Rosemary Ainslie circuit demonstration on Saturday March 12th 2011

[Rosemary Ainslie]

Rose,

I fully acknowledge and understand what the simulations are indicating. The real problem however, is that you clearly don't.

.99

lol  Exactly HOW do you acknowledge this?  By trying to tell us that power is Pi?  Or by AVE'ing - as you put it - the battery voltages?  Dear me Poynty Point.  You don't even have the intellectual muscle to work out the protocols of simple power analysis - and you PRESUME to tell me what you understand?  The truth is that you're something of a poseur - pretending to understand what you clearly don't.  It's a shame.  Because you're very good at those simulations and you're also very good at working out the circuit parameters from very little clues.  Still.  We all have our strengths and our weaknesses. Your weakness, MOST DECIDEDLY, is in trying to get your head around anything to do with POWER analysis.  And that's probably correctable - over time.  But it would be nice if you didn't also try and engage our members here with your own muddles.  It seems that those such as HAPPY and MR MAG are as ignorant as you are.

Unless, of course, all this is because you're overly anxious to misinform as many people as you possibly can that there is nothing unusual in those wild battery voltages.  But then you'll also be arguing against the evidence.  And, as I've said - the EVIDENCE always speaks loudest and last.  What continues to puzzle me is that you are so anxious to discount this?  Are you even prepared to UPEND known and required power measurement protocols simply to deny the evident gain?  You see it won't work.  Not when actual qualified analysts get to this question.  It's therefore fated to be a short term benefit.  Are you just buying time?  Is that it? 

Rosemary

[The Boss]

Why indeed?  You make a good point HAPPY.  We'll need to monitor those tests.  But that's the easy part.  I'll do the first solid 8 hour night shift - as that's likely to be the least popular.  Then I'll get someone to do the next 8 hour shift - and a third person to do the third 8 hour shift in every 24 hours.  We'll all have to 'hole in' because we won't be able to take a break for lunch or tea - or anything at all.  But that's no problem.  Provided only that we get to the solution.

Buy an inexpensive webcam for $25 or less, plug in your circuit and put it on any free live internet service for everyone to see it run forever as you claim.

No excuse for not doing that.

The Boss

[Pirate88179]

Rose:

I know this has been suggested before by me, and some others...but why not run your circuit from a single boostcap of say 3,000 Farad?  Yes, I realize that part of the magic of your circuit MAY depend upon something inherent inside those batteries, but, maybe it doesn't?

In other words, if you did this test, which would not take a very long time to do, and it works, then there you go.  IF it does not work, most here realize that it may indeed have to do with those batteries as part of the circuit.  So, a chance to win, and an chance to say we still don't know..inconclusive.

Myself, I believe it will work from a single supercap or boostcap.  (Available now for like $10.00 from Electronics Goldmine, 3,000 F.)

Just a suggestion is all.

Bill

PS In all of my experiments, I love these caps because they capture any and all high spikes and can output them as power...much better than any battery I have ever worked with.  I can charge a 2.7 v 650 F cap from my earth battery fully fairly quickly even though the EB only outputs like 1.9-2.0 volts.  On my scope you can see very high spikes that the cap is capturing, and, as seen in my videos, I can use this power to run almost anything.

[Rosemary Ainslie]

Rose:

I know this has been suggested before by me, and some others...but why not run your circuit from a single boostcap of say 3,000 Farad?  Yes, I realize that part of the magic of your circuit MAY depend upon something inherent inside those batteries, but, maybe it doesn't?

In other words, if you did this test, which would not take a very long time to do, and it works, then there you go.  IF it does not work, most here realize that it may indeed have to do with those batteries as part of the circuit.  So, a chance to win, and an chance to say we still don't know..inconclusive.

Myself, I believe it will work from a single supercap or boostcap.  (Available now for like $10.00 from Electronics Goldmine, 3,000 F.)

Just a suggestion is all.

Bill

Hi Pirate.  I'm knee deep at the moment.  But a friend of mine has brought a capacitor here for precisely this test.  We've just not got around it to yet.  Probably next week and after the paper is submitted. 

Take care Bill,
Kindest regards,
Rosemary

[Rosemary Ainslie]

Guys here's an extract from the paper dealing with this.  Hopefully it'll make it more understandable.  And if the description needs further clarification  - THEN PLEASE ADVISE ME.  I can no longer tell if anything I write makes any kind of sense at all.   

Under normal conditions, the discharge of current from a battery supply source is determined from a voltage that is greater than zero. This is then commensurate with an expected and measured drop in the voltage from that supply depending on the rate of current flow.  Correspondingly, when a counter or negative flow of current is applied relative to that supply, as for example, through a standard battery charger, then the voltage over the battery supply increases, again depending on the rate of current flow. However, what is evident during this oscillation period is that the negative flow of current results in a marked increase in the battery voltage rather than the expected increase. And correspondingly, the positive discharge of current flow results in the marked decrease in battery voltage rather than the expected decrease.

The explanation for this is that the battery voltage that is measured across the terminals includes the sum of the two opposing potentials that are induced from counter electromotive force from collapsing fields in the circuit material, evident during each oscillating cycle. Effectively a negative applied voltage from the circuit material increases the voltage of the battery supply above its actual potential and, likewise the positive applied voltage from the circuit material then decreases the voltage of the supply below its actual potential. Therefore does the potential difference resulting from that circuit material, impose itself on the measured voltage across the battery to exceed or diminish that supply above or below its actual rated potential. And precisely because the voltages measured across the battery then exceed their rated potential the evidence is that the energy or potential difference responsible for this oscillation, is extraneous to the supply. In as much as this oscillation is also evident on simulations it obviates the signal generator as the source of this extra energy. Therefore the only other viable source for the extra energy is from the circuit material itself as a result of its induced potentials.

In as much as the battery voltage swings in both directions both above and below its rated potential, then, as mentioned, the evidence is that the circuit is imposing two opposing potentials in each cycle. But the resulting current flow, from those collapsing fields, retains the justification of that applied voltage. In each cycle, the voltage across the current sensing resistor first moves a negative value indicating a recharge to the supply. Then at a critical level determined by the level of counter electromotive force, it again reverses to move back to a positive value consistent with a discharge of current flow from the supply.

Computation of wattage is based on the product of voltage and amperage over time or vi dt. But standard protocols have assumed a single supply source to the circuit. The measure of the potential difference from these induced voltages on the circuit cannot be precisely established except as it relates to the battery supply source. However, it is correctly represented as the sum of the voltages that are now evident in the oscillations measured across the battery supply. Therefore vi dt is the correct measure of energy delivered to and from that supply, incorporating, as it does, the sum of both the applied potential difference from the circuit and from the supply.


SORRY ALL - It doesn't help that I transposed the increase to decrease and vice versa.  it's now fixed.