Rosemary Ainslie circuit demonstration on Saturday March 12th 2011

[Rosemary Ainslie]

And here is my own ham fisted attempt at explaining that MOSFET positioning.  Until I draw this for Groundloop - it's the best I can do.

The standard NFET is designed to trigger a positive current by applying a positive charge at the gate.  I don't know anything about PFET's.  But I believe it, conversely, is designed to trigger a negative current by applying a negative charge at the gate.  I am open to correction but PROVIDED that this is the case, by which I mean, provided that a PFET works in antipolarity to the NFET - then that's what we've done.  We've effectively transposed the Gate that it reads the NEGATIVE charge as required to allow the NEGATIVE CURRENT FLOW from the source and from the collapsing fields during the 'off' period of the duty cycle.

I'm reasonably sure this is correct because what we've done is applied the positive of the lead from the functions generator to Q1 and the ground from that same lead - directly to the gate of Q2.  In effect - while the source and ground of Q1 and Q2 are connected - they're also operating as if they were separate. 

What is surprising is this.  There is precisely as much energy or current flow that is enabled to flow anticlockwise through the circuit as there is energy or current flow that is enabled to flow 'clockwise'.  And this is where the early 'thinking' kicks in.  The whole reason for this circuit configuration is to somehow expose the 'hidden' energy supply source that was available in the circuit materials.  Therefore - if there is this excess, then perhaps that is where it comes from.  And that hidden supply is now given the required 'path' that it can actually do some work.

Then it also means that we need to 'enable' that energy.  I know that most of you configure your circuits that they're made of rather thin wire.  I have found that thick copper wire DEFINITELY enhances the effect.  In other words - I think it's best to design your circuit with a liberal use of this.  And I can't say that it's actually 'enhanced' as much as it seems to give results a better repeatability.  I remember that when we used the 555 switch - results were haphazard - albeit beneficial.  But with this rather robust apparatus that we're experimenting with at the moment - results are certainly repeatable and that's heartening.

Then.  It's still early stages but the indications are that it's possibly preferred to increase the frequencies.  At that last setting - from memory - we were switching at a frequency of 8.1 Hertz.  Perhaps someone here can work out the actual frequency from that last screen download.  That's not really that fast and certainly doable.  But the actual frequency of the oscillation itself obviously is greater than this.  But that finds it's own pace, so to speak, from the circuit itself.

About the load that you use.  We all - earlier - assumed that the greater the inductance the better.  This is wrong.  It seems that it is FAR preferable to reduce the inductance rather than increase it.  For some reason this seems to increase the efficiency of that heat that is generated across the load.  The size of the load will depend on the size of the batteries that you use.  If you're looking to use small batteries then I think it may be preferred to 'reduce' the amount of material in the resistor.  I only say this because I know we're using some hefty capacity.  That means it's potentially storing an equally hefty amount of energy.  But we're also able to induce a returned energy that is equal to whatever is supplied.  The idea is that this easily induces the potential difference over the circuit.  I wonder if it's possible that with too little energy from the supply against too much material from the circuit - that there could be a switch in balance of that transfer that then results in a loss rather than a benefit to the supply.  I don't know.  I'm just voicing something that you may want to look into.

Finally I know that there is more than enough interest here to get replications up.  I actively dissuaded this earlier because I did not want to make those oscillations public.  But right now, as this information is 'out' then it's preferable that this is actively explored.  I'm reasonably certain that you'll all find your own preferred frequencies as each circuit will find it's own preferred oscillation.  It's intimately related to the quantities of material related to the circuit components - and, as mentioned, possibly also to the supply.

And for those of you who may have functions generators.  This is a really easy way to show this benefit.  But I have a friend who is trying out a circuit without this.  And as soon as I have that circuit design, certainly by not later than the weekend - then I'll post it - or I'll ask him to post it.

Kindest regards,
Rosemary 

[i_ron]

    IRFPG50 Mosfets can be bought on Ebay from Hong Kong .

But can they be trusted?

"We have previously talked about the issue of fake IC’s.  The problem continues to get worse, and is making more and more press.  Almost 10,000 incidents of fake ICs were recorded by the commerce department in the US in 2008 (the most recent stats available). Each ‘incident’ is usually several thousand IC’s.  Over 2 million fake IC’s are seized per years, on average one shipment per hour of fake IC’s is caught and seized.  How many slip through is anyones guess, and likely much higher."

http://www.cpushack.com/2010/09/13/the-increasing-threat-of-fake-ics/

Ron

[Laurel]

Guys - I need to share something with you all - at the risk of boring you all to tears.  I have, once before, actively assisted in bringing a replication to full on view and proof here on these forums.  What happened was I was persuaded that all parties involved were, indeed, active in their promotion of any new and challenging scientific truths.  What I did, deliberately, was allow them to take over the commentry - and I did this, thinking that they would then use their skills to promote this.

To my horror - what actually happened, and that with relative ease, was at the conclusion of that 'replication' I was attacked as if I were some kind of harbinger from hell.  There was a brutal attempt made to separate me from this work.  Not a bad thing, in and of itself.  Indeed, I'd welcome it.  But this was then coupled with a DENIAL of any benefits in this technology and the systematic removal of the results from public view.  You will remember - perhaps - how Ashtweth advised all and sundry - in terms that were utterly degrading - if somewhat inarticulate - that I was NOT TO BE TRUSTED.  And this was followed by Fuzzy's absurdly colourful links and rather immoderate statements - painted loud and in colour - also followed by terse commentary that was certainly as inarticulate as Ashtweth's.  Both showed a certain need for a more liberal use of a spell check and a basic schooling in simple grammer.  But the truth is that any thinking person would be well able to discern those excesses.  And certainly their arguments were based on entirely unsubstantiated allegation. 

