Rosemary Ainslie circuit demonstration on Saturday March 12th 2011

[Rosemary Ainslie]

Ok guys.  I really need to move on.  What I've done is this.  I can't take a photo of the set up as it is at the moment because my other computer has been rifled and doctored with a virus.  And that holds my photobucket software.  But what I have done is a whole lot of tests to see if I can explain this.  NOTA BENE ALL.  The ground of the signal generator is MOST CERTAINLY at the point marked B on the video.  In other words it's BEFORE THE CSR.  And by the way - it makes not an ounce of difference if it's there or if it's positioned as shown in our DEMO diagram. So.  Right now the CSR is precisely in series with and on the same rail as the negative terminal of the battery supply which then conforms to my circuit variation of 'a poynted revision' shown earlier.

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

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

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

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

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

Kindest regards,
Rosie   

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

edited.  Added comments and corrected the spelling - I hope. 

[poynt99]

The ground of the signal generator is MOST CERTAINLY at the point marked B on the video.  In other words it's BEFORE THE CSR.  And by the way - it makes not an ounce of difference if it's there of it's its positioned as shown in our DEMO diagram.

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

.99

[poynt99]

The ground of the signal generator is MOST CERTAINLY at the point marked B on the video.  In other words it's BEFORE THE CSR.  And by the way - it makes not an ounce of difference if it's there or if it's positioned as shown in our DEMO diagram. So.  Right now the CSR is precisely in series with and on the same rail as the negative terminal of the battery supply which then conforms to my circuit variation of 'a poynted revision' shown earlier.

Regarding the CSR, that is incorrect. You may wish to review your own diagram of the as-built circuit (attached).

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

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

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

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

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

.99

[poynt99]

I am sure there is no need for your arrogant demanding queries.

Ron, do I have a quarrel with you? If not, kindly back off sir.

Why don't you mock up the circuit in real hardware and report your actual findings here?

Perhaps you might take the trouble to ask if this is already in the works before assuming it isn't. I'm waiting for some MOSFETs to arrive, as I could not locate my spare. btw, why haven't you posted your build and test results?

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

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

Ron

Have I missed your technical contributions in this thread?

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

Thanks,
.99

[i_ron]

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

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

Good work Rosemary!

Look forward to the morning.

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

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

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

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

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

Warm wishes

Ron