that features averaging!

Recall my demonstration from an earlier post in this thread where I showed a 0-2A trapezoid wave and the effects on the voltage displayed that a large inductance would have.  The true average current in that setup was +1A and ramped evenly back and forth between zero and +2A, never going negative at all.  Yet the inductive voltage was well below zero half the time, whenever the true shunt current was down-ramping toward zero.  See the first picture, reproduced here for your convenience.

Now we take that same circuit, doing the same thing, with the same values (printed out for you on the second picture) and add two little simple  RC filters to average both traces.  Guess what!  Both traces now show the exact true average current of 1 Ampere positive (50mV on a 50m Ohm shunt resistance).  They are exactly superimposed.  So now we know the magnitude and direction of the actual DC equivalent average current flowing even though we have measured it across a highly (grossly in this case) inductive shunt resistor!

Humbugger
Title: Re: Rosemary Ainslie circuit demonstration on Saturday March 12th 2011
Post by: Rosemary Ainslie on March 31, 2011, 07:42:00 AM
Hello guys,

This thread is really going along well.  I've just been over the last points and delighted to acknowledge that I do not understand the significance of different caps and different shunts and on and on.  All exactly as it should be.  So.  I'll be leaving this thread to you guys.  I know it's in very capable hands with Neptune and Sprocket - and even Paul.  And I have much to do elsewhere.  I'll post here when I get more results. 

Just bear in mind the simple fact that - like the gold in 'them thar hills' there's energy in those spikes and even more in those oscillations.  But.  It releases heat - which is not the motive energy that you guys traditionally look for.  And Neptune, if it's taken a long, long time to get here - just think of our 'kick off' position all of 12 year ago now.  Then it was widely considered 'absurd' to try and return energy back to the source.  Paradigms are definitely shifting.

And Magzy - I'm hoping that you'll do us the favour of posting your results here on those tests.  They're BRILLIANT.  Every bit of evidence helps.  And such a clean way of showing it.

Nice thinking everyone.  Hopefully you'll all find that 'extra' in some kind of variant of this circuit.  And Stefan, many thanks for the input and - more to the point - for keeping this thread on topic.  I am not sure though that the inductance/impedance thing is that significant.  If you factor in for this - then the returns are even more extreme. 

I need to focus on getting my circuit up and ready for more demos.  And I need to focus on some much needed editing on my blog.  I'll certainly post here when I've got news and/or results.  I think I'll need a fortnight or so.

Kindest as ever,
Rosie

added

Just had a diagnosis.  2 of the MOSFETs blown.  Interestingly it's enough to block that oscillation.  Seems that they all need to work but still not sure if all 5 are required.  I'll let you know.  They're to be replaced - hopefully - by Monday.
Title: Re: Rosemary Ainslie circuit demonstration on Saturday March 12th 2011
Post by: neptune on March 31, 2011, 05:28:22 PM
Hi all . Mainly posting to keep this thread on the front page . Rosemary , sorry to hear your leaving us for a bit but the demo must take priority of course . If you can , let us know what will be different this time , apart from the audience . Maybe a non inductive shunt perhaps ? Regarding the dead mosfets , I would say it depends on their actual faults . If one or more went short circuit , it would no doubt kill everything . I personally think two would work , as this parasitic oscillation in parallel mostfets has been described  as a "push Pull" effect . One would think that more mosfets would be better for higher power circuits . I am sure we all wish you the best possible luck with the demo , and look forward to the results .
Title: Re: Rosemary Ainslie circuit demonstration on Saturday March 12th 2011
Post by: nul-points on April 01, 2011, 12:41:19 AM
added

Just had a diagnosis.  2 of the MOSFETs blown.  Interestingly it's enough to block that oscillation.



looks like that link was correct about possible damage to the MOSFETS

wonder if it's correct about the other 2 things i picked out from it, too?

  http://www.overunity.com/index.php?topic=10407.msg279486#msg279486 (http://www.overunity.com/index.php?topic=10407.msg279486#msg279486)

all the best
np


http://docsfreelunch.blogspot.com (http://docsfreelunch.blogspot.com)
 
Title: Re: Rosemary Ainslie circuit demonstration on Saturday March 12th 2011
Post by: Rosemary Ainslie on April 01, 2011, 05:35:18 AM
Hi all.  Just seen that Humbugger is still posting.  Please note that any attempt at 'averaging' is absolutely NOT acceptable measurement protocol.  I realise why it's so urgently advanced.  Also.  The non-inductive shunt has been tested and shows not the SLIGHTEST difference.  Also.  There is - indeed - a measurable 5 watts at the gate.  This RETURNS to the FG.  It does not COME from it. 

I think the most critical measurement, as has been rather obsessively poynted out - is the waveform at the terminal of the battery.  Early indications are that this is consistent with the measurements at the test point on the apparatus.  But to finalise this - I'll need to get that apparatus returned with the MOSFET's replaced.

Just  word of caution.  Please do NOT assume that Humbugger's opinions are anything more than that.  In fact it  is my opinion based on the inappropriate and anxious need to deny EVERYTHING related to this - not least of which is my own 'idiocy' as he refers to it on OUR.com - that he is rather anxious to kill all interest in this technology.  And I wonder at that need.  We may yet find that there's nothing in this experiment.  But NOTHING can be concluded from AVERAGING ANYTHING AT ALL.  Measurements of power is based on vi dt.  That's it.

Kindest regards,
Rosemary

Added.  While Humbugger continues to post - then I will definitely need to 'hang around'.  Pity.  I've got so much to do.  Anyway.  Hopefully I'll manage to diffuse some of his negativity.
Title: Re: Rosemary Ainslie circuit demonstration on Saturday March 12th 2011
Post by: Magluvin on April 01, 2011, 06:50:07 AM
Hello guys,


And Magzy - I'm hoping that you'll do us the favour of posting your results here on those tests.  They're BRILLIANT.  Every bit of evidence helps.  And such a clean way of showing it.

.[/b]

Hey Rose

I used the sim to predict what woopy got on the bench, so this is reliable as to outcome. =]

Here is the circuit in the sim and the code.

http://falstad.com/circuit/   for the applet

Copy code below and import into the applet from the file menu.

$ 1 5.0E-6 0.05817778142098084 50 5.0 43
s 384 80 448 80 0 1 true
v 448 352 448 80 0 0 40.0 1000.0 0.0 0.0 0.5
r 384 352 448 352 0 0.01
c 384 352 384 80 0 9.999999999999999E-6 0.0010000000000002418
r 384 80 304 80 0 2.0
l 304 80 224 80 0 0.22 9.31524329736314E-19
c 224 80 224 352 0 1.0E-5 0.0010000000000000425
d 224 352 304 352 1 0.805904783
s 304 352 384 352 0 1 true
d 304 352 304 256 1 0.805904783
w 336 144 384 80 0
w 304 256 304 176 0
w 304 176 336 144 0
o 6 1 0 291 0.009765625 9.765625E-5 0 -1
o 3 1 0 291 0.009765625 9.765625E-5 1 -1

Close the switch on the right till the cap is fully charged to 1000v.

Then close the switch on the bottom till the desired cutoff is reached.

You can lower the speed of the sim at the upper right slider so you can see in the first scope shot when to release the switch at a particular voltage.

The second scope shot shows the 1000v cap and what is left in it after the cutoff.

Just hit reset at the top right to start over to clear the cap values to empty.   =]


You will be able to see the femf caused by the flywheel effect. It may seem like the flywheel spins for a long time. The sim is running slow enough that we get to see this action.

Bemf happens very quick. So it is a fresh thing to see the time that the freewheel goes in this application.

Tesla was the man.  ;]


I think having the 1kv really gets the wheel going as compared to 10v.

I did a 21.6v cutoff,  and got 203.36v out.  The 1kv cap always equals 1kv - cutoff.  It really gets hard to believe there is a 50% loss happening. The sim does not show a loss such as this. In other tests that I did last night.  What if the calculations are not presenting what really is?   hmmm. We may have a win win situation. Me thinks it.

1  10uf cap at 10v     10v/10ohm load=1A  10vx1A=10W

2 caps in parallel,   20uf at 5v  5v/5ohm=1A  5vx1A=5W  but with 2 times the capacitance.  I see no loss here. Not 50%  Crazy aint it?    ;)

So why 50% loss from battery to cap as the physics site stated?   ;)

Yesterday we seemed to have a huge obstacle of physics, but i think we are clear of that now. I think we are in a much better position than we were last night.   ;D


=]

Mags

Title: Re: Rosemary Ainslie circuit demonstration on Saturday March 12th 2011
Post by: Magluvin on April 01, 2011, 07:03:55 AM
Hey Rose

Before we were cutting off the source when the receiver cap reached the source voltage. We are now cutting off at a much lower voltage, and the gain is apparent more than before.

We are going with woopys method here of using a cap as the source. Both the source cap and receiver are 10uf for this test.

The source is charged to 1000v, for purposes of Big Show.
And we have the recycle diode in place in the middle that continues the cap charging after we release the source cap at our desired voltage.

1 The 1000v cap is charged

2 The switch is closed

3 We wait till the receiver cap reaches 10v  yes 10v

4 we open the switch and the recycle diode takes over to continue charging the receiver with the flywheel.

The outcome

The 1000v source cap is now 990v

The receiver, being cut from the source at 10v, reached 132v!!!

And this is the best part. We only have to replace 10v worth into the source cap to fill it up again. Not replace a complete 1000v worth at 10uf. Is that a savings?
I think so. It may be easier than if empty. Dunno.  ;)



Mags
Title: Re: Rosemary Ainslie circuit demonstration on Saturday March 12th 2011
Post by: Rosemary Ainslie on April 01, 2011, 08:47:13 AM
Hey Rose

Before we were cutting off the source when the receiver cap reached the source voltage. We are now cutting off at a much lower voltage, and the gain is apparent more than before.

We are going with woopys method here of using a cap as the source. Both the source cap and receiver are 10uf for this test.

The source is charged to 1000v, for purposes of Big Show.
And we have the recycle diode in place in the middle that continues the cap charging after we release the source cap at our desired voltage.

1 The 1000v cap is charged

2 The switch is closed

3 We wait till the receiver cap reaches 10v  yes 10v

4 we open the switch and the recycle diode takes over to continue charging the receiver with the flywheel.

The outcome

The 1000v source cap is now 990v

The receiver, being cut from the source at 10v, reached 132v!!!

And this is the best part. We only have to replace 10v worth into the source cap to fill it up again. Not replace a complete 1000v worth at 10uf. Is that a savings?
I think so. It may be easier than if empty. Dunno.  ;)

Mags

Golly Magzy.  This is FANTASTIC.  Very well done to you both.   Needless to say I couldn't do that simulator thing.  But I'm hoping someone will be able to help me at the weekend.  You guys are really something else.  Very well done indeed.  It's made my day.

I'm looking forward to the systematic destruction of all that supporating drivel that leaks out of some competing forums that's meant to represent what?  Intelligent analysis?  What will their final excuses be when we've disproved EVERY objection?  That will be interesting.  I am ready to put money on it that the protest will NEVER STOP.  LOL.   

Just seen that Americans pride themselves on their tolerance of the new idea.  In fact, the top players at Google prefer to live in America to dodge some of that European Cynicism.  What was said was interesting.  "A new idea is very vulnerable.  It can easily be snuffed out".  That was on Stephen Fry's program on his trip around America.  My sentiments exactly.   Strangely - the detractors to all this 'new technology' here are mostly American.  Actually maybe not.  There are also some Canadians.   

Anyway.  Again.  Very well done Magzy.  I had a shrewd idea that you'd get the answer. 

Kindest regards,
Rosie
Title: Re: Rosemary Ainslie circuit demonstration on Saturday March 12th 2011
Post by: Magluvin on April 01, 2011, 09:10:34 AM
Hey Rose

Thanks.  Now we just find the cutoff point that gives us the best freewheel charge to the receiver cap, with the least amount of energy used from the source cap, then crunch the numbers. It shouldnt be that hard to figure. In the caps, it is what it is. =]

I was happy with this improvement. I think the key is, the 1000v in the 10uf cap. And the receiver cap is 10uf. We only use a small portion of the 1kv source cap. But the 1000v kick got the inductor really spinnin.  =]  Now to fill in the 10v on the source cap that we used, the supply that provides it, doesnt have to work hard at al to do a top off. So the first charging of the source cap is the most input that should be seen, then its topper time, smooth.

So figure, we took the source away at 10v on the receiver, and it went to 132v after?  Is that an increase of 1320% of from our flywheel?   ;)

I think we just might have enough out to run a supply, I have one, to keep the source cap loaded for cheap input from the receiver.

The circuit to control cutoff will need to be next, as in the sim, we have slowed it down and we manually hit the switches with the mouse.
It worked well for testing. =]

ok  sleeps    night  Rose   ;]

Magzzzz
Title: Re: Rosemary Ainslie circuit demonstration on Saturday March 12th 2011
Post by: Rosemary Ainslie on April 01, 2011, 09:21:52 AM
LOL  Do you still get any sleep Magzy?  Good night indeed.

 ;D

Rosie
Title: Re: Rosemary Ainslie circuit demonstration on Saturday March 12th 2011
Post by: cHeeseburger on April 01, 2011, 09:56:45 AM
Hey Rose

Before we were cutting off the source when the receiver cap reached the source voltage. We are now cutting off at a much lower voltage, and the gain is apparent more than before.

We are going with woopys method here of using a cap as the source. Both the source cap and receiver are 10uf for this test.

The source is charged to 1000v, for purposes of Big Show.
And we have the recycle diode in place in the middle that continues the cap charging after we release the source cap at our desired voltage.

1 The 1000v cap is charged

2 The switch is closed

3 We wait till the receiver cap reaches 10v  yes 10v

4 we open the switch and the recycle diode takes over to continue charging the receiver with the flywheel.

The outcome

The 1000v source cap is now 990v

The receiver, being cut from the source at 10v, reached 132v!!!

And this is the best part. We only have to replace 10v worth into the source cap to fill it up again. Not replace a complete 1000v worth at 10uf. Is that a savings?
I think so. It may be easier than if empty. Dunno.  ;)



Mags

Very interesting, Mags, but there is just one problem:

The energy held in a capacitor is 1/2 CV^2, as I'm sure you know.

To make the math easy, we also know that both caps are 10uF (C) and 1/2 is a constant when calculating the energy held in each cap.  So all we have to look at is V^2 to get a number that relates each capacitor's energy content which can be stated as Joules if we multiply the V^2 in each case by the constant 1/2 C (5uF).

