Rosemary Ainslie circuit demonstration on Saturday March 12th 2011

[Magluvin]

Hi Rose and Neptune

I found this femf as I logically called it when trying to describe it while working with Teslas Igniter for gas engines pat.

He used a large inductance inductor to pump a high voltage into a cap for discharge into a low ohm primary of a hv step up transformer.
When testing in the falstad sim, after making many value changes in the circuit, when the sim was slowed down in time, I noticed that the large inductor just wanted to keep on keepin on, pushing current forward. At first I was in disbelief, but then I had to try real world tests of this, what I now call a flywheel effect, and it exists. 
An easy circuit example would be to build a circuit consisting of...

battery or supply (works either way)
diode
inductor
capacitor
switch

with the switch open, connect all in series from the neg of the battery to the pos, any order is fine but the diode needs to be in a direction that it will conduct when the switch is closed, cathode or say arrow pointing to batt neg.

Now close the switch then open. The cap should be loaded with a voltage about 2 times the batt voltage. Yup.  ;]  Other configs where more current can flow through the coil will produce high voltages just like bemf does, and Ill describe that elsewhere.

imagine just charging a cap from just the batt. Bat is 12v, cap will be 12v also.  But add the diode and inductor and when the switch is closed, you might think that the cap would stop taking charge once it is equal to the batt voltage, but it doesnt. The inductor wants to keep on flywheeling current into the cap beyond equality of the battery voltage.   Thus law of inductance is maintained, "opposition to changes in current flow"   Flyyyy wheel    inertia as tesla put it  ;]

But how have most of us missed that? I cannot be the only one that knows this. Tesla knew it, as this was his use of the large inductance in his igniter pat.

All these years I knew that field collapse created bemf, or better said reverse emf.  Reverse of what was going through the inductor when energized.  not true. Only if one leg of the inductor is disconnected causing a discontinuation of current flow from source through the inductor, then when the inductor tries to keep going forward during field collapse, but it has no where to go, or take current from, depending which side of the inductor is disconnected. But it does see the capacitance instilled within the inductor and bounces off of that and current reverses once the field completely collapses and the field goes opposite polarity of what was originally induced by input.

Now I know better.  Ive used diodes on relay coils in car audio systems to get rid of the loud pops in the speakers when the relays( used for many things in car audio) were de energized and bemf(bout 90v) interfered with the audio signal in the system.

But never took a real gander as to what really caused bemf, I just wanted the pops to stop, as prescribed in tech school.  ;]

ok  Ill put this somewhere else.  ;]   Back to regular programming  =]


Mags laws  ;]

[Rosemary Ainslie]

Hi again Mags.  I think I'm getting there.  Thanks to your patience in explaining it again.  Ok.  Assume that the diode is placed directly on the negative terminal.  The switch is closed.  Current conducts clockwise through the circuit.  The switch then opens.  The current can now conduct anticlockwise because the diode is biased to allow that 'negative' flow. In effect the diode ensures that both paths of current can be allowed.

That would explain how the cap gets a double dose.  Now put that diode - still biased that the arrow points to the neg of the battery.  But put the diode on the drain before the MOSFET/s.  It still allows a return path of that current. 

As I see it - provided only that one accepts the concept of clockwise and anticlockwise current flow - then that diode will allow passage from any current that results from a negative spike or negative voltage.  Am I missing something?  Does classical allow for these two directional flows?  Frankly I'm not sure if this is mainstream thinking or not.  In any event - my own concepts rather depend on it.

Let me know.  I'm now really interested.

Kindest regards, and thanks for getting me to look at this.
Rosie

[Rosemary Ainslie]

Guys - I've just read through Hamburger's long awaited debunk courtesy a simulated number.  He's his own best critic.  Here's a sample.   'I love to pierce it incisively until they are naked, if not bleeding.'  Golly.   From where I sit I'm still unscathed and fully dressed. He needs to revisit some of his claims.  One proposal is that the MOSFET is fully turned on at some stages to allow for the - as he puts it - stellar - or was that solar? - increase in output.  This would mean that our little embedded Zener would have to take the full value of 60 amps, during the 'off' time and the transistor itself - something marginally less than 60 amps, during the 'on' time.  Pretty robust for something that's rated at plus/minus 6 amps. 

But that aside - of interest is this obsessive need to disprove this.  I think that what he finds most objectionable is that I am a self-confessed clutz who has no right to advance anything at all.  He's right of course.  But it's precisely because I am THAT mediocre that I have every confidence that this technology and these concepts can, eventually, be understood.  I rather rely on this fact.  Here's the thinking.  If I can get my head around them - then anyone can.  It clearly does not require brilliance.  Just a little bit of common sense.  And I'm the FIRST to admit that we've shown nothing new.  It seems that the simulators do exactly what we show.  The difference again is only in this.  Humbugger dare not show the actual values applied to the sundry components.  He tells us that he tweaks them.  And, self- evidently, he tweaks them to favour under unity.  Which is hardly surprising given that he seems to base his sense of self-worth - on an effective argument to deny all.  And he DARE not show the phase relationships between the shunt and the batteries - this because they'll cancel out and dribble to death in no time at all.  He then shows what he calls 'rosiewatts' and - far from being rosy - they're rather sick.  And they seem to cost way, way too much.   One thing that springs to mind is that he justifies increasing the measured inductance at the shunt from 110nH to 110 nH x 4.  By rights this should divided - as that's the TOTAL that is measured.  And so it goes.  An adjustment here - a oversight there - a variation everywhere.  What's new.

I'm only writing all this in the forlorn hopes that he'll one day try and do an actual pure simulation.  That would be interesting.

Kindest regards,
Rosemary     

[Rosemary Ainslie]

And Stefan - with apologies for consecutive posts and for referencing my own work.  I wonder if I could impose on you to read the attached link.  I absolutely refute that electrons are responsible for current flow.  I may well be proved wrong.  But I'm not sure that this has ever actually been proved at all.

Kindest regards,
Rosemary

http://newlightondarkenergy.blogspot.com/2010/11/more-on-inconvenient-truths.html

Which was followed by something considerably less critical

http://newlightondarkenergy.blogspot.com/2010/11/belated-tribute-to-our-scientists.html

[Rosemary Ainslie]

Exactly what was post #197 supposed to accomplish ?

There is no place for such talk in honest scientific discussion.

I am now going to do what my instinct has been telling me to do for a while now, devote my time to more worthy pursuits, and honest exploration of the possibilities.

Goodbye Rosemary, it has not at all been a pleasure.

Evolvingape - are you proposing that I may not challenge counterclaims?  The more so when they're based on simulations?  If Humbugger wants to simulate this setup then that simulation should exactly reflect the components and the results should then be shown.  We're looking at something that has been tweaked to death to satisfy an agenda.   Which is a shame.  Because our own efforts at simulating this is shown in the report.  I would love to see an actual simulation which triggers a continuing oscillation.  We could not get this.  If it's there then show it.  I can't even see what angle the waveforms are - one to another.  They're all referenced separately.

Rosemary

And I might add that my right to defend it is because he advises us all that he's finally disproved this.  And that advice is here - on this forum.  If he has disproved it then he needs to give us that evidence.