Rosemary Ainslie circuit demonstration on Saturday March 12th 2011

[hartiberlin]

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.

[Rosemary Ainslie]

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

[Magluvin]

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

[Rosemary Ainslie]

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

[cHeeseburger]

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