Now, if you are following that okay, let's see what the total energy is before and after one cycle of your circuit's operation:

We start with 1000V on the one cap and zero on the other, so all the energy is in the one cap at first and it is 1,000^2  times our constant 5uF (1/2 C) or 1,000,000 * 5/1,000,000 = 5 Joules of total energy in the circuit.

After the cycle is complete, we have 990 Volts on the source cap and 132 Volts on the "collection" cap.  Seems like a nice energy gain.  But let's do the math before jumping to conclusions, okay?

990 ^2 is 980,100 times our constant 5uF (1/2 C) = 4.9005 Joules still remaining in the source capacitor.

How much is in the collection capacitor at 132 V?

Well...132^2 = 17,424 times our constant 5uF (1/2 C) = 0.08712 Joules...

Add those two up 4.9005 + 0.08712 = 4.98762 Joules total energy left in the sum total energy of both capacitors.  So on each cycle of the circuit, we have lost 0.01238 Joules of energy.  Do that about 400 times and you have lost all 5 Joules of the initial 1000V capacitor's energy, assuming you add ten volts before each cycle to start again at 1000 Volts. 

So, it is clear by using simple math and standard energy formulas for capacitors that your voltage numbers and simulations are probably correct but it is also clear that the circuit does not gain energy on each cycle but rather loses energy on each cycle.

On each cycle, you'll have to put a new 0.0995 Joules of energy from an outside source into the source cap to get it up from 990V back to 1000V and on each cycle, only 0.08712 Joules gets put into the collection capacitor.  COP = 0.8756

Humbugger

P.S.  Here's a good link where the secrets of using an inductor to transfer energy between capacitors is discussed:

http://www.smpstech.com/charge.htm (http://www.smpstech.com/charge.htm)

The approach and technique you are discovering and exploring has been used in switch-mode power supplies for almost fifty years, so your discovery is not new but it's very cool knowledge that lots of other smart circuit guys use all the time.  I really enjoyed the the last few sentences in the Personal Anecdote section.  Good advice!  :)
Title: Re: Rosemary Ainslie circuit demonstration on Saturday March 12th 2011
Post by: Rosemary Ainslie on April 01, 2011, 09:57:04 AM
Guys I thought I'd better answer this in depth or I'll be accused on 'closing my ears' to argument. 

Stefan is correct here.  Rosemary has explained that she sees very large spikes in the shunt (reported by her to be +10V and -30V in amplitude) at the moments the function generator switches.  These come from the signal generator trying to suddenly change the voltage on the huge gate capacitance and are further hugely exaggerrated in amplitude by the fast-changing nature of the resulting current spike and the inductance of the shunt.
Notice that it is stated as a fact that the spikes come from 'the gate capacitance - hugely exaggerated - by the fast changing nature of the resultant current spike'?  I would have thought he meant the resultant oscillation - or resonance.  Hardly a spike.  Anyway.  I keep needing to say this and clearly Humbugger is not getting the point.  The result of factoring in inductance and impedance would be to INCREASE the resistance on the resistor.  This would, correspondingly - reduce the value of the current flow measured from that voltage.  Which is valid.  Now here's the anomaly.  When this is done - when we factor in for this inductance and impedance - then the result is that there's an even greater benefit - an even bigger return TO the system - than before.  I've said this EVERYWHERE.  We've highlighted it in the report.  For some reason this is completely ignored.  I wonder if this is deliberate?  INDEED HUMBUGGER.  We're all interested in this fact.  Because it results in a greater gain when you do the required integrated power analysis.  Could it be that the phase relationship is the critical factor and NOT the actual measure of the current flow?  Or is the argument now that the phase relationship - which is required to sustain that current - else  it would simply dribble away at the zero crossing - is purely an aberration of the system?  Does the phase angle - shown by the scope meter, in fact NOT take place?  Strange.  Becasue it's seen through the battery, on the drain AND at the shunt.  Then - as mentioned - our delusions are also being shared by our oscilloscopes and our circuit components.  And you can't medicate those. 

They are only present in the gate-current loop and are not present in the battery loop, as I explained.
Also a gross misrepresentation of the fact - or, in other words, a humdinger of that 'L' word.  It is evident across the battery in a HUGE positive spike and it is simultaneous with the spike at the shunt.  Just that they're in antiphase, showing that its 'RECHARGING' that battery.

I believe it is these spikes that she agrees are far more negative than positive which cause her scope average on the current trace to often show a small negative value (millivolts) which is then misinterpreted as battery charging current. This only shows up in the scope-averaged current at the low-power operating level because the operating currents are very small, so these spikes throw off the average  In the higher power mode of operation, these spikes still subtract from the measured average current, but that current is much larger in this mode so the overall average still always shows as a positive number..
I've highlighted it.  Another HUMdinger from our Humbugger.  He HOPES that it's these spikes that throw off the average mean voltage across the shunt.  What then would he then do with the mean average voltage in consistently NEGATIVE mode when we're dissipating frantically high wattage from the resistor element?  I KEEP referring to this.  Clearly I need to show more of these waveforms.  I have some on the system.  I'll look for them.  And I will certinly concentrate on showing this in future.  AGAIN, Humbugger, this is an emphasis that you need to lose if you're depending on it to win this argument. 

To get a true measure of the actual battery current, either the function generator must be eliminated (as Stefan suggests) or the shunt must be moved out of the gate circuit loop and placed where it sees only battery currents.
This is where?  There is nowhere on the circuit that is not connected to every other part of the circuit.  And it makes not a blind bit of difference if we put the shunt on the source or the drain.  And it amuses me that when we used a 555 their call was for a functions generator.  Now that we are complying to this the call is to get back the 555.  Makes one think that there's nothing will satisfy these extensive reaches into the bottom of that barrel.  The downside is that it - unfortunately - does seem to be bottomless.

In either case, the shunt must have an inductive reactance  that is far below the shunt resistance at 1.5MHz or the scope sampling and multiplying technique cannot be used due to large phase shifts in the apparent current versus the true current at any given sampling instant.
There it is again.We depend on the DISTORTIONS of those phase shifts.  Mainly because they seem to be resulting in a wave form that is continually reinforced.  There is NO QUESTION that if we eliminated them then we would lose that advantage.  The advantage is NOT IMAGINED.  Or is it that you'd simply prefer that we eliminate that advantage?

This is extremely difficult if not impossible to do, since even the length of a one inch straight wire will add 20nH to the shunt, causing many degrees of phase shift.  Even the very best "non-inductive" shunt resistors will exhibit several nanohenries of inductance and skew the phase at 1.5MHz significantly.[/b].
Well there you go.  That's exactly what's needed.

But all is not lost!  Even with a highly inductive shunt, as Rosemary is using, the true average current in the shunt is easy to obtain...without even using a scope that features averaging!
And here, guys we get to the nub of the issue.  The eternal requirement to AVERAGE.  Humbugger - hold your horses.  I intend showing you the AVERAGE on HIGH WATTAGE OUTPUTS so that I can finally silence this argument.  Then you'll need to retract this argument.  RIGHT NOW you're assuming that we ONLY GET HIGH WATTAGE ON POSITVE VOLTAGE AVERAGES ACROSS THE SHUNT.  THIS IS WRONG.  I will say this as often as is required.  We've shown it.  You are quite simply WRONG.  If your final supporting argument is based on the assumption that we cannot get a continual negative mean average at higher voltages then - again - you are wrong. 

Recall my demonstration from an earlier post in this thread where I showed a 0-2A trapezoid wave and the effects on the voltage displayed that a large inductance would have.  The true average current in that setup was +1A and ramped evenly back and forth between zero and +2A, never going negative at all.  Yet the inductive voltage was well below zero half the time, whenever the true shunt current was down-ramping toward zero.  See the first picture, reproduced here for your convenience.

Now we take that same circuit, doing the same thing, with the same values (printed out for you on the second picture) and add two little simple  RC filters to average both traces.  Guess what!  Both traces now show the exact true average current of 1 Ampere positive (50mV on a 50m Ohm shunt resistance).  They are exactly superimposed.  So now we know the magnitude and direction of the actual DC equivalent average current flowing even though we have measured it across a highly (grossly in this case) inductive shunt resistor!
This is hardly relevant.  Just another red-herring from that bottomless barrel of fishy facts.  We have entirely different results.  Probably because we're using live test apparatus and because we all have open minds.  It reminds me of those endless videos that you post of TK's where you show variations to waveforms from the same wire.  Unfortunately you ALWAYS show the reference at a junction and not on that wire.  I don't think we can accuse you of impartiality in the way you marshall your facts.

Regards,
Rosemary
Title: Re: Rosemary Ainslie circuit demonstration on Saturday March 12th 2011
Post by: Rosemary Ainslie on April 01, 2011, 10:08:26 AM

looks like that link was correct about possible damage to the MOSFETS

wonder if it's correct about the other 2 things i picked out from it, too?
Indeed you were on the money here.  Regading the rest I've done my best to comment.  Sorry it took so long.  I see now we need to pay attention better here nul-points.

<<EDIT #1>>
interesting, also, that rensseak's link to PETT describes the parasitic oscillation as a negative resistance event!  (although i don't recall it clarifying whether it's negative differential resistance, or the real thing)
Also not sure.  The thing is that the voltage seems to cross zero which introduces a negative component.  But there's still negative spiking at the transitions to the 'on' switch.  Then there's not, typically any further negative crossing until the next cycle.  Just don't know.

<<EDIT #2>>i've been a bit concerned about the suggestions to generate the parasitic oscillations by just connecting a negative voltage across the gate - the driving waveform from the SigGen is after all a dynamic waveform, not just a collection of two DC levels - ie., it also contains transients  so we shouldn't overlook the possibility that the parasitic oscillation is 'triggered' by a transient, before being able to sustain during a suitable state of the input (ie. the negative level)
Not sure if I understand this.  But I think that the actual trigger is the negative inductance established on the load during the on period.  But really not qualified to comment.  Better left to you guys.  Perhaps Neptune or Paul.  But I absolutely agree with you.  It needs to be better explored.  The first anomaly that we demonstrated was that this negative oscillation can occur with absolutely ZERO current being measured through the shunt.  That was strange. 

Kindest regards,
Rosemary

Not edited.  Just took forever to find the referenced post. 
R
Title: Re: Rosemary Ainslie circuit demonstration on Saturday March 12th 2011
Post by: nul-points on April 01, 2011, 04:09:53 PM
thanks for the comments, Rosemary

i think there are a couple of things we can learn from those points:

 - we can expect to have more MOSFET failures if we explicitly try to reproduce these parasitic oscillations (because the necessary gate drive is 'off-label')

  and this would be one valid reason that the manufacturer recommends avoiding parasitic oscillations
 (another reason being that such an output would be a 'distortion' of the input - and for most digital or analogue signal applications that would be an undesirable feature of a product!)


 - 'positive' resistance is the characteristic of a component to directly convert electrical energy into heat energy

  'negative resistance' is considered to be the inverse  - ie., the ability of a component to directly convert heat energy into electrical energy

NR has been the subject of much discussion and debate - basically it would mean that electrical energy could be generated without having to expend energy - ie. no user-provided work would be required - because ambient heat which exists all around us, indoors and out  (and waste heat from other machines) could be used as input to a negative resistance system to provide 'free' electrical energy as output

one of the few genuine 'negative resistance' components (based on carbon fibre material) was recently discovered in the US (by another lady researcher, Deborah Chung)

NR is not to be confused with negative differential resistance (NDR) where the component does exhibit the inverse Volts/Amps relation to usual Ohms Law, but there is still a positive DC offset, so in this case we are still expending energy as work to drive the system

so - the links quoted previously describe the parasitic oscillation area of the MOSFET characteristic graphs as exhibiting 'negative resistance' - but i didn't see them clarify if it is NDR - or if it is true NR

if the MOSFET data refers to true NR, then this would explain any anomalous electrical energy gained by systems such as Rosemary's

if the MOSFET data refers to NDR, then the parasitic oscillations are likely to be converting electrical energy to heat, as normal, not converting heat to electrical energy

 - i think we've all made note of the third point now, that some voltage transitions might still be necessary to get the oscillations going, even if the gate input is a fixed negative DC voltage (eg. battery)


i hope this provides a reasonable summary
np


http://docsfreelunch.blogspot.com (http://docsfreelunch.blogspot.com)
Title: Re: Rosemary Ainslie circuit demonstration on Saturday March 12th 2011
Post by: nul-points on April 01, 2011, 04:42:06 PM
So figure, we took the source away at 10v on the receiver, and it went to 132v after?  Is that an increase of 1320% of from our flywheel?   ;)

Magzzzz

hi Magzzzz

it would be great to think 'contrariwise', but sadly the only thing here that is Overunity is your enthusiasm!!  ;)

at the start, the input 10uF cap charged to 1000V holds 5000mJoules

at the end, the input 10uF cap at 990V holds 4901mJoules

so the input 10uF cap has supplied 99 mJoules to the 'Believe' circuit

the output 10uF cap at 132V holds 87mJoules
(ignoring the 0.5mJoule of 10V on 10uF)


Efficiency = 87/99 = 88%


if you want to even approach 100% then you need to transfer the charge from input to output in many steps of smaller energy transfer

it took me a year, using the same circuit arrangement in 2008, to confirm that the only things which are incorrect in the EE text books are that the value of charge-separation in an isolated circuit like this is NOT constant - and the energy dissipated : energy stored ratio is not always 1 : 1 as claimed

i've already given you & woopy a link to the thread which contains my results so i won't include it again here

i'm not trying to be negative about your work - i admire your zeal - i would like to save you guys from wasting your valuable time

regards
np


http://docsfreelunch.blogspot.com (http://docsfreelunch.blogspot.com)
 
Title: Re: Rosemary Ainslie circuit demonstration on Saturday March 12th 2011
Post by: cHeeseburger on April 01, 2011, 05:43:38 PM
- we can expect to have more MOSFET failures if we explicitly try to reproduce these parasitic oscillations (because the necessary gate drive is 'off-label')

  and this would be one valid reason that the manufacturer recommends avoiding parasitic oscillations

Very true, Nul-Points.  The gate oxide is very thin and fragile and gate voltage excursions beyond the specified limits on a repetitive basis basis will blast little holes in it, crashing the part's functionality little by little until...poof! 

Even when the drive from the sig-gen is within the specified limits, voltage spikes due to parasitic inductances and gate circuit wire lengths and drain voltage swings coupling through the Drain-Gate (Crss) capacitance can push the gate voltage well beyond the maximum specs.

