Rosemary Ainslie circuit demonstration on Saturday March 12th 2011

[cHeeseburger]

And may I remind you that the whole purpose of that exercise was to PROVE that the voltage across the battery retains that same really robust oscillation that Poynty and you and Humbugger and just about all the detractors ASSURED the readers here - would - IN FACT - FLATLINE??  I think Poynty's term was 'ripple' which was, at best, a rather inadequate euphemism.   It most certainly DOES NOT FLATLINE and there is NO EVIDENT RIPPLE. 

I'm rather looking forward to an acknowledgement of this fact.  And I'm rather disappointed that it's not been forthcoming.  I've always claimed a real danger in posting on these forums.  One hopes for an impartial evaluation.  What I see is anxious denial wherever you so called experts can manage it and then - based statements that are really easy to disprove.  This claim of a 'ripple' is just one example.

May I again draw your attention to the phase angles of those voltages.  If you dig deep you'll resolve that 'zero crossing' at that point.

Rosemary

Please go back and read my posts again.  It has been acknowledged and your tests clearly show it, that the AC voltage you see on your battery measurement is a direct function of how much total wiring length is included in the loop.  When you removed 1/2 of the wiring, the AC voltage reduced in half.  I have suggested two ways to prove to yourself that essentially all of the AC voltage you see is across the wires and not across the batteries themselves.

You have not tried those tests or have not reported on them if you have.  Nor have you answered any of the straightforward questions I have asked.  Stefan and I have simply noticed that your multiply trace is showing negative results when both inputs are positive samples.  Does this not seem wrong to you?

Doesn't that fact that you get entirely different input power results when you move the scope probes around cause you to wonder which set of results, if either, is correct?  None of these observations is "vapid".  On the contrary, they are key observations that any scientist would need to address satisfactorily before basing conclusions thereon.

Humbugger

[kEhYo77]

Yes, looks like the scope is set wrongly or is broken.

The red line should also go symmetrically around the zero line as the
orange shunt voltage line.

So the Multiplication channel is displaying wrong values.

IMHO the scope shots and measurement values seem fine. What is happening here is that there is limited display area reserved for each trace and what we see here is just clipping of the graphics. If you look at it closely, there is this boundary clipping line present in other traces as well not just the red one...

[Rosemary Ainslie]

Well - I've not lost sleep over it - but I'm wondering if I'll ever get an answer to that challenge.  If I don't then WHAT can we conclude?  I would have thought that it's a relatively easy thing to determine whether or not our claim is valid - whether or not the measurements are consistent with that claim - and whether or not those measurements are an accurate reflection of what is happening.  And in the light of all this INTEREST in over unity - I would have thought that Harti would be most anxious to confirm this - one way or another.  Surely it's not every day that experimenters can show COP infinity? 

So Harti.  How about it?  Surely the ONLY way forward now would be to see this for yourself.  That way you can put paid to our evidence - OR NOT.  Whichever becomes evident.  Just know that you will not be allowed to impose non classical assumptions.  We're depending on standard protocols for measurement.  Else like Poynty et al - you're just moving the goal posts.

And guys - Poynty has, indeed, done some tests.  What a joke.  Still not sure if it's a simulated test or a real bench test - but he's showing NOTHING.  Just claiming preliminary results which, predictably - are based on AVERAGING.  I wonder if anyone is ever going to advise him that NO self-respecting scientist would be prepared to base his reputation on averaging results from a switching circuit.  GROSSLY erroneous and yet drawing endless applause from his acolytes.  What's new?

Rosemary

[Rosemary Ainslie]

And may I add - I'm now becoming seriously concerned that these forums are NOT intended to promote but rather to frustrate over unity claims - under the banner excuse of 'extraordinary proof' required for 'extraordinary claim's.  I am entirely satisfied that Poynty's mission in life is to deny this on any and every basis that he wants and that MileHigh and Humbugger are equally well motivated.

Also Harti - you stated that our MEASUREMENTS ARE WRONG.  Kindly advise me WHERE they're wrong. That's a strong statement.  I just wonder that you can make it without some kind of ligitimate REASON.  One hopes that all this hard work of ours is not DIMINISHED on these forums by the careless or reckless assessment of respected members - without first ensuring some reasonable level of due diligence.  I hope that your intention is not to do this.  We who are honestly sharing our knowledge through open source - would be ill advised to publish any results here if we thought, for ONE MINUTE, that you were oblivious to the harm you could do us by such unprofessional and unsubstantiated statements.  One could almost think that you WANTED the math trace to remain below zero.  That you were looking for a reason to dismiss these results.  Surely not?  You always seem to want to explore all possible solutions to resolve our energy crisis.

ALSO - you seem to dispense with any attempt at politeness when you answer my posts.  I would have to first be entirely insensitive not to notice the RUDENESS of your address.  And it certinly is NOT just you manner - as I see you bend over backwards to extend a polite address to others.  Is there some justification to this?  I would have thought that my efforts would - at it's least - deserve something more thorough than that supeficial assessment followed by that complete dismissal?

So.  Let me - for now - assume that you're just inclined to be rather blunt - and let me see if I can emulate you.  If you think I'm lying then COME AND CHECK OUT THE FACTS FOR YOURSELF.  It'll cost you a plane ticket.  If you're wrong then you can make up the cost of that air ticket in promoting applications.  If you're right I'll refund you that cost.  I can't be fairer than that.

Rosemary     

[cHeeseburger]

I don't see any rudeness at all, not from Stefan, not from me, not from anyone.  All of us are just being factual and pointing out things that don't add up or make sense.  Everyone who has made comments critical of the measurements has given their reasoning and asked you to address specific questions, which you have ignored.

I have repeatedly suggested that you consult with a LeCroy or Tektronix Applications Engineer regarding your use of the scopes.  You ignore that advice.  What has been shown here lately is that the numbers you are getting for input power are hugely dependent on where you place your probes.  This should be a big red flag to you that tells you the measurements and results are not trustworthy.

Now you seem to be exploding into a tirade of rage and insults against Stefan just because he agreed with my observation that the scope math trace is clearly producing negative numbers when multiplying two positive samples.  That obviously is impossible and represents a gross error.  We don't know why that is happening but anyone who took second grade arithmetic knows that two positive numbers multiplied together cannot produce a negative product.

It would behoove you to talk to your oscilloscope manufacturer until the solution to this gross and obvious error is found and corrected.

Regarding using averages, you keep screaming that no scientist uses averages in switching circuits, yet every one of your scope traces is set up to report an average or "mean" of some type.  They always have been.  Your extensive spreadsheet math is also entirely intended to obtain an average value.

The only legitimate question is whether the averaging should be done before or after the multiplying.  In the case where the supply voltage is a fixed steady DC number as in your case using batteries, the question is moot.  You have just witnessed the fact that the AC voltage you are seeing "on the batteries" is directly proportional to the length of the battery wiring you include in the measurement.  That AC voltage is not part of the battery voltage and is entirely due to di/dt in the battery wiring itself.  It has no bearing on input power.

Don't keep killing the messengers, Rosemary.  The messages are what's important and they are real and true and quite valid.  Your measurements and results are not representing the actual power input of your setup.  Period.  You need to correct that if you are to attain any valid test results.

Humbugger