Rosemary Ainslie circuit demonstration on Saturday March 12th 2011

[Rosemary Ainslie]

OK, I will post the information later tonight so that you may see for yourself, since it appears you can't be bothered to check the details.

.99

That will be good.  I've just checked it out.  The Drain = C.  ALL reference to the drain is consistent with this.  The Source - unmarked - is in series with the shunt.  F only applies to gate for the first MOSFET. 

And I think you have a little explaining to do yourself -  Poynty Point.  Your own little secret.  HOW DID YOU GET THOSE OSCILLATIONS??  I'd give my eye teeth to see those Spice settings. Your words - at that time were something along the lines that  - 'I just set it up and got it first time'.  Really?  Very strange.  For a while there I thought you'd seen what we'd done.  But you hadn't.  So?  What 'trickery' did you need to employ to get there?  What distortions to the circuit did you need to apply?  Without that reversal you could NOT have got the battery to oscillate at 180 degrees.  And why did you not show us those modifications?  And WHAT ABOUT THAT replication that you kept promising us?

And then FINALLY.  How do you now explain this?  The result is ENTIRELY replicable on a SPICE program.  Even and up to those beneficial numbers.  That very exciting negative voltage number.   Tell me now.  How come?  How is this possible?  If unity cannot be exceeded - THEN WHAT THE HELL IS GOING ON?  And EVERY time you multiply those voltages they show that benefit.  You had the phase right.  You MUST have seen that advantage.  Why haven't you told us all?  Why weren't you barking this truth to the world - together with your hyena pack?  Could it be that there's an agenda?  Very strange Poynty.  Do you really expect an ounce of trust in any of us who saw what you were playing at?  The only thing I knew is that you were denying this benefit although you were replicating it in your simulations. Which is why I now depend so heavily on academics.  I believe they still have a genuine interest in science for the sake of science.  Not something that they can manipulate to advance a sense of self-importance or to advance an interest in maintaining the status quo.  This is a revolution going on Poynty.  Get used to it.

Rosemary

ADDED Guys - just as a reminder here.  Poynty did those replications - and then trailed through a whole slew of posts urgently advising all and sundry to AVERAGE their values.  You see why now.  It's the only way one can HIDE the advantage of those beneficial phase angles.  That's where the magic lies.

[Rosemary Ainslie]

Why does every thread dealing with reasonably functional devices turn into a dick size contest between trolls?  I mean seriously... can't there be a single discussion that does not degenerate into several people thinking that they can tell an inventor what to do, attacking every point, no matter how mundane, and generally lowering the s/n ratio of useful information?

Further, why do we see only gum flapping and not building out of these self professed experts?  Its almost as though they target anything useful employing every bit of bullshit at their avail to discredit presented data.  Grow up, build something, and leave this nice lady alone.

Twin.  I missed this.  Thank you.  Golly.  I think I'll even print it and frame it.  I was so hoping someone would help me out here.

How nice.  And how rare.  LOL.

Rosie

[poynt99]

That will be good.  I've just checked it out.  The Drain = C.  ALL reference to the drain is consistent with this.  The Source - unmarked - is in series with the shunt.  F only applies to gate for the first MOSFET. 

I would expect you can now see your error. According to your circuit diagram, clearly the "F" and "C" labels are incorrectly positioned on the proto-board.

.99

[poynt99]

I'll also mention the relevant points:

1) The demonstration presenter in the video states that the diagram is a representation of what is on the perf board. He goes on to relate the letter designations for the nodes marked on the diagram to those on the perf board.

2) He also states that the 5 MOSFETs are in parallel, which we now know they are in fact not.

.99

[Rosemary Ainslie]

You're right.  C and F were transposed.  That was not intentional.

Now Poynty - are you going to answer some questions here?  Let us know how you got that oscillation.  It is ENTIRELY IMPOSSIBLE to get that battery and shunt voltage at 180 degrees in phase without transposing those FETs.  So.  How long have you known this?  And why only yesterday did you admit it?  Could it be that you also made an initial MISTAKE?  I suspect so.  You went on and on about altering the position of the probes across the battery.  And then Pickle came forward and advised all and sundry that it wouldn't matter - what was needed was to eliminate the inductance on the shunt.  LOL.  And up to and including as recently as yesterday you were complaining that no matter what you do it 'oscillates'?  And exactly WHY was that a complaint?    Why weren't you shouting it from the roof tops from the get go?  You MUST have seen what that does to those energy efficiency values.  So. What gives?  Why were you still DENYING that benefit?  And why only YESTERDAY did you come forward with all this?  Is it because you'd LOST the argument on undersampling? Then because you LEARNED that you actually could NOT demand a battery draw down test?  Then because you LOST the opportunity of turning the focus into an argument about battery chemistry?  And THEN ONLY - since all else was failing - did you decide to TRY and getting it back there by FINALLY pointing out that 'transposition'?  The first time you'd seen this.  I think not.  Which, needless to say, is why you also then anxiously and - as you thought - GENEROUSLY allowed us to ...  What?  Redeem ourselves?  By doing that draw down test?  Are you that anxious to get the focus off that waveform and onto a meaningless chemistry debate?  Or onto an endless discussion about perpetual motion which we've NEVER CLAIMED?

Frankly I thought you had done EXACTLY what we'd done but instead of transposing 4 of those FETS you'd transposed the whole catastrophe.  I need to get a simulation of this - as I've never actually seen how it pans.  But if you did realise what you'd done you hid it well.  I couldn't work out what you actually knew.  And then Poynty Point.  Consider this.  I am reasonably satisfied that the transposition - that early ACCIDENT - was CERTAINLY a blessing.  I am entirely incapable of DELIBERATELY putting that arrrangement together.  It's ECCENTRIC to a level that far exceeds my own competence.  But you ALSO made that same MISTAKE - if such it was in your case.  Don't you think - perhaps - that FATE itself is growing tired of our blindness?  This suicidal march to certain extinction because EGO's are getting in the way?  Perhaps God Himself intervened.  Frankly I'm entirely satisfied that if we're under any kind of Devine guidance then He/She - THEY must be rather sickened at all this nonsense.   The news is ALL GOOD.  WHY ARE YOU TRYING TO MUZZLE IT? 

So.  In conclusion - we need to ADVANCE this technology - ideally on academic work benches.  Any discussion of the significance - on these forums - needs to be appropriate.  Not some ridiculous reach - by you -  to produce perpetual motion.  I was SO hoping to get this to our academic physicists by first getting an endorsement of the anomaly from our academic engineers.  But perhaps it's REQUIRED that we discuss those material current properties - RIGHT HERE!  And if you're not up for it then BUT OUT.   I KNOW that it's easy concepts.  They just need to be APPLIED.

Rosemary