The standard way of preventing this is to place a pair of series-connected 15V zeners back to back across the gate and source leads very close (right on the leads as they enter the plastic body if possible) of each MOSFET and with very short (use SMT chip zeners if possible) leads on the zeners.  This would probably prevent future breakdowns of the gate oxide without having any noticeable effect on the oscillations Rosemary has based her theories upon.

Quote
- 'positive' resistance is the characteristic of a component to directly convert electrical energy into heat energy

  'negative resistance' is considered to be the inverse  - ie., the ability of a component to directly convert heat energy into electrical energy

NR has been the subject of much discussion and debate - basically it would mean that electrical energy could be generated without having to expend energy - ie. no user-provided work would be required - because ambient heat which exists all around us, indoors and out  (and waste heat from other machines) could be used as input to a negative resistance system to provide 'free' electrical energy as output

one of the few genuine 'negative resistance' components (based on carbon fibre material) was recently discovered in the US (by another lady researcher, Deborah Chung)

Here is a direct quote from Ms. Chung's original paper:

"True negative resistance in the former sense is not possible due to energy conservation. However, apparent negative resistance in the former sense is reported here. ... Although the negative resistance reported here is apparent rather than true, its mechanism resembles that of true negative resistance (which actually does not occur due to energetics) in that the electrons flow in the unexpected direction relative to the applied current/voltage."

– Wang, Chung, Apparent negative electrical resistance in carbon fiber composites[1]

She nor her co-author ever claimed or suggested, from day one until now, that the device is useable a source of electrical energy from ambient heat.  You have been reading too much Bearden.

Quote

NR is not to be confused with negative differential resistance (NDR) where the component does exhibit the inverse Volts/Amps relation to usual Ohms Law, but there is still a positive DC offset, so in this case we are still expending energy as work to drive the system

so - the links quoted previously describe the parasitic oscillation area of the MOSFET characteristic graphs as exhibiting 'negative resistance' - but i didn't see them clarify if it is NDR - or if it is true NR

if the MOSFET data refers to true NR, then this would explain any anomalous electrical energy gained by systems such as Rosemary's

if the MOSFET data refers to NDR, then the parasitic oscillations are likely to be converting electrical energy to heat, as normal, not converting heat to electrical energy

The MOSFET data most certainly refers to the latter...NDR, as you call it.  All that means is that there are regions in the transfer function curves that show a non-ohmic decrease in current as voltage increases...nothing more.

Humbugger

Title: Re: Rosemary Ainslie circuit demonstration on Saturday March 12th 2011
Post by: Rosemary Ainslie on April 02, 2011, 09:52:03 AM
Hi nul-point.  I couldn't get around to answering this yesterday. 

i think there are a couple of things we can learn from those points:

 - we can expect to have more MOSFET failures if we explicitly try to reproduce these parasitic oscillations (because the necessary gate drive is 'off-label') and this would be one valid reason that the manufacturer recommends avoiding parasitic oscillations (another reason being that such an output would be a 'distortion' of the input - and for most digital or analogue signal applications that would be an undesirable feature of a product!)

I agree.  But we've now replaced those FETs and the problem persists.  The hope now is that the fault is with the Functions Generator.  It was new 'out the box' and it does seem that there's no required variation to the off set.  So.  This will be replaced - hopefully tomorrow.  We simply can't get any energy to the load and the guys have checked ALL connections.  But the fact is that these FETs are not designed to take those high voltage spikes and they'll always be brittle.  Out of interest - I have acrtually spoken to 2 manufacturers and they both insisted that putting them in parallel would 'do the job'.  Clearly it helps.  Not certain that it's an adequate solution.  Ultimately, one expects that some dedicated transistors can be manufactured. 

- 'positive' resistance is the characteristic of a component to directly convert electrical energy into heat energy - 'negative resistance' is considered to be the inverse  - ie., the ability of a component to directly convert heat energy into electrical energy - NR has been the subject of much discussion and debate - basically it would mean that electrical energy could be generated without having to expend energy - ie. no user-provided work would be required - because ambient heat which exists all around us, indoors and out  (and waste heat from other machines) could be used as input to a negative resistance system to provide 'free' electrical energy as output - one of the few genuine 'negative resistance' components (based on carbon fibre material) was recently discovered in the US (by another lady researcher, Deborah Chung)

NR is not to be confused with negative differential resistance (NDR) where the component does exhibit the inverse Volts/Amps relation to usual Ohms Law, but there is still a positive DC offset, so in this case we are still expending energy as work to drive the system - so - the links quoted previously describe the parasitic oscillation area of the MOSFET characteristic graphs as exhibiting 'negative resistance' - but i didn't see them clarify if it is NDR - or if it is true NR

Also very interesting.  I also saw some hint at a potential excess energy in links to those parasitic oscillations.  Terms such as Negative Resistance and Negative Differential Resistance just confuse the hell out of me.  What I can just manage to get my head around are terms such as negative and positive voltage - this because they represent two entirely different directions in consequent current flow.  And, in effect, it seems that regardless of the inductance on any one component - it is possible to induce that negative voltage to some considerable improvement in energy efficiencies. 

So.  nul-points.  Not much to do with negative or positive resistance.  Or I can't get there.  Perhaps you can manage a correspondence.  Otherwise I think your summary was impeccable.

Kindest regards,
Rosemary   
Title: Re: Rosemary Ainslie circuit demonstration on Saturday March 12th 2011
Post by: Rosemary Ainslie on April 02, 2011, 10:13:09 AM
Guys, nul-point - whoever reads here - I've taken this as an opportunity to explain this with the caveat that this is simply my own eccentric thinking and you are free to dismiss it as required.  But it's also why we put that circuit together in the first instance.

The proposal is that the atom comprises a nucleus at the centre and electrons that orbit the nucleus.  These are evident.  What is not evident is the proposal that there are the atomic energy levels comprising two dimensional magnet fields.  These trap the atom's electrons in their orbits around the nucleus.  The atom is inviolate.  The valence condition of atoms can be varied.  This predisposes it to molecular bonding which bonding can then partially or completely balance that atomic valence condition.

BUT.  The actual bonding of those atoms is managed by discrete packages of one directional magnetic fields.  These are extraneous to the atom.  These can orbit either in a circle with a fixed direction or justification.  Then one half of any orbit will oppose the other half - thereby having an potential to interact with any two unlike charges, positive or negative.  Or it can orbit in the figure '8' - thereby having the potential to interact with any two 'like' charges, positive to positive and negative to negative.

The atom's outer energy levels determine the valence condition of the atom.  With these three potentials then these discrete fields are then able to interact with the outer energy levels of ALL atoms.  The proposal is that they interact with the atom's energy levels very much as does a small gear interacting with a larger gear, the smaller - those discrete binding fields - operating at a velocity that exceeds light speed.  This renders them invisible. 

Then.  The current flow from the source voltage 'breaks' those orbits.  Here's why.  The quantum value of all those discrete binding orbits will be some combination of positive and negative - regardless of the bound atomic valence condition.  Current flow has a single direction - therefore a single charge.  It will, therefore, repel precisely one half of all the charge from those discrete binding fields - that it comes into contact with.  The source voltage is, by definition greater than the resistance in that bound material.  It therefore repels those same charges.  In doing so, the repelled charge is forced outside the body of the material.  It 'lurks'.  It congregates as a field and circles that component material and is measured as voltage imbalance or potential difference.  This voltage has a single direction or justification.  But it is 'open ended' or 'imbalanced'.

The remaining circle - that half that was not 'expelled' by that current flow - has nothing to orbit and nothing to attach to.  It loses it's orbital velocity and becomes as 'hot and as slow and as big' as it was 'cold and fast and small' - in its previous 'field condition'.  This then is measured as heat.  It results in the immediate compromise of the bound condition of material that it was - previously - binding.  It also results in the partial expansion of that material - BOTH conditions depending on the degree or number of these orbital symmetries that were broken by the force of the current flow.  Nothing is changed in the atomic state.  Only the bound condition is now varied.

When the source voltage is interrupted - then those extruded fields, that voltage imbalance - can now generate a current flow.  But it moves in an opposite direction to the initial flow of current.  It moves, not unlike a 'spring' releasing.  And it moves around the circuit components to return to its source.  If it can get back to the source then it will again separate into discrete packages and re-unite with those 'broken fields' - that hot unhappy 'other half' that remains in the material.  Given enough time then it will regroup and then it will  again be able to continue binding that material in their field condition as 'fast, cold, small' fields.  In effect it will simply reconstitute their previously binding field condition.

That parasitic oscillation is then, according to this analysis - the result of a perpetuating an imbalance where the satisfied potential difference of the battery supply induces potential difference in the circuit material.  And, in turn, which, induces a second cycle where the satisfied potential difference in the circuit material then enduces a potential difference in the supply.  That 'equivalence' is determined by the circuit itself and it's a potential in all electric circuits.  This, because the electromagnetic interaction is enabled by inductive conductive material. 

And traditionally this has not been exposed because the required path for both current cycles has not been provided as this relates to returning or negative current cycle.  Put a whole lot of FET's together and the road is then wide - the path is big enough and there's nothing to stop that negative current flowing from all that induced negative voltage.  And proof that this may be correct is in the fact that the heat over the resistor element is retained through that entire cycle of oscillation.

Which is just my explanation guys.  Do with it what you can, or want.  It does seem to have some kind of correspondence to what we're seeing.  But it also depends on the fundamental principle that a magnetic field comprises particles or tachyons which would, here, need to be magnetic dipoles. 

Kindest regards,
Rosemary
Title: Re: Rosemary Ainslie circuit demonstration on Saturday March 12th 2011
Post by: neptune on April 02, 2011, 11:53:15 AM
Hi all .It is interesting that Ismael Aviso with his self charging electric car claims to use custom made transistors . These are not specifically referred to as Mosfets , but it does make you wonder .We have established that there are two types of negative resistance . The commonest is differential negative resistance . My understanding of this is as follows . Normally , if you increase the voltage across a resistor , the current flow increases .Pure ohms law .However in a negative type resistor , an increase in voltage can be accompanied by a fall in current .This is not , however , the type of negative resistance we are seeing here
     Regarding mosfet failures . If it is the zener diode that carries the battery chargeing current , why not have just two mosfets , and many external zener diodes connected externally . Zeners are cheaper than mosfets .
Title: Re: Rosemary Ainslie circuit demonstration on Saturday March 12th 2011
Post by: nul-points on April 02, 2011, 08:54:36 PM
hi Rosemary

glad you've been able to replace the MOSFETS

i seem to remember that you mentioned recently that you'd measured around 5W getting returned to the SigGen?

if this is correct, then it is certainly possible that you also have a problem with that equipment now - the SG output stage may not be designed to cope with power getting returned in opposition to its usual current flow!


Hi Neptune

extra external reversed diodes across the MOSFETs are always a possibility - but i have a feeling that those links we all looked at were saying that the parasitic oscillation should be avoided because it caused excessive feedback from the output to the gate (hence the possible energy return to the SigGen too)

i'm not sure if adding external diodes across Source & Drain will diminish the gate overdirve, if it does then its likely to be because its also stopped the parasitic oscillation!

it might be necessary to find a compromise with the gate series input impedance - ie. try & find a value which is high enough still to just causes oscillation at a negative drive level, but low enough to limit the gate overdrive voltage which can develop due to the oscillation

could get interesting  ;)
np


http://docsfreelunch.blogspot.com (http://docsfreelunch.blogspot.com)

Title: Re: Rosemary Ainslie circuit demonstration on Saturday March 12th 2011
Post by: infringer on April 02, 2011, 11:01:57 PM
Rosemary,

I see good applications with this technology in heating of air and water do you have any plans to use this technology for those applications? Or is there a better way to apply this technology I know you have stated led lighting. Do you have any circuits prefabbed up for sale in lighting or heating I would like to test the tech in real world situations not do math or theories if it lights up a light or heats whatever for the average life of the battery we have a real life application sounds simple enough to me ...

What is the real challenge of putting this device into a real life application other then yourself holding yourself back you are not seeking a patent this circuit is open and free as you said. If you build it people will buy it if it works as promised.
Title: Re: Rosemary Ainslie circuit demonstration on Saturday March 12th 2011
Post by: hartiberlin on April 03, 2011, 04:11:25 PM


The approach and technique you are discovering and exploring has been used in switch-mode power supplies for almost fifty years, so your discovery is not new but it's very cool knowledge that lots of other smart circuit guys use all the time.  I really enjoyed the the last few sentences in the Personal Anecdote section.  Good advice!  :)

As I said before,
simulations in this case do not apply, because the new physics is not yet programmed into them.

The ou effect comes inside the battery as in Bedinis devices.
Title: Re: Rosemary Ainslie circuit demonstration on Saturday March 12th 2011
Post by: poynt99 on April 03, 2011, 04:24:13 PM
As I said before,
simulations in this case do not apply, because the new physics is not yet programmed into them.

The ou effect comes inside the battery as in Bedinis devices.

Then would you agree Stefan that it is imperative to obtain an accurate measurement of INPUT power from the battery?

Here is a method that appears to work well, without the need for an oscilloscope:

http://www.overunity.com/index.php?topic=10564.msg280282#msg280282

.99
Title: Re: Rosemary Ainslie circuit demonstration on Saturday March 12th 2011
Post by: WilbyInebriated on April 03, 2011, 10:09:34 PM
poynt, thanks for your continued efforts. re: this method you propose, have you 'provided this works in all cases and is not erroneous'?
Title: Re: Rosemary Ainslie circuit demonstration on Saturday March 12th 2011
Post by: poynt99 on April 04, 2011, 02:17:59 AM
poynt, thanks for your continued efforts. re: this method you propose, have you 'provided this works in all cases and is not erroneous'?

Other than in the sim, I have not.

An important caveat, and this applies even with scope probes, the leads should be kept "normal" to any current-carrying wiring so as to minimize induced voltage. Also, it would be of benefit to provide some Faraday shielding around the bulk of the apparatus to minimize EMI.

I will have to bring out the old "switching device" from a couple years back and try this. If I can get close correlation between a scope measurement and the proposed meter measurement, I think we're good to go.

.99
Title: Re: Rosemary Ainslie circuit demonstration on Saturday March 12th 2011
Post by: Magluvin on April 04, 2011, 08:33:28 AM
Hey Rose

Here is a link location of 3 posts in a row that you may want to see.

I show that I start with a 10uf cap at 1000v, and only make 2 conversions and end up with a 10uf cap at 1001.25v  !!!

