Rosemary Ainslie circuit demonstration on Saturday March 12th 2011

[Rosemary Ainslie]

Hi guys,  typically I'm not able to sleep.  As this is on my mind I'll see if an off load will act as a soporific.

For you Neptune.  I'm not sure what the Zener's tolerance is.  But look up the specs on IRFPG50.  I'd do this for you but it would take a month of Sundays.  What I do know is that we only got that extended oscillation when we put those FETS in parallel.  I did, at the start of that adjustment - try to do a detailed record of first one and then two and so on.  But - it was tedious.  And there were a whole lot of other parameters that then would have to be taken into account - so just stuck to all 5. 

My take is this.  That single spike that we used with just 1 MOSFET - is well able to do the job.  We could get the negative mean and the cycle mean into sustained negative averages - duly witnessed and recorded.  It was interesting.  The more so as it was also scalable.  Effectively we could show a 20 degree rise in temperature for every extra 12 volts applied.  And we could run this off slow or fast frequencies.  It did not make a blind bit of difference.  From memory - I'd need to check the notes - I think we took this up to 4 batteries - or 50 volts or thereby.   Also.  We took the temperature to the 100 degree mark - which was the first challenge. BUT.  There was always that familiar spike that then rang down to the zero crossing.  And I was keen to test the full potential.

I was surprised when we saw that parasitic oscillation.  The significance was as plain as daylight - because there was that delicious antiphase relationship and a waveform as perfectly periodic as a pulse.  Not only that - but this was the first possible evidence for me - that there were two distinct current flows on the same circuit - the one sustaining the other - like two drunks on a roller coaster.  Now.  That was and is my interest.  And I know it's hardly likely to grab any of you.  So.  I'll not refer to this again. 

Here's my point.  I am a rank amateur.  I had NO idea that this parasitic oscillation as it's called - is also well known.  I had to look it up when I saw reference to it on these forums.  I had no idea that this could be expected to cross zero.  Had I known how easy it was to get this - I'd have done it yonks back.  It was the decisive moment for me to do that demo.  I hoped to show our experts that that current flow could only be the result of energy from the system vs energy from the supply.  Unfortunately the experts did not attend that demo.  Everyone but.  And I am satisfied that the indictment is theirs.  It was a shameful display of cowardice.  However.  There are those few experts who are prepared to look at the demo - less publicly.  I'm happy to show them.  I'll see if I can solicit some qualified acknowledgement of anomalies.  I'm ever the optimist.

But to get back on topic.  That oscillation.  It's extraordinary.  I would remind you that the only current that can be perpetuated is under really cold conditions. What we have here is a really strong current.  And it is most assuredly, a self-perpetuating current.  It simply cannot settle.  This remarkable little waveform is precisely the proof that I was looking for because that antiphase condition may be some kind of evidence that current flow needs to return to its source.  And the other point is this.  It does not vary, one cycle to another, one oscillation to another - despite significant and measurable heat being dissipated all over the place.  Then the last point is this.  Those oscillations result in a gain to the system supply - not because of any negative mean averages but precisely because of the antiphase condition of those oscillations.   Those are the anomalies that intrigue me and the members of the team.

So.  The bottom line is this.  We absolutely do not need that oscillation to get the required negative mean average and cycle mean average and negative math trace.  But what we have with this parasitic oscillation is something way more profound.  And, I believe very much more profoundly significant.  I just can't get over that I'd never even heard of this parasitic oscillation.  Certainly not as it shapes itself here.  And to think that all that was ever done with it was to snuff it out or throw it away.  Extraordinary.

Anyway.  I'm now even more awake.  So much for hoping to tire myself out.

Rosemary

[Rosemary Ainslie]

Hi Rosie,

Well said.  Lets do some imagining.  What are our appications for heat?  Obviously, water and room heating.  Peltier related applications.   !    Stirling or other related heat engines.  Steam turbines.  Ovens.  Kilns.  There are lots of possibilities, which means lots of opportunites.

Cheers,
Twinbeard

Hi TWIN. Always a pleasure to see you around.  And I see you're thinking applications.  Never a bad thing.  I want to get this onto a hot water cylinder.  We call it geysers - here is SA.  This is MUCH NEEDED for our rural communities.  They're off grid for the most part and rely on burning wood or - for those who can afford it - coal.  Not so good - for obvious reasons.   

Kindest regards,
Rosemary

[hartiberlin]

Hi,
what about this circuit ?

Just use a 9 Volts battery and a pot to supply the
negative bias voltage at the gates.
To get it to oscillate you might need to switch the
9 Volts battery on and off a few times.

Then also as Humbugger said the shunt will only
have the battery current and not the 9 Volts battery current.


Well to measure also the battery voltage with a dual channel scope that
has a common ground you need to do this circuit then.

See attached picture.

Many thanks.

Regards, Stefan.

[Rosemary Ainslie]

I have, apprently been precipitous in my previous reply.  Let me try this again.

I cannot set up that experiment nd I've been advised that any results taken there will be meaningless

Do you still require the waveforms across the battery?

[Rosemary Ainslie]

Stefan - I've now spoken to Donny.  I understand you've configured the circuit to give a continuous negative trigger.  I had no idea.  I need you guys - Neptune?  or someone - to do this.  I simply cannot.  And there's no-one on the team at the moment who has the time.  But thank you for the schematic.

There's something badly wrong with our apparatus.  I'm hoping it's the cable from the Functions Generator.  Someone is coming out this afternoon to check it out.  If there's a problem then I will only be able to do those battery terminal scope shots on Monday.  It seems that the alarm and despondency on the OUR.com forum is based on the reasonable certainty that I'll brook no argument with these results.  Not true.  We're all of us fishing for a valid argument.  None such to hand yet. 

But if we can get the continual negative triggering - then that will certainly resolve something.  Unfortunately it's out of my competence.  The guy who built the apparatus is coming out later today.  if he's up for it - he may be able to put this together.

I will, either later today or from Monday onwards - do more testing.  I need to show you all that the heavy duty dissipation is WELL ABLE to show a continual negative mean.  It also seems that Geln Lettenmaier is advising everyone that it's just a trick of 'choosing' the right moment.  That may well be.  But the math trace DOES NOT have the benefit of that choice.  It takes the value of the sample range - regardless.  And I'm reasonably certain that I can video a 5 minute shot of a typical example - where you will all be able to see that neither the negative mean nor the math trace default to positive.  The difficulty is getting it into a mode that it doesn't push past the setting and simply do it's own thing.  The actual problem is containing the energy - and that, only because there's a tolerance limit on our test apparatus.

It's one thing to argue that the values may be erroneous.  I also want to find this out.  We have way more energy being returned than is evident in the battery recharge condition.  It is another thing entirely to insinuate that this is a hoax.  IT IS NOT.  I am just way too old and too tired of this argument to get embroiled in such stupidities.  So Poynty.  Please advise your members.  Their latest insinuations are as absurd as their previous.  God.  If I were to schedule the variety of criticisms that have been levelled against me and this technology and the whole gamut - then I think I could fill a book the size of Africa.  it's getting way too tedious guys.  Just look at the science for God's sake.  And it DOES NOT help to regurgitate more and more of your assumptions.  JUST LOOK AT THE EVIDENCE.

Regards,
Rosemary