Rosemary Ainslie circuit demonstration on Saturday March 12th 2011

[cHeeseburger]

I have already shown several times how a false negative voltage can appear across an inductive shunt.  Now, with the revelation that at least part of any positive current is being diverted through the "upside down" group of MOSFETs and never appearing in the shunt at all and none of any negative current is thusly diverted, this further explains how a net average negative current could easily be displayed across the shunt when in fact the actual net current may well be quite positive.

Furthermore, there is a recurring theme here coming from Rosemary that it is somehow remarkable and anomalous that the drain waveform or so-called "battery voltage" is 180 degrees out of phase with the shunt waveform.  This is absolutely normal and would occur in all cases and always does!  This is true in MOSFET circuits, junction transistor circuits, tube circuits, switching circuits, linear amplifiers and linear oscillators of all kinds.  Obviously, as the current in the D-S channel increases, the shunt voltage goes up and the drain voltage goes down!  There is nothing at all surprising or anomalous there and, in fact, it would be virtually impossible to have it any other way.

This completely normal and expected behavior also easily explains why the V*V trace always shows a negative value in Rose's circuit.  The so-called "battery voltage" is always positive but varies in a way that it is at its high point when the shunt voltage is at its lowest (most negative) point.  So, when the two numbers are multiplied by the scope math, any negative voltage on the shunt is multiplied by a much larger number than during times when the shunt voltage is positive and the so-called "battery voltage" is at its lowest point.

Even if the negative voltage peak on the shunt was only, say, 1/4 of the positive voltage peak, as long as the so-called "battery voltage" multiplier was more than 4x larger at that moment than it is at its low point, you would see a net negative V*V product.  All of this nonsense has nothing to do with the actual input power from the battery! 

It is a completely normal, expected result of not actually using the real DC battery voltage (which is virtually constant) as a multiplier and instead, feeding in a huge ac voltage that actually comes from the wiring inductance and not the batteries and in truth represents only the di/dt (rate of change of current) and not the battery voltage at all.

When the wiring inductance of the battery stack was cut in half by measuring at the battery terminals and she observed an exactly corresponding reduction in half of the AC part of the waveform this instantly proved that all of the AC voltage on the battery measurement is due to the wiring inductance and that there was still about half of that inductance remaining inside the measurement path because of the long wires used to interconnect the battery stack (the inductance of which was never eliminated from the measurement loop).

Finally, the position of the shunt, being within the gate drive loop (and now also within the source path of 4/5 of the MOSFETs) is not by any means a true and exclusive measure of the battery current.

A very simple way to address all of these problems (and other problems I have pointed out before) is to place the shunt directly on the negative terminal of the battery stack instead of inside the gate/source drive loop as it now is.  In addition, the actual DC battery voltage (without the AC effects of the inter-battery wiring inductance) can be easily had by placing the probe across only the most negative battery of the stack.

These simple changes will have no effect on the circuit operation itself (all the same waveforms and oscillations and phase relationships will remain exactly intact) but will provide the actual measure of power flow into/out of the battery.

Simply take the V*V mean, multiply it by 4 (for the shunt being 1/4 ohm) and then multiply that by the number of identical batteries.  For absolute accuracy, the shunt inductance can easily be compensated out of the measurement (while leaving it in the circuit itself) by adding an RC time constant equal to the LR  time constant of the inductive shunt; RC=L/R.  The diagram below shows the existing shunt X'd out, but there is no problem with leaving it there so as to assure no effect on circuit operation.  You just can't measure there and expect to see only the battery current!

If Rose is still confused about any of these observations and the necessary procedures to make true input power measurements without making any changes to the operating characteristics of the circuit itself, once again, I urge her to consult with her local Tektronix or LeCroy Applications engineer.  Short of that, I will be more than happy to answer questions or give advice.  Here's to proper measurements in the future! 

Humbugger

[Rosemary Ainslie]

So Rose,
please post a new circuit diagram,
where we can see, how your MOSFETs were really wired.
Then you can start a new test.
Many thanks.

Harti - May I take this opportunity to again invite you to South Africa.  You can then meet the team and become more thoroughly involved in this technology.  I will be happy to give you whatever assurance is required that I will REFUND you in the event that ANY PART OF THIS CLAIM IS SHOWN TO BE FALSE.  I'm not quite sure how to do this, but I imagine a cheque lodged with my attorney should cover it.

And may I remind you that you cannot possibly expect me to continue on this thread when Poynty is allowed to detract and delay this exposition against such absurd and easily disprovable nonsense.  And I haven't even touched on his rudeness. 

I have already dealt with the matter of the circuit diagram.  And I'm not sure what test you're referring to.  I can do any number of tests.  I just need them to be relevant.  It you're expecting me to do the battery draw down test - even here I'm happy to oblige.  But I need some kind of assurance that it's worth my while.  And anything short of absolute acceptance by the entire academic community - is actually NOT going to cut it.