Its very simple. And Im tired.   ;]

http://www.overunity.com/index.php?topic=8841.msg280380#msg280380

Mags loop+
Title: Re: Rosemary Ainslie circuit demonstration on Saturday March 12th 2011
Post by: Rosemary Ainslie on April 04, 2011, 10:11:03 AM
Hi all.  So nice to get back here.  I couldn't get any connectivity since Saturday.  Don't ask why.  It's an endless - endless battle all of which simply adds more 'scope' to my general complaint against whoever it is that wants this technology silenced.  But we're battling on.  And right now we're connected. 

I'll answer your posts individually.

Kindest regards,
Rosemary

Title: Re: Rosemary Ainslie circuit demonstration on Saturday March 12th 2011
Post by: Rosemary Ainslie on April 04, 2011, 10:57:40 AM
Rosemary,

I see good applications with this technology in heating of air and water do you have any plans to use this technology for those applications? Or is there a better way to apply this technology I know you have stated led lighting. Do you have any circuits prefabbed up for sale in lighting or heating I would like to test the tech in real world situations not do math or theories if it lights up a light or heats whatever for the average life of the battery we have a real life application sounds simple enough to me ...

What is the real challenge of putting this device into a real life application other then yourself holding yourself back you are not seeking a patent this circuit is open and free as you said. If you build it people will buy it if it works as promised.

Hi infringer.  Not sure of the question.  There is indeed no patent - and the entire impossibility of ever applying a patent - is the first point.  Even if it were a 'novel' appliction of using the heat produced from parastic oscillations - the fact is that the knowledge of this potential use is now PUBLIC KNOWLEDGE.  It's published in the public domain - on my blog.  So.  Unfortunately, it seems that I've shot myself in the foot - if my intention was EVER to patent any part of this technology.

Then. I most certainly want to get this to APPLICATION phase.  It would be nice if we all worked towards this.  It's no good knowing of an economical means of generating electricity without also exploring all possible ways of applying it.  Specifically what's holding me back is that I want to advance the 'concepts' related to the thesis.  I am of the opinion that when the 'thinking' is better understood then the applications will be less 'haphazard' based, as they are at present - on a mishmash of thinking and mainstream concepts.  I will take the liberty of again pointing to my blog post related to this.  But I also see, from the lack of comments related to my explanation that it's still as clear as mud.  LOL.   I'm going to work on a series of diagrams that I hope will make that explanation clearer.  In fact - I've started on this already.  As they say.  A picture is worth a thousand words.

I've also been given to understand that it's possible to generate motorised energy from heat.  That's another string to this bow.  It's also feasible to generate steam from this application.  Either way - presumably those type of applicaions can also be considered. 

But to get back to my point.  We also need to get some kind of academic evaluation of these anomalies.  Because without this any applications may be considered fraudulent - or intended to fraudulently misrepresent the benefits in this technology.  That's an ongoing battle.  Right now I need to change out my functions generator because it's simply not working.  Not corrupted - as nul-point thinks - as it was brand new out the box and has simply NEVER worked.  That's a quick exercise and should be completed before the day is finished.  But when I've got the circuit operational then I intend doing some more demos - this time with our EXPERTS in attendance - as no single Electrical Engineering expert attended our previous public demo.  But I shall be taking the precaution of insisting on approval of the measurement protocols prior to that meeting.  That way - the argument will be settled in advance and the evidence evaluated on the merits of that argument.  This is one way of avoiding the advantage that our detractors enjoy - by raising an endless stream of objections - regardless of the evidence - but always AFTER the event.  An example is that we now USE a functions generator as previously required by Poynty et al.  But we are now told that we MUST RATHER USE A 555.  Or, another example - measurements must be AVERAGED - and that it is incorrect to apply integrated power analysis.  Which diametrically opposes all previous advises and, indeed, some lengthy debates on the subject.  Or as another example until we eliminate ALL INDUCTANCE on the circuit ALL OUR MEASUREMENTS ARE ERRONEOUS - as Humbugger tries to imply.  All nonsense.  But they'll use those excuses forever.    We need EXPERTS.  Not these amateurish excusions by some dedicated detractors.

Which does not imply that we've got sufficient proof of infinite COP.  But we certainly have unequivocal proof of COP>1. 

GOOD LUCK infringer - if you're going to test this and if you find an application.  There's nothing to stop you - legally - or in any way at all.

Kindest regards
Rosemary

http://newlightondarkenergy.blogspot.com/2011/04/101-repost-of-8-inconvenient-truth.html
And lest any readers of this think that I"m entirely impartial - here's my apologia
http://newlightondarkenergy.blogspot.com/2010/11/belated-tribute-to-our-scientists.html

 ;D
Title: Re: Rosemary Ainslie circuit demonstration on Saturday March 12th 2011
Post by: Rosemary Ainslie on April 04, 2011, 11:12:25 AM
Actually Guys, that's it.  I certainly won't comment on Humbugger's input until it becomes appropriate.  And nor will I  reply to Poynty's points until he re-establishes my right to read his forum.  Not that I want to be registered please note.  He has denied me the right to READ his forum by the simple  expediency of blocking my IP address.  And he knew of this ONLY because I had previously registered and then de-registered from OUR.com.  Which I still maintain is an abuse of that knowledge.  I joined the forum and gave that address in good faith.  One must wonder at that need to refuse me access to my work or rights to see where and if this technology is still being discussed.  And IF IT IS NOT being discussed then  WHY BLOCK ACCESS AT ALL?  What level of small minded spite is coming into play here?  Very strange.  One could almost think that he doesn't like me.  Golly.  Not sure that presonal preferences matter.  And not sure that he should be allowed to continue with his comments here - unless this is resolved.

Right now I can't even read all the work that I've done there.  It's all barred to me.  I don't think I've ever come across this level of pettiness.  The only good news is that he's 'locked' that thread.  But they're free to discuss me as they do - all over the place.  And apparently it's vitally important that I NEVER SEE THOSE COMMENTS.  Actually there's NO justification for this.  Just excessive spite and petty mindedness.  Hopefully Poynty will see this for himself and LOSE THAT BLOCK.

Just to let you all know about this malice and - just to let you know that clearly I must be some kind of a threat to his forum bias.  Strange.  When they also state that I'm rather presumptuous to even consider myself an idiot.  LOL.  I would almost be inclined to think that they're trying to equate this technology with Lawrence's.  Clearly the two have NOTHING IN COMMON.

Kindest regards,
Rosemary.
Title: Re: Rosemary Ainslie circuit demonstration on Saturday March 12th 2011
Post by: Rosemary Ainslie on April 04, 2011, 11:17:21 AM
Mags - I've only just got my connectivity back.  I'll try and go through your argument later today and by tomorrow morning at the latest.  Thanks for the added info.

Kindest regards,
Rosemary
Title: Re: Rosemary Ainslie circuit demonstration on Saturday March 12th 2011
Post by: neptune on April 04, 2011, 07:59:57 PM
Infringer talks about applications .This is something we would all like to see . However , I personally feel that this will not happen in the immediate future , until a little bit more experimental work is done . There are two kinds of people into technology . We have the theoreticians and the practical engineers . Both are essential to the advancement of technology . But they tend to look at the world in two separate ways . I personally am more of an engineering mindset . To Rosemary , her thesis is everything , and rightly so .To me and perhaps a lot of other people , getting a predictable controllable reliable device is what matters .I would be wonderful if the Academics embrace this . But to arrange that will not be easy . The alternative as I have said before , is to follow the same path as Rossi [he of the cold Fusion device] and show some thing working , thus making the views of the academics irrelevant .
Title: Re: Rosemary Ainslie circuit demonstration on Saturday March 12th 2011
Post by: Rosemary Ainslie on April 04, 2011, 08:15:10 PM
Infringer talks about applications .This is something we would all like to see . However , I personally feel that this will not happen in the immediate future , until a little bit more experimental work is done . There are two kinds of people into technology . We have the theoreticians and the practical engineers . Both are essential to the advancement of technology . But they tend to look at the world in two separate ways . I personally am more of an engineering mindset . To Rosemary , her thesis is everything , and rightly so .To me and perhaps a lot of other people , getting a predictable controllable reliable device is what matters .I would be wonderful if the Academics embrace this . But to arrange that will not be easy . The alternative as I have said before , is to follow the same path as Rossi [he of the cold Fusion device] and show some thing working , thus making the views of the academics irrelevant .

Neptune, those are good points.  My problem is not so much that I'm not interested in applications - but that it's just WAY outside my competence.  You guys probably don't realise it.  I have never even changed a plug.  Truly a self-confessed clutz.  I say this with a certain amount of reluctance as the Our.com detractors will, no doubt, use this to deny that I have any competence at all.  But when it comes to technical - then you guys are MUCH NEEDED. But I also know that when you can wrap your minds around some REALLY SIMPLE concepts then - what I've been pointing to - you guys will be able to FULLY unfold.  Again.  Outside my competence.  I just - so badly - want those concepts to be understood. The more so as they're simple.  But by the same token - they will make a world of difference and an entirely different world. And we need that difference.

Take care Neptune.  And so grateful that we've got your moderate reasonable sensible input.  It's a required balance to my own enthusiasm.  ALSO.  Your argument also carried with the Wright bros and - many similar.  So.  Go for it. And frankly, I think the cost of developing an application won't be much different to the cost related to more testing of this circuit.  That's been done to death.  I think so - anyway.  Let's measure it in the real world.  That would be so, so nice.

Kindest regards,
Rosie
Title: Re: Rosemary Ainslie circuit demonstration on Saturday March 12th 2011
Post by: infringer on April 05, 2011, 01:36:03 AM
Rosemary,

I stand behind you in the fact that you show an anomaly. But I do think there should be a simplistic way of putting this into an application it would easily show weather results are skewed or not.

I am not sure of the scopes in general but I do know that all electronics are subject to power glitching of some sort whether it is a faster cycle or low voltage or what have you even stuff with watch dog timers, anti glitching measures and so forth has been glitched for different reasons many times it is done intentionally to defeat security measures on electronic devices but I am not hip to the hardware in a scope or a meter for that matter to know that they are not prone to these fluctuations in power causing the erratic readings its not entirely an impossibility in my mind but my mind is less educated then your own.

Oddly it appears you may be on to something your theory was interesting on why it works talking about the atom and then shortly after I read something about an test they did with the LHC showing there may be another particle due to the fact that where two particles hit the ejection direction is predictable with in an error tolerance of 0.07% which is rather stunning it made me think of your theory with slight correlation to it.

I guess I wish you the best and would like to see something running a cop>1 is free energy and could be applied to generate energy if you had made a larger unit the COE should remain the same but you should get more excess energy thus providing an application for energy generation I would assume anyways.

Forgive me for my ramblings no I really do not wish to create your device or patent any portion of your device it is not my style I guess I was looking for a silencer for you and probably talked a bit to sharply.
Title: Re: Rosemary Ainslie circuit demonstration on Saturday March 12th 2011
Post by: Rosemary Ainslie on April 05, 2011, 06:30:42 AM
Rosemary,

... I guess I was looking for a silencer for you and probably talked a bit too sharply.

LOL.  I suspect there's some truth in the complaint that I 'talk' or 'write' far too much.  Just make allowances Infringer.  I am most anxious to share something.  Rightly or wrongly I feel I'm in the same kind of position as Christopher Columbus - when he pointed to the vast American continent.  He must have been pretty 'gob smacked'.  And I'm trying to point to something much, much bigger. 

I've just read another analolgy to this.  If we took all the particles out of all the atoms of everyone alive today - we'd make a brick the size of your average sugar cube.  Approximately 1/2" x 1/2" x 1/2".  That points to an awful lot of so called empty space.  I've simply proposed that all that space? -  it's 'chock-a-block' filled with magnetic fields.  And that's important - in a way.  Because IF it's right - then it also means we've rather 'under used' all that potential.  But for all that it sounds simple - it's actually mind bendingly subtle.  Bubbles within bubbles.  Anyway.  I'll spare you the details.  But in the wild hope that there are any still interested in this, and in the equally wild hope that anyone may yet read this - here's my blog link to the thesis. A work in progress - but it's getting there. Sorry if this appears to be 'off topic'.  It actually does have some residual relevance to this thread.

Kindest regards,
Rosemary

http://newlightondarkenergy.blogspot.com/2011/03/98-model.html

edited typos
Title: Re: Rosemary Ainslie circuit demonstration on Saturday March 12th 2011
Post by: Rosemary Ainslie on April 05, 2011, 06:55:03 AM
Hello Magzy - I've still not managed to understand your argument.  But the fault is mine.  I don't know anything about those capacitors.  I definitely see an increase in voltage across the 2nd cap - presumably having been fed to it by the first cap.  And am I right in saying that the first cap was charged from a battery to a max of 10 volts?  So.  If the second cap is in excess of 100 volts - then, to my mind that's unequivocal proof.  But I've also read nul-point's measurement and I simply don't know enough about this to measure it. 

What i would say is this.  If you and woopy can get some work out of the second cap that exceeds the energy 'in' then no-one could complain.  Quite apart from which - what I do know is that we have to challenge all mainstream predictions if we're ever going to get through on these arguments.  And for that you get 10 out of 10.  Well done Mags.  Keep up the good work and let's see that WORK number.  I know that you two work as a neat team.

Sorry it took me so long and then I could do so little with the information.  I was absolutely locked out of internet access through the weekend.

Take care Mags.  I've written you while I was down.  I'll see if I can find that draft and send it along.

Kindest as ever,
Rosie
Title: Re: Rosemary Ainslie circuit demonstration on Saturday March 12th 2011
Post by: Magluvin on April 05, 2011, 01:55:17 PM
Hey Rose

No worries.  I believe we have it.  We start by charging a 10uf cap to 1000v. We run it through the circuit 2 times and we end up with 1001.25v on the 10 uf cap. Thats all we need to know. We only use outside source 1 time to get the 1000v.. So when we run it through again, we should end up with more each cycle.  =]    Self runner.   We just have to work it out in an automatic circuit. I worked on this last night, and half of it is complete.  =]
Hey I know your busy, we will chat soon.  ;]

Mags
Title: Re: Rosemary Ainslie circuit demonstration on Saturday March 12th 2011
Post by: powercat on April 05, 2011, 04:56:06 PM
Mags the Self runner man  ;D
now that's what Rosie needs  ;D the whole world needs,
no one can argue with a Self runner, it's either runs or it doesn't  ;D
very exciting  ;D
Title: Re: Rosemary Ainslie circuit demonstration on Saturday March 12th 2011
Post by: Rosemary Ainslie on April 05, 2011, 06:08:30 PM
Hey Rose

No worries.  I believe we have it.  We start by charging a 10uf cap to 1000v. We run it through the circuit 2 times and we end up with 1001.25v on the 10 uf cap. Thats all we need to know. We only use outside source 1 time to get the 1000v.. So when we run it through again, we should end up with more each cycle.  =]    Self runner.   We just have to work it out in an automatic circuit. I worked on this last night, and half of it is complete.  =]
Hey I know your busy, we will chat soon.  ;]

Mags

Really good stuff Magsy.  To me that's definitive.  And as Wilby keeps reminding us
illigitimi non carborundum -  or as I'd love to say 'basia culos meos'.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pSo-_TavE1U

I'm taking a leaf out of Cat's book here.  Enjoy.

