Rosemary Ainslie circuit demonstration on Saturday March 12th 2011

[WilbyInebriated]

I have to agree with TK re the assumptions made with the battery measurements.

you agree with assumptions???  wow... how scientific of you, i didn't know you went through such trouble. 

Also enguaging with the resident villiage idiot or clown does not do your credability anygood.. he is a harmless, self deluded enthusiest.
Mark

engaging, village, credibility and finally enthusiast. i assume you are referring to tk with this sentence... or perhaps yourself, seeing the 3rd grade spelling in your post. furthermore, engaging anyone in conversation or otherwise has nothing to do with credibility, and suggesting such is a logical fallacy.

[evolvingape]

Hello Rosemary,

Thankyou for your reply,

I will not pay you the discourtesy that you have paid me and cherry pick the statements that I want to answer and ignore the rest. I will attempt to answer all your questions and wonderings and I will stand by what I have said.

Furthermore, reply #42 in this thread, made by yourself, says in part:

“You keep on and on about batteries. Perhaps you could take the trouble to read the para under discussion. What was meant here is that while we have evidence of 'retained' potential difference over an extended period - I have NEVER seen a charge beyond it's starting point. Yet the instantaneous wattage analysis indicates that the batteries should have been cooking. I have no idea how to resolve this. We STRESS that in the report. HOWEVER. Nor is it something that can be evaluated by any of us. It needs a chemist to do a proper analysis. All I know is that if you take any current from any plug - rectify it that the negative moves to one application and the positive to another - then one could apply a signal at the gate to each half of the input sinewave in antiphase - and we could, theoretically, bill our utility suppliers. That's the point. Either there is some measurements error - or there's an anomaly that also requires some resolution. With the utmost respect to your own expertise - I think we need the expert advice of chemists to establish the recharged condition of the batteries. I have not tested the batteries over an extended period - because, frankly, it is NOT the object of the demonstration nor of the report. I have been seduced - in the past - to doing battery draw down comparisons to prove out performance over rated capacities. And it made not a blind bit of difference. Quite apart from which it's a tedious series of tests and controls to prove it. And even proven - it is regardless NOT considered conclusive - or certainly NOT by mainstream. And their opinion matters rather more than your own. ”

The Para 4.2 under discussion actually states:

“When the offset of the function generator is adjusted (see Figure 3), the falling edge of the pulse results in a burst oscillation mode. Parasitic inductance is a well-known consequence of MOSFETs placed in parallel. It is undesirable for switching applications and is therefore, traditionally, factored out of the circuitry. On this application we have enabled that oscillation to the limit of the function generator’s slowest switching speed at 2.7 minutes or 6.172mHz. No material or evident variation or decay of that resonance through that entire period, is observed (see Figure 4). This results in a measured increase of recharge at the battery supply as well as sustaining the temperature over the resistor. It would be desirable to extend this period of oscillation to see whether decay in this oscillation, eventually takes place. These results may warrant further research, as the implications are that the current flow may be perpetuated through this self-oscillation.”

I did take the trouble to read para 4.2, I even took the trouble to reproduce it here. What it was meant to say, and what it did say are two entirely different things. To imply that my ability to read and understand the statement in question is in error, when your correction of what it is was meant to say in no way resembles what it did say is not an error on my part, I feel.

You state:

“the instantaneous wattage analysis indicates that the batteries should have been cooking. I have no idea how to resolve this.”

You have been told how to resolve this and have completely ignored the suggestions. Hook the circuit up to self run and if the batteries cook then your “analysis” was correct. If the batteries lose charge over time then the circuit is drawing power to operate. This is so very simple.

You state:

“Nor is it something that can be evaluated by any of us. It needs a chemist to do a proper analysis.”

This is complete nonsense! No chemist is ever used to establish state of charge of a battery cell. State of charge is established by doing a load test under controlled conditions. This is such a simple procedure that millions of qualified electrical engineers are capable and equipped to perform this test tomorrow.

Furthermore TK eloquently explained exactly how to do this in reply #14 in this thread:

“There are many problems with this report, but I'll just point out one serious one. The "Control Experiment" where DC power at various power levels was applied, and stable temperatures plotted, is a proper control experiment. But it wasn't used properly, unfortunately.

In an EXPERIMENT, a researcher varies one or more "independent variables" and measures the effect of this variation on "dependent variables". In the present case the Independent variable of interest is the POWER SUPPLY, whether DC or the Ainslie circuit, and one dependent variable of interest is the time-temperature curve that results from each supply. We are presented with data from the DC circuit supplying power at various levels, and we should be supplied with a graph from the Ainslie circuit supplying power at the same levels... but we aren't. Nor are we shown anything like a graph of supply voltage versus time for the Ainslie circuit, nor are we shown any evidence AT ALL that the batteries are actually being recharged.

Get two sets of batteries, use one set to heat up the load at DC power to a certain temperature and hold it. Use the second set of batteries to power the Ainslie circuit to achieve the SAME time-temp profile as in the DC case. Run both circuits for a given time. Then disconnect the batteries and run a load test... not a "Voltage" test, but a real battery load test, putting a constant load on them and timing how long it takes to run down.

These tests are easy, obvious, and are ACTUAL tests of the Ainslie conjectures. However, you don't see them being performed. At least, not since I did them, nearly two years ago now.

As a paper reporting an experiment, there are some major areas that need revision. As an experiment itself, it needs to be severely redesigned in order ACTUALLY to test any well-formed hypothesis that might be constructed from Rosemary's conjectures.”