BUT IT WORKED.  NOTWITHSTANDING.  That's the point.  Threads were no sooner opened than they were locked. Fuzzy rifled my photobucket - found out which institution was opening their labs to a review of these results - and then wrote to the parties concerned to advise them that I was stealing his technology and that I had no rights to refer to any paper at all.  Can you, for a minute, just picture the damage this did?  Fortunately those people who were approached - did their own review of the facts and those communications were dismissed - in their entirety.  But that delayed things as our own project was replaced with others during that interval where they considered things.  And I was left for the most part of that year without the supervision that would otherwise have been relegated.  Then.  As if that wasn't enough Laurel and Harvey systematically approached and still do approach - each and every member who shows/showed interest in this technology - on their private messaging system to advise them that I was/am a liar and that this technology was/is a hoax. 

Eventually the only voice I still had was on Poynty's forum.  But there were no threads unlocked - for my easy access - to discuss any developments at all.  I was now on campus - full time -and had much to share.  But my hints were ignored.  And now I was now hounded by MileHigh, Pickle and anyone who chose to to say exactly what they wanted.  There was no attempt to moderate and when I appealed to Poynty to do something was told that I should just 'cope'.  Eventually I deregistered and - then - they went through that fiasco of abusing their knowledge of my internet address to lock me out of view of their threads while they discussed me at leisure.  I then wrote Poynty to advise him that this was certainly immoral if not illegal and that I would take action.  Whereupon he wrote me the most scathing of some many scathing emails that I've been in receipt of - to advise me that I am 'a fool' and that I am 'not a scientist'. 

Now.  This is and was really the point where there was a serious breach in our relationship.  But I am only interested in the technology.  I really don't care what part I play in this.  And until these last interventions - I sincerely supposed that Poynt was looking to find the 'truth'.  We all know he's talented.  We also know that he's very interested.  And he certainly, at it's least, also acknowledged those results on his simulator.  So.  There was hope.  BUT.  With these interventions into my computer - with these ridiculous attempts to separate me from my posts - with these endless references to entirely irrelvant schematics - with a fence straddling that should be doing him some serious physical damage - with this dialogue that presumes the RIGHT to question everything and SAY nothing - with the tolerance of some seriously questionable posts on his forum - with the laughable denial of my own answers - THEN WHAT?  It would be reckless IN THE EXTREME to allow him license to take over this thread.  And that's what I'm needing.  I DO NOT HAVE THE TIME TO SPEND HERE.  I don't have the skills that you guys are looking for.  I need someone and - right now I don't know where to turn. 

If I felt for one minute that there could be someone who could take over here then I could fade out.  I have NEVER wanted 'fame' - certainly I don't want any more notoriety.  It's no fun seeing the kind of extreme venom that results from all this polarised opinion.  And more to the point.  I'm just not that well.  I don't have the energy levels needed to protect this technology.  And again.  What I'm seriously frightened for is that this fragile 'early' knowledge is then appropriated by anyone at all who then tries to 'make it their own' - as was attempted in that earlier replication. 

So.  My earnest request to you all is this.  PLEASE.  Ignore Poynt's posts.  They are made in the sincere effort to flaunt a disrespect for me that they can then appropriate the technology AS REQUIRED.  Just bear in mind that I do no-one any harm.  I have unfolded some knowledge that has been hidden from convention because of certain 'mind sets' related to energy transfer.  And my abilities at logic are really good.  Nor does one need training for this.  Just common sense.  I am deserving of considerably more respect than either he or Pickle allow and considerably more than the poisonous slurs that they indulge in on their forum.  But this appeal to discount his endless commentaries is not made on this basis.  It's made on the basis that I sincerely doubt that he intends progressing anything at all.  I suspect he has a mandate.  And I'm sure he will champion that in favour of any genuine admission.  And I see an entirely immoral and opportunistic use of whatever he needs to - to reach that object.  And then - as happened before - he'll position himself to deny everything. I don't think this technology will survive another such attack.

Kindest regards,
Rosemary

ADDED

Dear Rosemary,
                   What is it going to take for you to leave Harvey and Laurel's names OUT OF YOUR COMMENTS on and off the forums? We are not having anything to do with you or your technology. I have sent YOU private e-mails asking you to LEAVE US ALONE! I guess our request now needs to be put out in the open for all to see that we have been requesting this from you for a long time now.
                 So Stefan, will you PLEASE let OUR REQUEST be made known to the readers of your forum in this thread that we just want Rosemary to LEAVE US ALONE. We have tried to be tactful in requesting this of Rosemary on a private level but it is not working.

Laurel

[Magluvin]

They have them at Newark..  I get stuff from them all the time.
http://www.newark.com/jsp/search/productdetail.jsp?id=06F7972


Mags

[poynt99]

4 potential candidates as an alternative to the IRFPG50.

These are available from Digikey:

1) STP16NK60Z (Digikey P/N: 497-4372-5)
2) STP10NK60Z (Digikey P/N: 497-4117-5)
3) NDFO8N60GZ (digikey P/N: NDFO8N60ZG05)
4) IPW60R190C6 (digikey P/N: IPW60R190C6)

These are all 600V parts with varying current and voltage limits. I tried to find some with a relatively high Gate charge required and high Ciss. The ON resistance is a challenge in that most are relatively low compared to the IRFPG50, but this may not be an issue. I suspect that many if not all alternatives may oscillate at a much higher frequency due to their lower capacitance specs, so that may be a problem.

Will have to try a few as Ron mentioned, and see what works best.

.99