Rosie
Title: Re: Rosemary Ainslie circuit demonstration on Saturday March 12th 2011
Post by: Rosemary Ainslie on April 05, 2011, 10:06:06 PM
Guys - it seems that I've been locked out of commenting on Poynty's thread where he's trying to get averaging accepted for input measurement.  Not sure if this is a general prelude to a banning - but I certainly think it speaks to Poynty's inability to tackle any argument without gagging the counter argument.  I have lost all respect for the man - if such he is.  And then he's got the unspeakable arrogance to demand that my input be ignored - and that it's mere 'babble'?  Golly.

Would you lose your financial support base if you lost that averaging argument Poynty Point?  You're that frantic one could almost think that your livelihood depends on it.  And it's simply a repeat of the argument that you advanced on your own forum.  If you don't want us members to comment then perhaps you should just have told us that it's a monologue.  And that you 'brook no argument'.  Good heavens.  You've already settled your argument.  You're just advising us that this is now to be considered to be correct - as per POYNTY's REQUIRED LAW OF AVERAGING.  Science by Edict.  Where will we go next? 

The sad news is that it's wrong.  But it's also irrelevant.  It's been used in the wild hope that this will then negate our own measurements.  Far from it.  We're happy with averaging.  It still indicates a COP Infinity.  That was not the point of the demonstration.  You just don't get it.  Or if you do, you're hoping no-one else does.

If you think my writing is nonsensical babble - then know this.  It it my opinion that you have rather squandered your own intellectual muscle to the need to be right.  And then you've managed to immerse yourself in irrelevancies.  Which is  shame.  Either way.  You've certainly invested way more emotion in this debate - if such it is -  than intellect.

Kindest regards nonetheless
Rosemary

edited.  sorry I wrote forum. 
Title: Re: Rosemary Ainslie circuit demonstration on Saturday March 12th 2011
Post by: Magluvin on April 06, 2011, 01:56:15 AM
hey Rose

Welp, we now have a new high score.

Start with a 10uf cap at 1000v, and we end up with 10uf at 1320v!!

I ran through 3 stages. 4 stages should bring about 2kv in a 10 uf cap. Just from that 1000v 10uf cap. 

Its just ridiculous.   ;D

I need a drink.  ;)

Mags
Title: Re: Rosemary Ainslie circuit demonstration on Saturday March 12th 2011
Post by: Pirate88179 on April 06, 2011, 02:54:56 AM
Mags:

Excellent work!!!  Will we be able to see this in a video sometime soon?  That would be great.

Bill
Title: Re: Rosemary Ainslie circuit demonstration on Saturday March 12th 2011
Post by: poynt99 on April 06, 2011, 02:55:09 AM
hey Rose

Welp, we now have a new high score.

Start with a 10uf cap at 1000v, and we end up with 10uf at 1320v!!

I ran through 3 stages. 4 stages should bring about 2kv in a 10 uf cap. Just from that 1000v 10uf cap. 

Its just ridiculous.   ;D

I need a drink.  ;)

Mags

Magluvin,

You should know as it appears you are unaware, that not only are you off-topic, but the topic of capacitor energy transfer and the so-called "discovery" has been covered a number of times elsewhere in this forum. What you really need before you get that drink, is to obtain a clear understanding of capacitors, capacitor voltage, and the energy stored in them. THEN you will know why and how you are able to charge up these capacitors to higher voltages.

Here are a few links to get you started in your quest:

http://www.overunity.com/index.php?topic=8334.msg210138#msg210138
http://www.overunity.com/index.php?topic=8334.msg210142#msg210142 (read the attached file carefully)
http://www.overunity.com/index.php?topic=6090.msg143812#msg143812
http://www.overunity.com/index.php?topic=4419.msg148098#msg148098
http://hyperphysics.phy-astr.gsu.edu/hbase/electric/capeng.html (play with the values and see the effects)

So you may see that you are not the first to have fallen into the trap involving capacitor energy transfer, and likely you won't be the last.

.99
Title: Re: Rosemary Ainslie circuit demonstration on Saturday March 12th 2011
Post by: Magluvin on April 06, 2011, 03:34:58 AM
Magluvin,

You should know as it appears you are unaware, that not only are you off-topic, but the topic of capacitor energy transfer and the so-called "discovery" has been covered a number of times elsewhere in this forum. What you really need before you get that drink, is to obtain a clear understanding of capacitors, capacitor voltage, and the energy stored in them. THEN you will know why and how you are able to charge up these capacitors to higher voltages.

Here are a few links to get you started in your quest:

http://www.overunity.com/index.php?topic=8334.msg210138#msg210138
http://www.overunity.com/index.php?topic=8334.msg210142#msg210142 (read this file carefully)
http://www.overunity.com/index.php?topic=6090.msg143812#msg143812
http://www.overunity.com/index.php?topic=4419.msg148098#msg148098

So you may see that you are not the first to have fallen into the trap involving capacitor energy transfer, and likely you won't be the last.

.99

Hey point

Actually Rose had asked me to post results here, and there are some others paying close attn also. =]

It appears you havnt been paying much attn.  ;)  But how could I convince you otherwise, you wont build it.
If you keep believing the formula are correct, then you are doomed.

Let me ask you something. 
If you have a 10uf cap at 10v
How much energy does that cap hold? An ideal cap for simplicity.

Now connect that cap to another empty 10uf cap so that each has 5v.

Now you have 2 10uf caps at 5v = 20uf cap at 5v. 
How much energy is in a 20uf cap at 5v?

If you have calculated anything less than 100% you are wrong. They are wrong. He is out of order, your all out of order!!  lol

Seriously.  I know ya think Im a freak. I dig it.  Im Magfreakinluvin.


Now tell me how much energy is in the 10uf 10v vs 20uf 5v.

After you tell me 50% loss, I will spit on my shoe and shine it with pride, that I know what is what, and you do not.

Run some tests, spice or on the bench, tell me what you see in these questions I propose to you Point.  If you dont you will never know. ;]

Run the 10uf 10v cap through a 100ohm resistor
Then the 20uf 5v cap through a 50ohm resistor
Each will start out at 1A and descending till drained. Tell me how long it took for each instance Point.

I dont know you Point. But I am just showing you the same respect you had just shown me, and I may have learned ya sumthin.  ;]

Buld it, then you can tell me otherwise.  Does anyone agree? Anyone?

Be cordial and so will I. We can be friends and learn new things.

It wont take you long to become a Believer when you try. I have done all the work to get you to the objective. Convert a 10uf at 10v to a 10uf cap at 13v, energy used to do the switching has not been taken from the circuit to keep the ideal function pure, so we know exactly what is in and out through the process. It is done this way all the time.

Point, if you know about what Ive been doing here the last couple weeks, Ive gone through several pains of saying, na, cant be, its all wrong.  Then I climb out of the box for some fresh air, and it is all too clear. Crystal.   ;)  You may have to empty your cup for this one. ;]

Its easy. No complex waveforms to debate, no disrespect Rose ;], no measurements that could be denied, just what was in vs what was out.  The text books will have you climbing the walls Point as you see what is going on in this circuit. Once you see that we can take a 10uf cap at 10v and end up with a 10uf cap at 13-14v, will you still question me? For what? I told ya that was the objective. Where will I have been wrong then, in any way?

We can be cool about this. Its up to you.  ;]

Mags
Title: Re: Rosemary Ainslie circuit demonstration on Saturday March 12th 2011
Post by: evolvingape on April 06, 2011, 03:55:32 AM

Its easy. No complex waveforms to debate, no disrespect Rose ;], no measurements that could be denied, just what was in vs what was out.

Mags

 ???

That's all people have been asking for since day one... still waiting... lots of diversions and misdirections... but no honest answers...

RM :)

Title: Re: Rosemary Ainslie circuit demonstration on Saturday March 12th 2011
Post by: Magluvin on April 06, 2011, 04:18:27 AM
hey Pirate

Im working on it. The way you lay out circuits means a lot when considering options. ;]  But have come up with a way by just having 3 circuits in a row. When the first cap is loaded to say 1000v, that is all the energy that will be transferred from beginning to end, no other outside input. Each stage will lower the source caps voltage down to about .7 of the source, and the flywheel takes care of filling the receiver to the same voltage as the source. Now we have 2 caps at .7 of the source. Double the capacitance for the next stage source.
The rest is in my last couple posts in the igniter thread. I should have something this week. =]

Thanks Evolvingape.   I hope that was a positive post. ;]

Mags
Title: Re: Rosemary Ainslie circuit demonstration on Saturday March 12th 2011
Post by: evolvingape on April 06, 2011, 04:33:07 AM
There is no need to apply perceived polarisation to my post.


Its easy. No complex waveforms to debate, no disrespect Rose ;], no measurements that could be denied, just what was in vs what was out.

Mags

Your words speak for themselves to my satisfaction, on topic of course :)

RM :)
Title: Re: Rosemary Ainslie circuit demonstration on Saturday March 12th 2011
Post by: Rosemary Ainslie on April 06, 2011, 06:57:38 AM
Golly Magsy - I've just woken up to all this.   Really great stuff.  I'm just going to get back there and read it all again.

WELL DONE MAGSY.  It's looking good.

Rosie
Title: Re: Rosemary Ainslie circuit demonstration on Saturday March 12th 2011
Post by: Rosemary Ainslie on April 06, 2011, 07:34:02 AM
Hi Magsy - indeed this is very good news.  Even I can understand it.  VERY VERY WELL DONE.  And don't be too put off by any negativity my friend - because that will follow as day follows night.

Really good stuff.  I don't actually drink as a rule, but I'll raise a glass to you with my supper this evening.

I think we may yet win this argument.  Here's hoping. 

 ;D

Rosie
Title: Re: Rosemary Ainslie circuit demonstration on Saturday March 12th 2011
Post by: Magluvin on April 06, 2011, 07:59:16 AM
thanks Rose

Im beddyby.  ;]    Im glad you see it also. I have improvements coming tomorrow.  ;D

Night Rose


Mags
Title: Re: Rosemary Ainslie circuit demonstration on Saturday March 12th 2011
Post by: Pirate88179 on April 06, 2011, 10:05:22 AM
thanks Rose

Im beddyby.  ;]    Im glad you see it also. I have improvements coming tomorrow.  ;D

Night Rose


Mags

I believe in what caps tell us.  Way more than a battery.  Very excellent work man, this is really great.

Bill
Title: Re: Rosemary Ainslie circuit demonstration on Saturday March 12th 2011
Post by: Rosemary Ainslie on April 07, 2011, 05:45:03 AM
Guys - my circuit is STILL down.  We've changed the functions generator and we've bought and replaced 2 FETS.  I've had no less than 3 people trouble shoot and - right now - no-one has resolved the problem.  We hopefully, have a really competent guy coming on Friday afternoon to look at what gives.   We are absolutely not able to get any energy onto the element.  Everything's flatlined except for the switch.  That's now working like an angel.  Which is why I'm STILL not able to report here.  Apologies.  There's a gremlin in the works.  We worked on this for 4 hours - again - last night - and still nothing.   Very odd and very frustrating.  The circuit is so simple.  The connections easily tested.  Everything seems as usual.  Yet we can't get anything to work - except now we can get that switch at full volume.  Definitely something was wrong with the previous functions generator as we could not get any significant voltage across the switch.

meanwhile all I can do is wait. 

Rosemary   
Title: Re: Rosemary Ainslie circuit demonstration on Saturday March 12th 2011
Post by: Rosemary Ainslie on April 07, 2011, 06:12:56 AM
Magsy - which is why I'm looking forward to - at least - getting some upbeat news from you.  I get it that the 'real life' applications of that circuit do not perform as expected by the sim.  Stefan's been saying this since the start of this thread.  All I know is that if you apply 'x' and then end up with 'x' plus anything at all - then that's unequivocally - from the system and not from the supply.  The argument is elegant.  And I'm not sure that anyone can contradict it.

What intrigues me is that your claim was immediately followed by a disclaimer.  Never missed a heartbeat.  And - predictably - it was from Poynty.  I'm of the opinion that there's a certain urgency creeping into this subject as OU evidence is becoming rather commonplace.  It's still being argued that the evidence is always based on poor measurement - and incompetent experimenters.  But in your case you can show the gain with a simple mulitmeter.  And I may be rightly described as an experimental clutz - but those that built and demonstrated this circuit - certainly are not.

But what really intrigues me is this.  Poynty denies that there is any oscillation through the battery.  This is why I'm committed to showing a waveform with the probes directly across those terminals.  Yet his own simulations show this exact waveform.  How can it be that my own waveforms are wrong yet the sim waveforms are right?  I just can't get my head around this.  In fact, from what I can see - the sim and real life experiment can both duplicate that wild and extended parasitic oscillation.  And that, really, was the object of that demonstration.  There is no question we showed a gain - even based on Poynt's need for AVERAGING - and even on really high wattage dissipation at the load.  But that oscillation results in two diametrically opposed waveforms - and when that is evident then the advantage is always to a level of energy efficiency that at it's least - exceeds classical allowance.

Anyway.  I'll need to get my setup set up.  Then I'll get back here.  And Magsy - yet again - I do not think that anyone will be able to contradict YOUR evidence.  At least we've got that.  I think we'd all enjoy seeing a video on this - but I know that it's time consuming and I also know that you guys fit in these experiments when and as you can.  So.  Again.  Very well done.  And, as ever, I'd be awfully grateful if you'd keep us posted here. 

Kindest,
Rosemary
Title: Re: Rosemary Ainslie circuit demonstration on Saturday March 12th 2011
Post by: Rosemary Ainslie on April 07, 2011, 03:39:42 PM
Hi guys,

Just had a brief excursion into OUR.com where sundry members are rollicking through post after post with the characteristic wild and ever urgent denial of any evidence of overunity on our circuit.  I see that the audience applaud all that really bad, psuedo scientific, argument.  And there's a general sense of hysteria as one after the other try one argument after another - to deny all our evidence.