Many thanks

Rosemary

[cHeeseburger]

Dear Stefan,

You should be aware of Rosemary's blog #107 and others where she repeatedly criticizes you and makes negative statements about your true motives and the purpose of your forum.  She is always accusing me, you and Poynt of having secret negative motives and, basically, of being dishonest and against legitimate OU research efforts. 

Furthermore, she has now recommended that all replicators do not post their experiments and results on your forum, so she herself is trying to take all further replication and testing work out of the public eye and off your forum completely.  Of course, it is her right to do that, but I think you should be aware of these efforts of hers to slander you, throw doubt and insults at your work and publicly cast aspersions about your motives.  Here is the entire content of her blog post #107:

"107 - behind the facade of the forum

Dear Reader,

I've tried giving Stefan Hartman the benefit of the doubt as it relates to his interest in sincerely promoting research into over unity. That, after all, is the title of his forum. One assumes.

I have publicly invited him to come to South Africa and see the operation himself. I have assured him that in the event that our claims are not consistent with the fact then I'll refund him his air flight. I would then be in the happy position of introducing him to the team and allowing him carte blance to evaluate the circuit as required. This offer was rejected.

He has previously allowed posters to flame my threads. He is now allowing Poynt.99 to do this. Poynt's latest claim is that the functions generator is the source of the energy - entirely unsubstantiated and easily disproved. But it's the manner of his address that is particularly unacceptable. Offensively insulting and rude. And certainly in breach of the standards of posting required there. Were I to continue then I'd be endorsing that kind of communication. And that would hardly do me or this technology any good at all. It is interesting that Stefan allows this and rather endorses my concerns that Stefan even wants to let this technology be progressed.

I feel that there is actually NO real intention of advancing any genuine research into over unity on any of these forums. I think they're just meeting grounds where the members are hoodwinked into thinking that there's a sincere research into breaching those thermodynamic laws. I am now of the opinion that what these forums are actually doing is PREVENTING this research as their actual mandate.

I have not yet been banned. Unless I am I will post there as required - and, hopefully, on the progress of this experimental evidence to our experts. That's all that's now needed. I'll keep the technical discussion here because they can then be advanced without those endless interruptions.

My intention is to get this advanced - somehow - to our academic forums - or I'll die trying. But until then - I'm afraid that I am off those forums. I am now entirely satisfied that they are designed to prevent rather than progress any kind of genuine exploration into this subject.

If any posters are attempting to replicate I would earnestly advise you to keep your results off the forum. You will be actively discouraged - or mocked - or flamed. It's not worth the effort. And if anyone needs any guidance that I or the team may be able to give - then please email me.

My email is ainslie@mweb.co.za. Please don't waste your time in adding comments to this blog. I can't always find them. And more often than not I forget to even look for them.

Kindest regards,
Rosemary "

[poynt99]

Harti - May I take this opportunity to again invite you to South Africa.  You can then meet the team and become more thoroughly involved in this technology.

There is no "technology" here. What you have inadvertently stumbled on is an oscillating circuit.

Stefan is right; new testing needs to be performed. Furthermore, it is paramount that all power loops be measured. Presently, the shunt is likely not indicating the true current in and out of the battery.

This "new" circuit just adds to the complexity of determining the true INPUT power, and as I've suggested numerous times, a far better approach to putting the claims to bed once and for all is to perform the continuous operation test I proposed a few pages back.

And may I remind you that you cannot possibly expect me to continue on this thread when Poynty is allowed to detract and delay this exposition against such absurd and easily disprovable nonsense.  And I haven't even touched on his rudeness.

Pointing out the glaring errors in your circuit, build and now measurements, is not a detraction at all, it's called getting to the truth.

.99

[i_ron]

snip
And may I remind you that you cannot possibly expect me to continue on this thread when Poynty is allowed to detract and delay this exposition against such absurd and easily disprovable nonsense.  And I haven't even touched on his rudeness. 
snip
  And anything short of absolute acceptance by the entire academic community - is actually NOT going to cut it.

Many thanks

Rosemary

Rosemary,

Thank you for your patience and perseverance. It is sad that these agenda agents have despoiled yet another chance of an informative list.

It is well within reason that anyone trying your circuit without success would normally write and tell you of their failure and seek further guidance.
But the outcome if left without such input would be for the average person to pack his bags and move on.

The very tenaciousness of these pitbulls, following you from list to list and filling them with bile is proof of their mission.

Near the beginning of this list you had some intriguing theories on alternate energy flows that I would love to have heard more on... oh well, maybe someday?

Harti has hundreds of lists to skim and is not always aware of when and how a list is being destroyed. A well run list would have a full time moderator who could take the appropriate steps to correct certain imbalances.

Just to say thanks Rosemary, we love you and hope there is a decent venue somewhere where "we", real builders and experimenters can access your discovery and wonderful ideas without harassment.

Kind regards

Ron P