Rosemary Ainslie circuit demonstration on Saturday March 12th 2011

[Rosemary Ainslie]

ah Rosemary - your previous circuit was better!  ;o)


i believe that you have a clear goal in mind - but unfortunately not a clear path ahead as to how it might be achieved


current will flow through a circuit path only when a potential difference is applied across it

as an exercise in becoming more familiar with circuit design, i can recommend a next step for you, after an initial sketch attempt at expressing a new idea:

consider each source of energy in turn, and, with a few helpful example component values to make the maths go more smoothly, get a feel for the main current paths, values, and hence voltage drops around the various series & parallel paths between that supplies +ve & -ve

this approach will help you develop a better 'feel' for how the various circuit elements are likely to work together - and hopefully save you getting to the building stage more often with a non-viable circuit

all the best
np


http://docsfreelunch.blogspot.com

LOL  I've also been trying to wrap my mind around this on a step by step basis.  Half way through and I just want to start crying.  It's just so mind boggling.   

Any way nul-points - thanks for the input.  At least I tried.  Hopefully the day will come when I can think clearly and sensibly from the get go.

Incidentally - a friend of mine is actually working on this design.    But I'm entirely satisfied that it will be VASTLY altered - as required.

Take care nul-points - and many thanks for the input.

Kindest as ever,
Rosemary

[nul-points]

LOL  I've also been trying to wrap my mind around this on a step by step basis.  Half way through and I just want to start crying.  It's just so mind boggling.
...
Incidentally - a friend of mine is actually working on this design.    But I'm entirely satisfied that it will be VASTLY altered - as required.
...
Rosemary

hi Rosemary

no problem

you might find it helpful to 'sit-in' with your friend, if possible, whilst they are reviewing this new design - it can be very helpful to ask questions about 'why' different aspects need to be added, altered or removed

all the best
np


http://docsfreelunch.blogspot.com

[Rosemary Ainslie]

I think that the 'two supply sourced' closed circuit variant - has now been adequately covered here and on ALL these forums.  Even in the unlikely event that there's any merit in any variation of this, - then the principle, at its least, is now fully in the public domain.  That's the only thing I'm concerned about.

So.  Moving on.  What I'd be very glad to do - if readers here could bear with me - is to try and highlight some of the actual questions that are appropriate to these results that we're getting on this particular waveform.  I'll do it in a series of posts.  Hopefully they're understood.

That 'waveform' is fully described in the report and on all these preceding posts.  I'll post a link to it hereunder.  It results  from a setting on the functions generator at the minimum 'on' duty cycle - with the amplitude set to maximum and the offset set to its shortest possible 'above zero' crossing signal.  This, in turn, allows for the longest possible below zero crossing signal over the longest possible duration for each cycle.  Each cycle on this particular functions generator allows a maximum of 2.08 minutes between each switching cycle.

We assume that voltage across the current sensing resistor - or shunt - is representative of current flow both to and from the battery supply.  Therefore energy that is delivered during the 'on' period is that voltage that is measured 'above' zero divided by the resistive value of the shunt to determine the rate of amperage from the supply.  And correspondingly, energy that is delivered during the 'off' period is that voltage that is measured below zero divided by the resistive value of the shunt to determine the rate of amperage flow back to the supply.  The sum of those two phases of each switching cycle would therefore represent the net value of the current either discharged or recharged to the supply.  Taking the rate of oscillation into account as this relates to the resulting impedance on that shunt - then at its highest frequencies the resistance on that shunt is here revised upwards from 0.25 Ohms to 0.9 Ohms.

Convention determines that the amount of energy that is dissipated by a work station or any load on a circuit cannot exceed the amount of energy first delivered by that supply.  This rule is sacrosanct in scientific circles - based, as it is, on assumptions of equivalence in the transfer of energy variously defined in Thermodynamic laws and specifically in the Second Law of Thermodynamics.  If 1 represents the input of energy then we can expect any co-efficient of performance (COP) to a maximum of 1.  And by the same token and within the confines of this argument then we cannot therefore expect a COP greater than 1. 

In the same way - in as much as current flow is assumed to result exclusively from the supply source - as the only source of energy to this circuit system - then we cannot expect to measure more current flow back to the supply than was first delivered. 

But we do.  Therefore our options are as follows.  Either there is a second supply source - that accounts for that extra energy.  Or there is a measurments error. 

In terms of the alternate supply sources this can only possibly be attributed to the functions generator that is somehow supplying energy to the system through the gate of the MOSFET.  Careful measurements taken of voltage across an entirely non-inductive current sensing resistor placed between the functions generator and the gate of the MOSFET, indicate that there is a measurable amperage at this point.  But the sum of this current flow is seen to be returning to the functions generator and not emanating from it.

There is no other source of energy that could be adding to the system unless it is seen to be from the circuit material itself.  Therefore the question is this.  Is there, in fact, an energy supply source in the material of the circuit that is contributing to the 'pool' of energy - that can then account for the evident infinite co-efficient of performance?

