Rosemary Ainslie circuit demonstration on Saturday March 12th 2011

[Rosemary Ainslie]

And this is the smallest number I can show with two complete waveforms on the one and an incomplete on the other.  Sorry about that.

Hope that puts this to bed FOREVER.

[poynt99]

These worthy posts from Hum have most likely been missed (due to a delay in the admin posting them), so I shall reference them here.

http://www.overunity.com/index.php?topic=10407.msg281320#msg281320
http://www.overunity.com/index.php?topic=10407.msg281327#msg281327

.99

[Rosemary Ainslie]

And this is for Mookie, Pickle, MileHigh and those many others who share Poynty's mandate.  When and If I see a public retraction of those allegations against my sanity and my competence - when the three of you desist from confusing science with its proponents - then, indeed, I will be very happy to enter into a dialogue and may even find the time to answer those irrelevant questions of yours.

Rosemary

[eisnad karm]

can my alter ego and the others who without good reason have there status returned as well as being moderated sucks as it takes days sometimes for a post to appear.
Kind Regards
(It is ok Bill no need to look up my I.P, I admit who I am)

[Rosemary Ainslie]

Guys - I see that there's some confusion with the terms 'a mouth full of teeth'.  What's meant by this is that - if the mouth only has teeth then one has - by implication - lost the 'tongue'.  God forbid - as has been implied - that I am 'combative'.  That better describes the 'reach' of Pickle et al - who persistently 'hit' below the belt. 

But to get back on topic - I really need to address the endless claim that I must replace the battery with capacitors.  I would remind you all that I have never used capacitors and know nothing about them - other than it's essentially a two terminal device with two plates separated by a dialectric.  That's Wiki's definition - or something along those lines.  In any event - it is able to store charge - presumably by varying that dialectric.  In this, it is also, essentially the same principle as a battery - I would have thought?  If anyone can improve on this definition then I'd be glad to hear of it.

But here's the thing.  What got me started on this circuit - was the need to prove the thesis - which means that I've got to get back there even if I simply do this is broad brush stroke.  The idea is that we have an energy supply source - in this case, a battery - that has an innate voltage imbalance.  In other words the electrolytic mix of the battery ensures that it does not lose that voltage imbalance until it has discharged sufficient current to vary the innate charge condition of that mix.  It then discharges that potential difference in the form of current flow that is well able to move through the inductive/conductive circuit material.  Which also means that without that circuit as a path for current flow then the battery retains its charge (losses through the air excepted as they're neglible).

But, in doing so, it also TRANSFERS that innate imbalance to inductive/conductive circuit components that - prior to that discharge WERE balanced.  That's known.  Nothing esoteric here.  Now.  The intention of the circuit is this.  It applies a switch - so that the amount energy that is induced in the INDUCTIVE/CONDUCTIVE material - has the 'time' afforded it by that switch - to discharge that IMPOSED imbalance.  And it can ONLY discharge this if there is a path made available for it to do so.  That path is provided by the innate 'body diode' of the MOSFET transistor. 

BUT - in discharging it's energy it is then again PERFECTLY BALANCED - in a way that battery never is.  The battery can only become balanced when ALL it's molecules have been reordered.  That takes considerably more time than is offered by the switch.  Therefore we have two things happening.  The imbalance is transferred to the circuit material through current flow.  Then there is the required break in the delivery of that current.  The circuit material then DISCHARGES that imbalance.  In doing so it RECHARGES the battery thereby restoring the battery's imbalance.  In the same way, a plug or grid supply would offer a continual voltage imbalance.  But the induced voltage over the circuit and its sundry components is able to entirely discharge that induced voltage imbalance - given sufficient time at the switch - to do so.

Effectively one needs that relationship.  One must be able to transfer that potential difference to an entirely 'balanced' inductive/coductive component - and then allow time for that inductive/conductive component to discharge that induced potential difference back to the supply.  The supply NEVER entirely loses potential difference.  In fact, when energy is routed back through the supply it restores that potential difference.  But the circuit material DOES lose its potential difference to establish its prior 'balanced' condition. 

My suspicion is that a cap would discharge to an entirely 'balanced' condition.  In which case we would not be able to perpetuate the required voltage imbalance at the source.  But I'm working in the dark as I've never tried it.  If this is wrong - and if the cap NEVER discharges to zero - then it is feasible.  What's needed is a supply that DOES NOT discharge to zero. 

Anyway.  I'm open to correction.  But that's the reason I'm not sure that capacitors would work.

Kindest regards,
Rosemary     

added.

I've just re-read this.  Not sure if it's clear.  Effectively one needs a continual imbalanced source and circuitry that is first balanced and then imbalanced.  And balance here used in the sense that it's charge imbalance measured as potential difference.