Rosemary Ainslie circuit demonstration on Saturday March 12th 2011

[Pirate88179]

I poynted out that the poll topic started by Poynt has 7 questions...one of which is positive, one is neutral, and the other five are negative.  Sounds a little biased to me.  Pollsters frequently do this when they want the results to match their prior beliefs so they can justify them.

Bill

[Groundloop]

@All,

I have made a new drawing of the RA switch based on email information from Rosemary.
The function generator signal input is on the gate at Q1 and the reference of the function generator
is on the gate on Q2 etc. The shunt resistors are in series with the minus rail on the batteries.

GL.

[poynt99]

Just stop trying to tell us what that truth is.  You clearly ignore even the truth of your own simulation results.  I’m not sure that you’re equal to this particular truth.

The truth is that your inability to understand what you are looking at and measuring on your oscilloscope, is what is keeping you from seeing the truth about this apparatus.

I'll try to spell it out for you Rose:

Those "results" in the simulation are very similar to your "results". Granted, and I am delighted that you see that and agree with that. However, you should know that a simulation of a real circuit could never truly provide overunity results. The simulations I have run of your circuit, (including the slight variations I've come up with) DO NOT in reality indicate an overunity result.

The "results" I have shown in the simulation using the same measurement as yours, are no more "overunity" (or COP>1) than they would be if you were to place one scope probe on the Vbat 60V (or 72V) battery feed as before, but for the second probe you placed it across one of the batteries in reverse (with an isolated probe so as not to ground-short the system). If you now multiplied these two probe voltages together (60V x -12V), then applied a MEAN function, you would have a "result" equating to approximately -720W appearing to go back into the battery!

The truth is that this "result" is not representative of anything meaningful at all. It is simply an arbitrary figure obtained by multiplying one relevant voltage by one irrelevant voltage, and that is precisely what is going on with your measurement (and mine in the sim).

I have shown with the simulation results, that there is simultaneously a "result", and a true result. The true result was obtained by using the built-in wattage probe placed directly on the battery. The meaningless "result" was obtained by multiplying the battery voltage, by the CSR voltage as it is incorrectly placed and connected in your circuit. These two results are miles apart, and only one is correct.

.99

[poynt99]

I poynted out that the poll topic started by Poynt has 7 questions...one of which is positive, one is neutral, and the other five are negative.  Sounds a little biased to me.  Pollsters frequently do this when they want the results to match their prior beliefs so they can justify them.

Bill

I stated that I would add any selections that are required. I am giving you license to influence the poll as you wish, as long as the selection is not a repeat of what is already there.

.99

[Pirate88179]

Those were supplied as requested.  They were ignored.  None of the supplied questions were repeats of the existing questions.  They just were not biased toward the negative like the originals.

Bill