I am not the only one saying this, and I am not the only one being ignored. More massive red flags. This test is so simple and so commonplace that I am simply staggered that you think you can deceive an educated community in this manner.

Furthermore, you state:

“I have not tested the batteries over an extended period - because, frankly, it is NOT the object of the demonstration nor of the report. I have been seduced - in the past - to doing battery draw down comparisons to prove out performance over rated capacities. And it made not a blind bit of difference. Quite apart from which it's a tedious series of tests and controls to prove it. And even proven - it is regardless NOT considered conclusive - or certainly NOT by mainstream. And their opinion matters rather more than your own. ”

If testing the batteries is not in any way important to you I am confused as to how you feel you can  confidently state in Para 6: Discussion:

“The results of this demonstration are consistent with the previous reported test results related to this circuitry. The difference here is that there is an extended period of self-induced oscillation following the falling edge of the gate drive signal. This appears to enhance the circuit performance to what is now measured with what appears to be an infinite co-efficient of performance. This value has been carefully measured, but it is preferred that the circuit and all its effects be carefully evaluated by experts.”

An infinite co-efficient of performance... no evidence whatsoever, despite claiming it has been carefully measured, and no intention of providing said evidence even though your target audience is knowledgeable that such tests in electrical circuits are not only common but easily and conclusively performed. The fact that these tests are used daily to perform COP<1 measurements is irrelevant as they will also show COP>1.

You state:

“Your comments regarding the parasitic oscillation are noted - but are also spurious. Parasitic oscillation is NOT associated with a resonance that so perfectly reinforces itself. Usually one expects enough variation to have the one phase cancel out the other - in some kind of waveform pattern that also generates a variation to the amplitudes. Nor does one expect oscillation to be sustained with such high levels of current flow. The intention - in using more FETs was to test whether the full potentials in that spike were, perhaps, being blocked by some resistance in the Zener diode. Clearly it was. And clearly there is some exploitable advantage to sustaining this oscillation. And it is easily managed. But it does appear that it requires the body diode of the MOSFETS because this condition is not managed with diodes simply placed across a single transistor. Again. We are only pointing to an anomaly.

So...

You claim my observation of parasitic oscillation (which you have previously never even mentioned) is noted but spurious. You also state that you are only pointing to an anomaly. May I suggest that it is premature of you to assume that parasitic oscillation is not the cause of your anomaly before scientifically calculating and predicting the parasitic oscillation you would expect to see in your circuit. I have provided you with the information to perform said calculations. May I also suggest that you consider a constant signal with no loss of amplitude (despite your deliberate lack of clarity on what amplitude you are actually calculating) could be a product of an overlooked component of a DC circuit signal as implied by ambiguity.

I would also like to point out that I am not attacking you, I am simply attacking your scientific method of evidence for making your assumptions. Does that make me an Academic ?

You seem not to care about the opinions of individuals in this community as much as you care about the opinions of the Academic community, who will not give you the time of day. I would like to point out that the people that gravitate here, on the whole, care about the Truth, the Proof and Replication, not about continuance of the paycheck and public recognition.

As a fellow OU researcher I respect you. Never forget this. Any professional disagreements we may have are purely that, they are not personal.

As for my Avatar... well that's my business... and has no place in the forefront of our scientific discussion.

Answers to all of the questions regarding component specifications currently outstanding and your intention of conforming to the scientific method in future, to present respectable evidence that can be peer reviewed would be appreciated.

On a final note I would appreciate an accurate quote of where I objected to your report in respect of your previously documented claims of repeatable evidence. I made no such objection, and was merely commenting on the fact that your report could not possibly have included results from the demonstration considering it was prepared and distributed before the event.

With Respect,

RM

[Rosemary Ainslie]

Dear Evolvingape,

I spent an hour answering your post and found myself halfway through and growing increasingly bored.  Please feel free to regard the draw down as a critical test criteria.  It is an aspect of the test that I will not - under any circumstances engage in - without having a chemist on the team. 

Just one quick point.  Here's the reference under discussion.  I'm not sure how you got sidetracked.

Some mention must be made of those aspects of the tests that have not been thoroughly explored. The first relates to the battery recharge. It is a truth that the batteries used in these experiments have been used on a regular basis for over 5 months. During that time they have been continually subjected to both light and heavy use and they have never shown any evidence of loss of voltage. Nor have they been recharged by a conventional battery recharger. However there has not been a close analysis of the electrolytic condition of the batteries, before, during or even after their use. This will require a fuller study by our chemistry experts. - from our report under 'discussion'.

Kindest
Rosemary

[Rosemary Ainslie]

Thanks Lawrence - for your well wishes.  I trust that, in time, you'll be able to explain your thesis better.  And indeed, we need reminders that ALL our efforts are needed.  It must, surely, help this drive to clean green.

Mark - thanks for your qualified tribute.  I do not share your opinion though, on who or who not, is a clown.

WILBY - NICE TO SEE YOU AROUND.
Rosemary 


edited

[markdansie]

Hi Rosemary,
I respect your opinion but sugest you go read some of the persons posts over the last few years..like UFO's comming to the olympics and many of the other hundreds of claims.
As for the argument with the batteries that is a big red flag ..use a cap charged to a certain level perhaps and if that does not drop voltage then you have a winner. Until then your results do not have any validity. A chemist is not needed just someone who knows how to do a load test on a battery.
You have to remove all doubt.
All the best
Mark