At the moment they're rather pinning their hopes on the Poynt's call to average.  You can certainly average the results if you did not also switch that current.  And to refer to it as 'reflected' voltage - or anything at all - does not lessen the energy in that voltage.  But.  I keep advising them and they keep ignoring that advice.  GUYS - EVEN IF WE APPLY AND AVERAGE we get INFINITE COP. 

In any event.  They're unquestionably right.

IF we had used less sophisticated DSO's - then there would have been strong argument against the evidence.  As it is we use very sophisticated DSO's and that's now the basis of their denial.

IF we had averaged - then there would have been strong argument against the evidence.  As it is we did not use averages and yet that's the basis of their denial.

IF we had factored in inductance and reactance - then there would have been an even stronger basis for their denial as the numbers become even more beneficial.  And as we did not factor this in then that's become the basis of their denial. 

If we had only got a benefit from low wattage dissipation then that would have been the basis of their denial.  As it is we get benefit - infinite COP at both high and low wattage dissipation and yet this is the basis of that denial.

This result will only ever be considered valid IF - we eliminate all inductive/conductive material on the circuit - IF we do away with a battery supply source and ONLY use capacitors - and then ONLY AND IF we then measure something that conforms to classical prediction.

I suppose that's fair.  Or maybe not so much 'fair'.  Just COMPREHENSIVE.  Golly.

Kindest regards,
Rosemary
Title: Re: Rosemary Ainslie circuit demonstration on Saturday March 12th 2011
Post by: Rosemary Ainslie on April 07, 2011, 04:00:22 PM
Don^t worry meine liebe Rose.

 ;D

I'm a bit of a socialist myself.  LOL.
Title: Re: Rosemary Ainslie circuit demonstration on Saturday March 12th 2011
Post by: Doctor No on April 08, 2011, 02:28:33 AM
How do You think, when people come to the mind: 1. 10y. after last drop of oil will be pumped out 2. Barrel oil 》300 USD (next year) 3. After we drop 1 MT device on Fukushit (October).     Yours Dr Adolf
Title: Re: Rosemary Ainslie circuit demonstration on Saturday March 12th 2011
Post by: Rosemary Ainslie on April 08, 2011, 03:42:53 AM
Hi again Magsy.  It seems that there was an error in your calculations.  It's disappointing - but we're depending on your resilience and that all energetic intellect.  As woopy says - it's almost proof of OU all on its own.  I think we're all rather relying on you to find that invincible argument. So. Don't give up that elusive design.  It seems that our own is simply never going to cut it - certainly not on these forums.

And this is for Dr No.  The good news is that the price of petrol just keeps going north.  That's catalyst enough to change our dependencies.  It's not only toxic for the environment - but I think Nature Herself is working to put it out of reach.  I am reasonably certain that it's a simple thing to get energy back to the battery on motors - which means that it should be feasible to apply this to our electric cars.  In theory it would result in less battery weight to more energy out - and a longer duration of those batteries notwithstanding.

Until a day or so ago - I've rather tried to encourage others to think applications.  I sort of saw my own input as being restricted to my very limited knowledge.  But I've been discussing a very simple design configuration with a friend.  I'll sketch it and then photograph it and then see if I can manage to upload it here.  But it's a design I've referred to before.  And until I do this, here's a description - for those who care tp wrap their minds around it.

Two batteries in series - negative to positive and positive to negative.  Battery one has our circuit leading to the negative of battery two.  Battery two has our circuit leading to the positive of battery one.  Switches need to work in antiphase - and since it is evident that these oscillations do not depend on switching frequencies - then - also theoretically - it may work with a reed switch - and diodes across those switches.  Then.  As I see it - the one battery will also - always - discharge into the second to recharge it.  Surely that's a closed system?  Something like that.  Perhaps Magsy can see what he can do with this on a simulator.

Also.  I've now taken the trouble - yesterday - to inform an influential scientist at local government level - here in Cape Town.  A surprising level of interest.  Also surprising to me is that he had never even heard of our efforts here.  I forget that our contributions on the internet are still very much a minority thing and that the general public are ENTIRELY unaware of it.  It will be interesting to see where that discussion goes.  A lot of questions - a discussion spanning over an hour - and - dare I say it - a sense that there was enough residual interest to actually explore these claims of ours.  We'll see.  In the face of repeated disappointments - then I'm not sure I can invest in too much hope.  But without some hope I think that all our efforts here would be a complete waste of time.

Anyway.  That's the best I can manage for now.  Hopefully it's something to keep some heart and hope in these extraordinary reaches of ours.

Kindest regards,
Rosemary
Title: Re: Rosemary Ainslie circuit demonstration on Saturday March 12th 2011
Post by: Magluvin on April 08, 2011, 06:02:32 AM
Hey Rose

Its weird. A couple days ago I could wake up and knew that i had it.
Now, hmmm.   hmmmm.    but Im bouncing back.

We still gained positive ideas that is not widely known to all.
I see it has all been done before. Maybe not all.  ;]

As for your setup, there will be many that want to see those batteries charging.  Its common simple proving grounds. Like Steorn, even when some of the projects even worked at all, there was no real convincing. 
Perhaps if you concentrated on getting enough charge back to the batteries, to say get each one to be above 13v when the circuit is running, this would be a sure winner for you. Im not sure what you think on that kind of plan.
Small amounts of energy can be produced with a radiant energy charger ir a crystal radio. But most really want the beef.
So if we have an amplifier of the 3rd kind, the crystal radio can then be the source, because the amplifier of the 3rd kind has beef. Its the 3rd kind that will get quick notice.;]

 

Heck, I thought I might have had it. If the circuit used low inductance, the freq of operation with skimming, that would be impressive. lol I think I worried more about MORE and neglected important things.
But in your setup, now your at the point of more is better planning. ;]

My real issue was thinking my stages, by the 3rd stage took me over the top more than 2nd.  But what was happening is, I got stuck in to the habit of, when I only had to put 2 caps during testing in series, the outcome WAS 10uf to 5uf, divided by 2.   So when I got to the 3rd and 4th stages, instead of dividing how many caps,as there were more than 2, I relied on my habit of divide the total capacitance by 2.   ::)

The sim acts up with too much going on, switches open and closed everywhere and the sim doesnt like open ended diodes in the circuit with big things happening in connection with them. So I was doing stages independently.  Ant least we didnt waste months on it and still have more to do.  ;)

Lol  when point had posted that he saw 5uf and I saw 20uf, I drew it on papaer and bam, I new I was wrong.  So I thought quickly if I still had gain with 2 stages(4 caps to series), I made the same golly ;] mistake I had been making and quickly posted that I would post a solution at lunch.  Went home and spent 40min finding I was in
Disney Land from hell.  I was all day, what was I thinking!!! Stupid mistake. Should have put it together to make sure, but I was running the stages as a single stage in the sim, and just making my own conversions, with mistakes. Thats a sad story. lol

Thanks for everything Rose  =]
Im not goin anywhere. ;]

Mags
Title: Re: Rosemary Ainslie circuit demonstration on Saturday March 12th 2011
Post by: Rosemary Ainslie on April 08, 2011, 07:50:40 AM
Hi Magsy.  I had a bad night.  But I've got through it.  I can't run that test on batteries unless I buy another set - and I simply cna't afford it Mags.  And the batteries that were donated will take WAY too long to drain - if ever.  I haven't got the patience or the time or the interest to prove it that way.  My experience is that when we did give this as proof we weren't allowed to pubish the data.  So.  I've given up on using that argument.  But it SHOULD NOT BE REQUIRED.  The waveforms, the numbers, the evidence is absolutely as dependable as is required.  It's just that the facts are unpopular and therefore are being contended.   And that they're not even using valid argument is entirely lost on their readers.  It's all a bit disheartening and intellectually disgusting.  Still there's possibly some good financial compensation to wallow in all that disgusting intellectual abuse.

I know you'll bounce back Mags.  There's just way too much interest there.  Maybe you can try out that circuit I mentioned on your sim.  And please - DON'T ask for battery voltage to climb.  It's diametrically opposed to the thesis.  I just can't see how this can happen.  I can see it climbing fractionally - to its full potential.  But if a 12 volt battery climbed to 14 or 17 volts - as I've seen from a recharge - and it did it from our circuit - then it would also disprove the thesis at a very fundamental level.  It would be very bad news.  If that's the data that you guys are looking for - then it would be really bad news for me.

Anyway.  Take good care.  Hopefully you're already asleep and will read here when you wake up.

Kindest as ever,
Rosie
Title: Re: Rosemary Ainslie circuit demonstration on Saturday March 12th 2011
Post by: Rosemary Ainslie on April 08, 2011, 08:21:13 AM
I've sort of found my way to a really exciting thread guys.  Life may yet be worth living.  I'll post a link here if I can manage it.  Anyway it's that thread on cold fusion. 

GREAT NEWS
Rosmary

http://www.overunity.com/index.php?topic=10230.msg280805#msg280805
Title: Re: Rosemary Ainslie circuit demonstration on Saturday March 12th 2011
Post by: Poit on April 08, 2011, 08:45:23 AM
I've sort of found my way to a really exciting thread guys.  Life may yet be worth living.  I'll post a link here if I can manage it.  Anyway it's that thread on cold fusion. 

GREAT NEWS
Rosmary

http://www.overunity.com/index.php?topic=10230.msg280805#msg280805

When you finalise the open source of your project, you will post full schematics of the invention here.. right?
Title: Re: Rosemary Ainslie circuit demonstration on Saturday March 12th 2011
Post by: Rosemary Ainslie on April 08, 2011, 08:50:32 AM
When you finalise the open source of your project, you will post full schematics of the invention here.. right?

Poit?  Not sure which circuit you want.  I've always made full disclosure.  If you're talking about the one I outlined for Magsy - then I still need to sketch that and get some way to upload it here.  But the schematic is described.  Just two of those circuits of mine but two systems feeding - back to back - into two separate supplies.  I sort of see it as a closed system - and - just maybe - the principle will then be better explained. 

Let me know.  I'm not sure what you're asking.

Kindest,
Rosemary
Title: Re: Rosemary Ainslie circuit demonstration on Saturday March 12th 2011
Post by: b4FreeEnergy on April 08, 2011, 09:17:38 AM
…
Also.  I've now taken the trouble - yesterday - to inform an influential scientist at local government level - here in Cape Town.  A surprising level of interest.  Also surprising to me is that he had never even heard of our efforts here.  I forget that our contributions on the internet are still very much a minority thing and that the general public are ENTIRELY unaware of it ...
 
Hi Rosemary,

You could not have put it any better! As good as nobody reads on these forums. Nothing changed, you still get the ‘weird’ looks if you talk about even the ‘distant’ possibility of free energy.  Even worse, suppose I could build a free energy device put it into my car and drive to work with it. None of my colleagues would believe me if I proudly showed my special car to them …
 
By the way, did you had any reporting in the newspapers in Cape Town after your demonstration?
Anyway, I keep up hope and maybe one day it will finally happen that we use the technology we already seem to have for a rather long time iso hiding it!

Best regards, B
Title: Re: Rosemary Ainslie circuit demonstration on Saturday March 12th 2011
Post by: Rosemary Ainslie on April 08, 2011, 09:29:57 AM
Hello B.  So nice to see you around.  I have NOT managed to get any kind of newspaper report on this.  But there's some outside chance that there could be a program depending on the advices of just two experts.  If I can show them - and IF they see an anomaly - THEN... MAYBE.  It's all up in the air and I'm tired of living in the stratosphere.  But I'm pressing on pressing on.  Something's got to give - eventually.

Take good care B.

Kindest as ever,
Rosie
Title: Re: Rosemary Ainslie circuit demonstration on Saturday March 12th 2011
Post by: Rosemary Ainslie on April 08, 2011, 04:08:24 PM
Well Guys - we're up.  AT LAST.  Now I'll be able to get some decent arguments against Poynt's 'averaging' requirements - AND we'll be able to demonstrate this to our experts.  WHAT A PLEASURE.

I'll post plenty here later today and tomorrow.

Kindest as ever,
Rosemary
 

Title: Re: Rosemary Ainslie circuit demonstration on Saturday March 12th 2011
Post by: neptune on April 08, 2011, 05:44:01 PM
Hi Rosemary .You are in the middle of a difficult time .Just remember that the darkest hour is just before the dawn .I feel that if you still can not get your device working , the problem could still be in the Mosfets as not all mosfets are the same even if they are supposed to be . I was going to say that extraordinary claims need extraordinary proof , but I have been well and truly reprimanded by Wilby for saying that ! So unpopular claims will need extraordinary proof . I know how you like to stand on your own two feet ,but if you decide to start a collection for some smaller batteries , I hereby pledge £20 . It is funny you should mention cold fusion because I believe that is what will cause a massive shift in peoples perception .And that by the years end . Hows this for irony .Rolls Royce are building a massive new factory in the UK to manufacture parts for our new nukes .Hopefully it will be finished in time to make Rossi Nickel reactors!Rosie , above all keep the faith and be happy .
Title: Re: Rosemary Ainslie circuit demonstration on Saturday March 12th 2011
Post by: Rosemary Ainslie 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
Title: Re: Rosemary Ainslie circuit demonstration on Saturday March 12th 2011
Post by: Rosemary Ainslie 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 
Title: Re: Rosemary Ainslie circuit demonstration on Saturday March 12th 2011
Post by: cHeeseburger 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
Title: Re: Rosemary Ainslie circuit demonstration on Saturday March 12th 2011
Post by: poynt99 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
Title: Re: Rosemary Ainslie circuit demonstration on Saturday March 12th 2011
Post by: cHeeseburger 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
Title: Re: Rosemary Ainslie circuit demonstration on Saturday March 12th 2011
Post by: Rosemary Ainslie 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.
Title: Re: Rosemary Ainslie circuit demonstration on Saturday March 12th 2011
Post by: Rosemary Ainslie 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'. 

 :)
Title: Re: Rosemary Ainslie circuit demonstration on Saturday March 12th 2011
Post by: Rosemary Ainslie 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
Title: Re: Rosemary Ainslie circuit demonstration on Saturday March 12th 2011
Post by: cHeeseburger 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.
Title: Re: Rosemary Ainslie circuit demonstration on Saturday March 12th 2011
Post by: Rosemary Ainslie 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
Title: Re: Rosemary Ainslie circuit demonstration on Saturday March 12th 2011
Post by: cHeeseburger 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
Title: Re: Rosemary Ainslie circuit demonstration on Saturday March 12th 2011
Post by: nul-points 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 (http://docsfreelunch.blogspot.com)
 
Title: Re: Rosemary Ainslie circuit demonstration on Saturday March 12th 2011
Post by: twinbeard 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
Title: Re: Rosemary Ainslie circuit demonstration on Saturday March 12th 2011
Post by: evolvingape 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 :)

Title: Re: Rosemary Ainslie circuit demonstration on Saturday March 12th 2011
Post by: Rosemary Ainslie 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 (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. 
 