Kindest regards
Rosemary

SORRY.  I forgot to append the link to the report.
http://newlightondarkenergy.blogspot.com/2011/03/report.html

[Rosemary Ainslie]

Sorry all.  I know this is boring you to tears.  The fact is that tempus is fugitting - as ever.  I would hate to waste more time dealing with the inappropriate and endless mutterings and posings by Pickle et al - without first making due record of the facts.  Their posts are designed to DETRACT and DELAY any progress in the understanding of this.  And they DIMINISH the results and my competence along with it - in the process.  All those delays.  It's unconscionable.  And wherever they can do so they will.  And I grow no younger.  And somehow - somewhere - I'd be very glad to post some appropriate comments on those remarkable results that we've managed to restore the focus to where it belongs.  Perhaps - after this - I could actually relax.  God knows that would be nice.

But I am relying on all of you to PLEASE POINT OUT ERRORS.  I'm an amateur.  And my knowledge of 'standard terms' is not good.  I usually only know what I mean.  It's way more important that this is in synch with your own understandings.  And this is very important.  WAY too important to make mistakes.  So.  PLEASE.  I need any input you can manage to correct any statements that need it.  And there's no EGO vested in this exercise.  I am on record.  Correct, fix, elaborate, explain.  This all matters just far too much - in my humble opinion for sensitivity - where corrections are actually required.

I'll get back here later today and - hopefully - move on to the next question.  Many to follow.  It's the questions that matter - not those flippant badly considered answers and explanations that skid way off target.  I would have thought we all need to learn things here.  And answers don't cut it. Especially when they're speculative drivel.

Kindeest regards,
Rosie

Edited - with apologies.  I've managed more typos than usual.  Hopefully they're now corrected.

[Rosemary Ainslie]

OK.  Apparently a small correction.  It's now been added.  This, I trust is the only  actual error in any of those statements.

"We assume that voltage across the current sensing resistor - or shunt - is representative of current flow both to and from the battery supply.  Therefore energy that is delivered during the 'on' period is BASED ON that voltage that is measured 'above' zero divided by the resistive value of the shunt to determine the rate of amperage from the supply.  And correspondingly, energy that is delivered during the 'off' period is BASED ON that voltage that is measured below zero divided by the resistive value of the shunt to determine the rate of amperage flow back to the supply.  The sum of those two phases of each switching cycle would therefore represent the net value of the current either discharged or recharged to the supply.  Taking the rate of oscillation into account as this relates to the resulting impedance on that shunt - then at its highest frequencies the resistance on that shunt is here revised upwards from 0.25 Ohms to 0.9 Ohms."

So Guys, the penultimate to this post concluded that more energy is delivered to the supply source than the energy first supplied.   If the actual voltage measurements are correct then this result confronts conventional predictions related to a required equivalence in the transfer of energy.  The instruments used to measure the voltages were both capable of measuring at the high oscillating frequencies that was induced over the circuit components.  The actual voltage measurements therefore carry the warranty of both oscilloscopes, the LeCroy and the Tektronix - within certain error margins.  And even with the application of those error margins this anomalous result persists.  AT NO STAGE during an entire cycle - and on this particular setting - that then results in the oscillating waveform under discussion - does the cycle mean or the mean voltage across the shunt default to a positive voltage - not even during plus/minus 20% of each cycle when the applied gate signal is set to 'on'.   Here, and under usual circumstances, one would expect to measure some discharge from the battery supply enabled by the applied signal at the gate - that is something greater than zero voltage.  Therefore one may conclude that the voltage measurements are correct.  And - at its least - these voltage measurements are anomalous.

One possibility - to account for this excess energy - is the proposal that there is a hidden source of energy supplied by the functions generator - as this is the only other component on the circuit that has an independent power supply.  This too is discounted as the energy that is measured here indicates that energy is being RETURNED TO - rather than COMING FROM - the functions generator.  As there is no other independent source of energy to the circuit then the only other conclusions are that convention errs in its assumption of energy equivalence being restricted to 1 as required by thermodynamic laws.  OR there is a hidden supply of energy in the circuit material itself.   OR both.  All other options have now been discounted.

THEREFORE

We are here dealing with electric energy - based on what is understood of electromagnetic interactions.  Which, in summation, indicates that the experimental evidence here provided - proves that the equivalence required by thermodynmic laws - ERRS as it relates to the assumption of a single supply source on this circuit or it ERRS as it relates to the assumption of equivalence in the first instance. 

I'll move onto the next point.  I just felt these points needed to be HEAVILY EMPHASISED.

Kindest regards
Rosemary

Poynty describes my my writing as 'blah'.  If it is indeed 'blah' then that must be his new eumphemism for science.  Either that or he is unable to make sense of simple English.  Either way - I suspect that he's 'kicking the can' as FuzzyTomCat so well describes this reaction.  I'd only be really concerned if  he ever endorsed anything at all that I've ever written.