Title: Re: Rosemary Ainslie circuit demonstration on Saturday March 12th 2011
Post by: Rosemary Ainslie on April 09, 2011, 12:27:54 PM
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.

Hi Twin.  So IMPRESSED.  I never realised you'd had the good sense to disconnect from the grid.  I will follow in your footsteps when we can get our appliance onto our hot water requirements.  Can't wait.  But I'm miles away from that.  SO NICE TO READ THIS.  Well done. 

We've got those sealed battery numbers.  I'm just hoping against hope that we haven't buckled the plates.  It maybe ok as the plastic covers seem OK.  Just liberally impregnated with molten metal from our crocodile clips.  That was a wild 30 seconds or so. 

Take care and always a pleasure to see you around.

Kindest regards,
Rosemary
Title: Re: Rosemary Ainslie circuit demonstration on Saturday March 12th 2011
Post by: Rosemary Ainslie on April 09, 2011, 12:35:03 PM
Hello evolvingape.  I trust your general reach towards an evolutionary excellence is still on the cards?

I don't think I have EVER misrepresented our data.  But if I do - then I'm sure you'll tell me about it.  And I can rest easy here because you're prepared to tell us that we've misrepresented things EVEN when we HAVEN'T.  So.  I'll leave all this in your capable hands.

Look after yourself evolvingape.  We need your caliber of posting.  Reminds us all how far we've come in this long walk from the primitive to the rational mind.  Not sure which of the two you exemplify.  But either way - it's always a timely reminder of how far we still have to go.

Kindest regards,
Rosemary

 ;D  :o
Title: Re: Rosemary Ainslie circuit demonstration on Saturday March 12th 2011
Post by: evolvingape on April 09, 2011, 02:16:05 PM
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.

If you think that a deliberate and knowing omission of results in a published report intended to provide evidence to support a claim is not a misrepresentation of the facts then you do not understand the meaning of the word.

http://www.thefreedictionary.com/misrepresent

1. To give an incorrect or misleading representation of.


As a result of this deliberate omission of fact it has taken over 500 replies in this thread, and a considerable amount of peoples time, to resolve the matter and establish it was an artifact of the measurement process.

Furthermore, I notice you have resorted completely to personal attacks on myself and my avatar, yet again. No attempt to resolve issues, or honestly answer legitimate questions. Why ?

RM :)
Title: Re: Rosemary Ainslie circuit demonstration on Saturday March 12th 2011
Post by: Rosemary Ainslie on April 09, 2011, 02:49:20 PM
Hello again evolvingape.

I am not sure that I'm under any obligation anywhere at all to answer yours or anyone's posts.   Nor will I.

Rosemary
Title: Re: Rosemary Ainslie circuit demonstration on Saturday March 12th 2011
Post by: nul-points on April 09, 2011, 03:24:54 PM

...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)


hi Rosemary, glad to hear you didn't get burned

that was just a good-natured 'poke' at Poynt99  - imagining him trying to simulate your battery on fire


thanks for letting us know that the recent problem with the system isn't likely to be a component or equipment hazard for replicators

regards
np
 
 
http://docsfreelunch.blogspot.com (http://docsfreelunch.blogspot.com)
 
Title: Re: Rosemary Ainslie circuit demonstration on Saturday March 12th 2011
Post by: evolvingape on April 09, 2011, 05:46:48 PM

thanks for letting us know that the recent problem with the system isn't likely to be a component or equipment hazard for replicators

regards
np
 
 
http://docsfreelunch.blogspot.com (http://docsfreelunch.blogspot.com)

Hi np,

In my opinion it is not guaranteed that there is not a danger from this circuit being used with these types of battery.

If the claims to battery recharging are proven to be correct then this charging is also unregulated and could prove dangerous after extended periods of time.

I have personally seen, on more than one occasion, sealed maintenance free batteries that have EXPLODED shedding the casing and electrolyte everywhere. I have seen this because I was the engineer sent to clean up the mess and fix it.

This happened in regulated DC circuits under normal use.

So just be mindfull that these batteries are in no ways considered 100% safe, especially with an unregulated charging circuit operational.

RM :)
Title: Re: Rosemary Ainslie circuit demonstration on Saturday March 12th 2011
Post by: Rosemary Ainslie on April 09, 2011, 06:10:00 PM
Ok guys.  The following two downloads show the two different probe positions.  The one on the battery and the other on the breadboard.  I'll download and then point out which is which - if it's not obvious already.

PLEASE NOTE - both waveforms substantially the same.  Just a variation in volume, so to speak.

Strange little variation of the usual waveform.  I didn't bother to tune it.  I just took the first evidence of that extended oscillation.  So.  It's NOT optimised.  I'll fine tune it all again, when and if my batteries are tested.  Feeling a bit too nervous to use them at the moment because I'm not sure if the plates have been damaged.

Kindest regards,
Rosemary

Ok - peak to peak on the first is plus/minus 200 volts and the second is plus/minus 100 volts.  That's a pretty large difference.  I'll get back here with the spreadsheet data when I've done this.   

RESULTS on first      - 22.692908 watts (NOT SURE HOW TO SHOW A NEGATIVE WATTAGE) :o
RESULTS on second  - 14.514204 watts (STILL NOT SURE HOW TO SHOW THAT 'n' WORD.)


Heat dissipated on both tests show plus/minus 7 watts - but there's enough enough heat on the FET's and the heat sinks to possibly add another 7 watts.  So.  NEARLY THERE.

AND FINALLY - AS EVER
A channel 1 - CSR
B channel 2 - VBATT
C channel 3 - GATE
D channel 4 - DRAIN (here used for the math trace.  Math trace is product of CHANNEL 1 AND 2)
Title: Re: Rosemary Ainslie circuit demonstration on Saturday March 12th 2011
Post by: Rosemary Ainslie on April 09, 2011, 07:18:22 PM
hi Rosemary, glad to hear you didn't get burned

that was just a good-natured 'poke' at Poynt99  - imagining him trying to simulate your battery on fire


thanks for letting us know that the recent problem with the system isn't likely to be a component or equipment hazard for replicators

regards
np
 
 
http://docsfreelunch.blogspot.com (http://docsfreelunch.blogspot.com)
Hi again NP.  I actually thought you were alerting me to an intended replication by Poynty Point.   ::) I'm slow nul-points.  Really slow.  LOL.

Take care.  I've gone through that link again.   Very interesting.  Looking forward to the time when it's seen as the WHOLE of the evidence.  There's absolutely NO evidence of electrons forming current flow - anywhere.

Kindest as ever,
Rosemary.
Title: Re: Rosemary Ainslie circuit demonstration on Saturday March 12th 2011
Post by: cHeeseburger on April 09, 2011, 08:40:31 PM
Okay...two different tests, two radically different input power reports, same output heat in load.  Only difference in the two tests is where the probes were placed.

As a scientist, what does this tell you, Rosemary?  The probe placement is certainly not changing the performance of the actual circuit, is it?  Only changes the measurement.  Which of the two measurements is correct?  Both?  Neither?

You should really think hard about this essential question.  It is extremely key to solving the mystery here.  Far more important than any of the more detailed questions below.

There are three other questions that arise in my mind from looking at the scope pictures and the numbers you present.

1)  How do the wattage numbers you give relate to any of the numbers shown on the scope face?  Can you explain how the numbers are derived.  They don't seem to be related to the scope's reported numbers in any way I can see.

2)  I notice that the VV red multiply trace seems to never go above the zero line, yet the "battery" trace is always above zero and the other argument of the multiply, the shunt trace, goes both above and below zero.  So there are clearly times when both numbers being multiplied are positive, yet the product is always negative.  This doesn't make any sense.

3)  Is there a reason you are using Cycle Mean instead of  Mean on the current shunt trace?  What is that reason?

Humbugger
Title: Re: Rosemary Ainslie circuit demonstration on Saturday March 12th 2011
Post by: Pirate88179 on April 10, 2011, 08:26:22 AM
Rose:

Yes, it is spam and has been reported to Stefan.  It will be taken care of in due course.  I have deleted these posts in the areas that I can.  Stefan has been pretty busy as of late but, he will take care of it.

Bill
Title: Re: Rosemary Ainslie circuit demonstration on Saturday March 12th 2011
Post by: Rosemary Ainslie on April 10, 2011, 10:28:28 PM
Hi all.  Hope I got it.  The fire dragon bit the croc.
Title: Re: Rosemary Ainslie circuit demonstration on Saturday March 12th 2011
Post by: hartiberlin on April 10, 2011, 10:38:57 PM


2)  I notice that the VV red multiply trace seems to never go above the zero line, yet the "battery" trace is always above zero and the other argument of the multiply, the shunt trace, goes both above and below zero.  So there are clearly times when both numbers being multiplied are positive, yet the product is always negative.  This doesn't make any sense.



Yes, looks like the scope is set wrongly or is broken.

The red line should also go symmetrically around the zero line as the
orange shunt voltage line.

So the Multiplication channel is displaying wrong values.
Title: Re: Rosemary Ainslie circuit demonstration on Saturday March 12th 2011
Post by: Rosemary Ainslie on April 10, 2011, 11:04:10 PM
Yes, looks like the scope is set wrongly or is broken.

The red line should also go symmetrically around the zero line as the
orange shunt voltage line.

So the Multiplication channel is displaying wrong values.

Stefan - WHAT are you trying to say?  The math trace is the PRODUCT OF THE CSR AND THE BATTERY VOLTAGE.  It is showing that product over a 500 000 sample range.  It is absolutely consistent with the graph off the spreadsheet.  I have NO IDEA what you're objecting to.  Perhaps I should have shown the math trace more enlarged.  It most certainly 'goes around' the zero crossing if that's what's worrying you.

Why do I get the impression that you're supporting the vapid objections that Cheeseburger keeps posing?  The settings on the scope meter are ASBSOLUTELY  CORRECT.  Rather ask what they are than STATE that they're wrong.  Next time I'll take the trouble to down load all those settings and show them to you.  Good gracious.  It's one thing to check if they're right or wrong.  It's an entirely different thing to STATE that they're wrong.  If you know this much then you must state WHERE they're wrong.  It's Poynty's and Cheeseburgers enduring hope that there's a fault with the measurements.  Do you share this hope?  If so, as mentioned - I be very happy to disabuse you of any such hopes.  It's very easy to show all the settings on that little scopemeter.   When I've had those batteries checked out I will do so.

Again.
Rosemary
 
Added.

And may I add that IF they are WRONG then the TEKTRONIX is ALSO ALWAYS WRONG.  Its numbers were always consistent with the LeCroy.  And I doubt that either company would then be quite so ready to offer the guarantees of accuracy - if they could so easily be WRONG.   It seems that all measurements are WRONG and ONLY your 'impressions' are right?  It's curious.

Yet again
Rosemary
Title: Re: Rosemary Ainslie circuit demonstration on Saturday March 12th 2011
Post by: Rosemary Ainslie on April 10, 2011, 11:34:44 PM
And may I remind you that the whole purpose of that exercise was to PROVE that the voltage across the battery retains that same really robust oscillation that Poynty and you and Humbugger and just about all the detractors ASSURED the readers here - would - IN FACT - FLATLINE??  I think Poynty's term was 'ripple' which was, at best, a rather inadequate euphemism.   It most certainly DOES NOT FLATLINE and there is NO EVIDENT RIPPLE. 

I'm rather looking forward to an acknowledgement of this fact.  And I'm rather disappointed that it's not been forthcoming.  I've always claimed a real danger in posting on these forums.  One hopes for an impartial evaluation.  What I see is anxious denial wherever you so called experts can manage it and then - based statements that are really easy to disprove.  This claim of a 'ripple' is just one example.

May I again draw your attention to the phase angles of those voltages.  If you dig deep you'll resolve that 'zero crossing' at that point.

Rosemary
Title: Re: Rosemary Ainslie circuit demonstration on Saturday March 12th 2011
Post by: Rosemary Ainslie on April 11, 2011, 02:38:07 AM
Guys - I get it that we're all looking to find some means to defeat this energy crisis.  We're looking to the final depletion of all that oil that's fuelled our 1st world countries - certainly since the Industrial Revolution.  Its been the abundant source of energy that's provided our middle classes, globally with a rich and profligate excess of energy and wealth.  And without all that cheap fuel then we're looking to face up to certain really unwelcome austerities.  It will certainly introduce some chaotic instability in our financial and - probably also - in our social structures.

That's what these forums are all about - I would have thought.  That's on one level.  On the other level is the 'gathering' of some really good minds to see where and if we can exceed all those traditional constraints.  We all sort of share a quest to test some fundamental restrictions on the transfer of energy.

Then too we've also assumed that our forum owners are equally anxious to find such solutions.  Energetic Forum have dedicated whole chapters to this, as has Overunity Research and here on Stefan's forum.  But I wonder too - at the sincerity of that reach.  Does energetic forum simply advance the sale of some really bad science dressed up as some kind of esoteric answers to satisfy an eccentric fringe of society - and then enjoy that revenue?  And could it be that OUR.com is simply dedicated to denying the evidence of overunity - because that, in truth - is all it ever does?  And how committed is Stefan to finding solutions - when he too is so quick to deny the evidence on really, really thin grounds.  I think what I'm asking is this.  Stefan enjoys advertising revenues.  Would there be a continuing need for these or any forums if Overunity was proved?  Done and dusted?  I'm not so sure.

So.  I think the time has come that we put this sincerity to the test.  IF we are to take Stefan's credentials at face value then I'm entirely satisfied that he would be well able to measure and assess just about any experiment in order to evaluate its efficiency.  And IF he then finds any value that is, indeed, in excess of unity - then he would also be well able to promote some kind of application to capitalise on that technology.  More to the point.  One would expect him to bend over backwards to advance the use of that technology.  And in the light of the dire need for cheap and clean and green - then he would also be strongly committed to doing his damndest to make very sure that everyone within reach would hear of this.

Therefore -  this is a public CHALLENGE to him to get into a plane and come to Cape Town South Africa - and CHECK OUT OUR EXPERIMENTAL EVIDENCE.  The cost of that plane ticket will be a drop in the ocean compared to the potential return he should be able to make if there is even a 'grain' of truth in our claims.  As it is we've waived any rights to any kind of 'reward'.  Perhaps he can fund this from this budget.  This offer is made on the full understanding that he is free to progress this technology in any way he requires and that no-one on our team will challenge this right.  On the contrary.  We're rather anxious to promote it.  In the event that he takes this trip and then discovers that there is NO TRUTH in our evidence - then I will personally, here, undertake to refund him the cost of the plane trip. 

So.  Stefan Hartman - that's my offer.  It is all here for the viewing.  Come and see it.  What I've reported on these threads and on ALL these forums - IS PRECISELY THAT WE HAVE GOT INFINITE COP and that it is experimentally measurable and repeatable.  All you need to do is check out if we're telling the truth.  And if you are sincerely interested in advancing 'clean green' then I'm reasonably certain that you'd want to check out the facts.

May I remind you.  We are not talking about little dribbles of wattage.  It is EASILY able to produce enough energy to make applications immediately viable.  And you can come out ANY TIME YOU LIKE.  I would be able to accommodate you and your girlfriend - most comfortably - and you would then be able to spend as long as you want over that apparatus to determine its efficiency for yourself.

What I find absolutely reprehensible is that you continue with this DENIAL where you affront - not only my own veracity - but the competence of our team members.

Rosemary
Title: Re: Rosemary Ainslie circuit demonstration on Saturday March 12th 2011
Post by: cHeeseburger on April 11, 2011, 02:42:00 AM
And may I remind you that the whole purpose of that exercise was to PROVE that the voltage across the battery retains that same really robust oscillation that Poynty and you and Humbugger and just about all the detractors ASSURED the readers here - would - IN FACT - FLATLINE??  I think Poynty's term was 'ripple' which was, at best, a rather inadequate euphemism.   It most certainly DOES NOT FLATLINE and there is NO EVIDENT RIPPLE. 

I'm rather looking forward to an acknowledgement of this fact.  And I'm rather disappointed that it's not been forthcoming.  I've always claimed a real danger in posting on these forums.  One hopes for an impartial evaluation.  What I see is anxious denial wherever you so called experts can manage it and then - based statements that are really easy to disprove.  This claim of a 'ripple' is just one example.

May I again draw your attention to the phase angles of those voltages.  If you dig deep you'll resolve that 'zero crossing' at that point.

Rosemary


Please go back and read my posts again.  It has been acknowledged and your tests clearly show it, that the AC voltage you see on your battery measurement is a direct function of how much total wiring length is included in the loop.  When you removed 1/2 of the wiring, the AC voltage reduced in half.  I have suggested two ways to prove to yourself that essentially all of the AC voltage you see is across the wires and not across the batteries themselves.

You have not tried those tests or have not reported on them if you have.  Nor have you answered any of the straightforward questions I have asked.  Stefan and I have simply noticed that your multiply trace is showing negative results when both inputs are positive samples.  Does this not seem wrong to you?

Doesn't that fact that you get entirely different input power results when you move the scope probes around cause you to wonder which set of results, if either, is correct?  None of these observations is "vapid".  On the contrary, they are key observations that any scientist would need to address satisfactorily before basing conclusions thereon.

Humbugger
Title: Re: Rosemary Ainslie circuit demonstration on Saturday March 12th 2011
Post by: kEhYo77 on April 11, 2011, 06:40:15 AM
Yes, looks like the scope is set wrongly or is broken.

The red line should also go symmetrically around the zero line as the
orange shunt voltage line.

So the Multiplication channel is displaying wrong values.

IMHO the scope shots and measurement values seem fine. What is happening here is that there is limited display area reserved for each trace and what we see here is just clipping of the graphics. If you look at it closely, there is this boundary clipping line present in other traces as well not just the red one...
Title: Re: Rosemary Ainslie circuit demonstration on Saturday March 12th 2011
Post by: Rosemary Ainslie on April 11, 2011, 08:26:51 AM
Well - I've not lost sleep over it - but I'm wondering if I'll ever get an answer to that challenge.  If I don't then WHAT can we conclude?  I would have thought that it's a relatively easy thing to determine whether or not our claim is valid - whether or not the measurements are consistent with that claim - and whether or not those measurements are an accurate reflection of what is happening.  And in the light of all this INTEREST in over unity - I would have thought that Harti would be most anxious to confirm this - one way or another.  Surely it's not every day that experimenters can show COP infinity? 

So Harti.  How about it?  Surely the ONLY way forward now would be to see this for yourself.  That way you can put paid to our evidence - OR NOT.  Whichever becomes evident.  Just know that you will not be allowed to impose non classical assumptions.  We're depending on standard protocols for measurement.  Else like Poynty et al - you're just moving the goal posts.

And guys - Poynty has, indeed, done some tests.  What a joke.  Still not sure if it's a simulated test or a real bench test - but he's showing NOTHING.  Just claiming preliminary results which, predictably - are based on AVERAGING.  I wonder if anyone is ever going to advise him that NO self-respecting scientist would be prepared to base his reputation on averaging results from a switching circuit.  GROSSLY erroneous and yet drawing endless applause from his acolytes.  What's new?

Rosemary
Title: Re: Rosemary Ainslie circuit demonstration on Saturday March 12th 2011
Post by: Rosemary Ainslie on April 11, 2011, 08:57:14 AM
And may I add - I'm now becoming seriously concerned that these forums are NOT intended to promote but rather to frustrate over unity claims - under the banner excuse of 'extraordinary proof' required for 'extraordinary claim's.  I am entirely satisfied that Poynty's mission in life is to deny this on any and every basis that he wants and that MileHigh and Humbugger are equally well motivated.

Also Harti - you stated that our MEASUREMENTS ARE WRONG.  Kindly advise me WHERE they're wrong. That's a strong statement.  I just wonder that you can make it without some kind of ligitimate REASON.  One hopes that all this hard work of ours is not DIMINISHED on these forums by the careless or reckless assessment of respected members - without first ensuring some reasonable level of due diligence.  I hope that your intention is not to do this.  We who are honestly sharing our knowledge through open source - would be ill advised to publish any results here if we thought, for ONE MINUTE, that you were oblivious to the harm you could do us by such unprofessional and unsubstantiated statements.  One could almost think that you WANTED the math trace to remain below zero.  That you were looking for a reason to dismiss these results.  Surely not?  You always seem to want to explore all possible solutions to resolve our energy crisis.

ALSO - you seem to dispense with any attempt at politeness when you answer my posts.  I would have to first be entirely insensitive not to notice the RUDENESS of your address.  And it certinly is NOT just you manner - as I see you bend over backwards to extend a polite address to others.  Is there some justification to this?  I would have thought that my efforts would - at it's least - deserve something more thorough than that supeficial assessment followed by that complete dismissal?

So.  Let me - for now - assume that you're just inclined to be rather blunt - and let me see if I can emulate you.  If you think I'm lying then COME AND CHECK OUT THE FACTS FOR YOURSELF.  It'll cost you a plane ticket.  If you're wrong then you can make up the cost of that air ticket in promoting applications.  If you're right I'll refund you that cost.  I can't be fairer than that.

Rosemary     
Title: Re: Rosemary Ainslie circuit demonstration on Saturday March 12th 2011
Post by: cHeeseburger on April 11, 2011, 09:59:37 AM
I don't see any rudeness at all, not from Stefan, not from me, not from anyone.  All of us are just being factual and pointing out things that don't add up or make sense.  Everyone who has made comments critical of the measurements has given their reasoning and asked you to address specific questions, which you have ignored.

I have repeatedly suggested that you consult with a LeCroy or Tektronix Applications Engineer regarding your use of the scopes.  You ignore that advice.  What has been shown here lately is that the numbers you are getting for input power are hugely dependent on where you place your probes.  This should be a big red flag to you that tells you the measurements and results are not trustworthy.

Now you seem to be exploding into a tirade of rage and insults against Stefan just because he agreed with my observation that the scope math trace is clearly producing negative numbers when multiplying two positive samples.  That obviously is impossible and represents a gross error.  We don't know why that is happening but anyone who took second grade arithmetic knows that two positive numbers multiplied together cannot produce a negative product.

It would behoove you to talk to your oscilloscope manufacturer until the solution to this gross and obvious error is found and corrected.

Regarding using averages, you keep screaming that no scientist uses averages in switching circuits, yet every one of your scope traces is set up to report an average or "mean" of some type.  They always have been.  Your extensive spreadsheet math is also entirely intended to obtain an average value.

The only legitimate question is whether the averaging should be done before or after the multiplying.  In the case where the supply voltage is a fixed steady DC number as in your case using batteries, the question is moot.  You have just witnessed the fact that the AC voltage you are seeing "on the batteries" is directly proportional to the length of the battery wiring you include in the measurement.  That AC voltage is not part of the battery voltage and is entirely due to di/dt in the battery wiring itself.  It has no bearing on input power.

Don't keep killing the messengers, Rosemary.  The messages are what's important and they are real and true and quite valid.  Your measurements and results are not representing the actual power input of your setup.  Period.  You need to correct that if you are to attain any valid test results.

Humbugger
Title: Re: Rosemary Ainslie circuit demonstration on Saturday March 12th 2011
Post by: ltseung888 on April 11, 2011, 12:43:12 PM
Dear Rosemary,

Do not get frustrated.  You are working on resonance circuits which are difficult to understand and reproduce.  There will be unfamiliar waveforms.  Poynt99 and MileHigh totally dismissed my FLEET waveforms also - claiming that those are wrong and worthless.  They are NOT qualified and WRONG. 

Posting on the Internet is different from submitting to established academic journals.  In established academic journals, they have qualified reviewers.  Just ignore the comments on the Internet and continue your good work with your team.

The TRUTH cannot be suppressed forever.  You can check the Lee-Tseung Lead-out/bring-in energy theory thread at energetic forum for the detailed theory on LCR circuit resonance.  There is no mystery in your resonance circuit bringing-in electron motion energy.

Lawrence

Quote from: ltseung888;136963
Quick Summary of the three Divine Revelations

Revelation 1 – Bringing-in kinetic energy of air molecules.  This is the simplest of all the experiments and such experiments have been done thousands of times already.  Strike one tuning fork.  One or more identical tuning forks nearby will go into sympathetic vibrations.  The resulting sound is louder and last longer.  The extra sound energy comes from the kinetic energy of air molecules.  Resonance condition is required.  At present, this Revelation is used for theoretical understanding.  No product based on this Revelation is planned.

Revelation 2 – Bringing-in gravitational or magnetic energy.  A horizontally pulse-pushed pendulum can bring-in gravitation energy.  The COP for small angles is approximately 1.5.  So long as there is tension in the string, gravitational energy can be brought-in.  If we replace the pendulum bob with a magnet and place other magnets around, we can bring-in magnetic energy.  Magnetic energy is better because it can be greater, have different directions and can be turned on or off.  The oscillation can be replaced by pulsed rotation (resonance pulsing).  The secret is in the exact turning on and off of the pulsing that depends on the load.  Precision engineering and computer programming is needed for best results.  Examples include Tong, Newman, Bedini, Adams, Wang, Liang, 225 HP wheels, etc.

Revelation 3 – Bringing-in Electron Motion Energy.  We can use LCR circuits to produce resonance or oscillation circuits.  A LCR circuit can be thought of as a tuning fork.  We can have multiple LCR circuits in resonance and electron motion energy can be brought-in.  The use of two oscilloscopes to display Input and Output waveforms and Power simultaneously is best.  Examples include FLEET, Joule Ringer, Steven Mark Device, Stan Meyer HHO generator, Rosemary Circuit etc.  This line of products is expected to mushroom quickly as it has no moving parts and the size can be much smaller.:cheers:

With the three Divine Revelations, the mystery of Bring-in Energy devices is clarified.  The water has been turned into wine.  We just need more servers to interpret and produce products for the Masses.  Amen.
Title: Re: Rosemary Ainslie circuit demonstration on Saturday March 12th 2011
Post by: Rosemary Ainslie on April 11, 2011, 01:41:51 PM
Lawrence.  Thank you for your encouragement - but please do NOT assume that there is any similarity between your thinking and the thinking behind this circuit of ours.  They are diametrically opposed.  And I do not have the benefit of God's personal endorsement as you seem to enjoy.  For now the thesis is based on logical argument and NONE OF IT MINE.  I have just introduced some minor variations to a 'field' - that can, perhaps be considered non classical.

So.  I'm genuinely delighted to have your words of encouragement.  By the same token I am alarmed to think that you assume this is all intended  show whatever it is that you think is responsible for whatever over untiy your own circuit may have shown.  I absolutely do not agree that electrons have anything whatsoever to do with current flow.  For you to promote your own thinking here shows an entire disrespect for the work that I've done and the circuit that we've used to prove this.

Nor am I about to get into a dialogue with you on this.  It is entirely irrelevant to the interests of our forum members and - right now - I am trying to promote results that defy classical restraints.  That's hard enough to do - all on its own.  I've told you all this before.  Perhaps you could take the trouble to get more familiar with my own thinking here - starting with the attached.

Thank you
Rosemary

http://newlightondarkenergy.blogspot.com/2011/04/101-repost-of-8-inconvenient-truth.html

and here's another that may be more to the point

http://newlightondarkenergy.blogspot.com/2011/01/33-in-general-and-in-particular.html

And lest any of you read these links and think that I'm not a classicist - here's yet another.

http://newlightondarkenergy.blogspot.com/2010/11/belated-tribute-to-our-scientists.html
Title: Re: Rosemary Ainslie circuit demonstration on Saturday March 12th 2011
Post by: poynt99 on April 11, 2011, 03:53:15 PM
From Rose's blog:

"2 - I will not filter anything. It will interfere with that required oscillation. I realise that's what you and Poynty et al - require. I'm not about to oblige you."

Once again, solid technical advice is misinterpreted. Inserting a simple RC filtering circuit either off the battery voltage or CSR voltage measuring points will have very little effect, if any, on the circuit's oscillations.

To prove the point while monitoring with the scope probe, insert a RC network, and begin with a 10M resistor value. Incrementally decrease the value of the resistor say from 10M, 1M, 100k, 10k, 1k. Do the oscillations change at all?

.99
Title: Re: Rosemary Ainslie circuit demonstration on Saturday March 12th 2011
Post by: utilitarian on April 11, 2011, 04:41:34 PM
I absolutely do not agree that electrons have anything whatsoever to do with current flow. 

This part blows my mind a little bit.  I sort of figure that the entire reason we can even have this dis