Rosemary Ainslie circuit demonstration on Saturday March 12th 2011

[neptune]

First of all thanks to Hartiberlin for posting "my" circuit . I am still saving up money to buy the Mosfets .So I am not able to test this circuit at present . Rosemary I hope you get the function generator sorted .Hopefully , soon you will not need it .  There is someone out there no doubt who can test this . Just remember that some of us out here will continue to believe in your device until or unless  it is disproved beyond any doubt . We are a long way from that at this time .

[poynt99]

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?

You do not need to fiddle with the circuit at all.

Simply get it running as usual, then take the battery measurement as we've described, right on the battery terminals.

This is a starting point, so the only interest at the moment is actual battery voltage wave forms. There is no need for additional shunts or 9V battery circuits to make the device run.

There are 4 jumpers connecting the batteries together, and I estimate that each is about 1.5 feet in length. So even though you may place the scope leads directly across the 60V battery stack, there is still 6 feet of inductive wire in that circuit, and it will affect the voltage wave form.

My assumption is, that 6 feet of wire will show a marked difference compared to about 22 feet of wire (all the wire in the battery circuit, including that running to the device), and this will be enough to cause Rose to pause and ask "why is this measurement different compared to the other?"

btw, what was meant by your comment above Rose? Are you saying you won't do the test?

Of course the battery voltage wave form is required; your entire experimental results ride on the contention that the battery voltage wave form will be quite different, depending on where the measurement is taken. 

.99

[Rosemary Ainslie]

You do not need to fiddle with the circuit at all.

Simply get it running as usual, then take the battery measurement as we've described, right on the battery terminals.

This is a starting point, so the only interest at the moment is actual battery voltage wave forms. There is no need for additional shunts or 9V battery circuits to make the device run.

There are 4 jumpers connecting the batteries together, and I estimate that each is about 1.5 feet in length. So even though you may place the scope leads directly across the 60V battery stack, there is still 6 feet of inductive wire in that circuit, and it will affect the voltage wave form.

My assumption is, that 6 feet of wire will show a marked difference compared to about 22 feet of wire (all the wire in the battery circuit, including that running to the device), and this will be enough to cause Rose to pause and ask "why is this measurement different compared to the other?"

btw, what was meant by your comment above Rose? Are you saying you won't do the test?

Of course the battery voltage wave form is required; your entire experimental results ride on the contention that the battery voltage wave form will be quite different, depending on where the measurement is taken. 

.99

Poynty.  I've set up the batteries as required by Neptune.  The probes span it comfortably and I've got 5 in series.  Can add a sixth.  That's in the bag.  The problem is that the circuit isn't workig.  I think it's the functions generator.  If it is - then I can only test this on Monday because that's the only time I can get another cable.  That's the first point

I know that lthere's likely to be very little difference - but I'll let you draw your own conclusions.

Now.  I am under no obligation to read your forum.  But I do.  It's invariably head to toe on comments regarding me, my character, my intentions, my delusions, my stubborness - name it.  Why do you allow this?  You know perfectly well that those comments are NOT the truth and that they are diametrically against your posting standard requirements.  It intrigues me that not only do you allow it - but you ACTIVELY encourage it.  Where Poynty is your sense of fair play?  Your members are poisonous.

Rosemary

[Rosemary Ainslie]

First of all thanks to Hartiberlin for posting "my" circuit . I am still saving up money to buy the Mosfets .So I am not able to test this circuit at present . Rosemary I hope you get the function generator sorted .Hopefully , soon you will not need it .  There is someone out there no doubt who can test this . Just remember that some of us out here will continue to believe in your device until or unless  it is disproved beyond any doubt . We are a long way from that at this time .

Neptune?  Was that what you were asking?  I've got someone coming out here soon.  I'll let you know if we can do this.  Yet again, Neptune to the rescue.

And I really don't want anyone to believe in this or otherwise.  Never the intention.  All that's needed is to find out where all that extra energy is coming from.  It's an embarrassment of riches Neptune.  We have between 20 watts to 150 watts being added to the system.  It makes no difference if you factor in the inductance over those components because the advantage comes from that antiphase relationship between those voltages.  Clearly whatever measurement protocols are being applied are wrong - or there's an error in the measurements.  Which is why we got a second scope.  And the second scope gave the same readings.  So.  Where then is the error?  At it's best it conflicts with classical prediction.  And its worst it shows that classical measurement protocols don't apply.  Either way - it's an untenable place to find ourselves.  Certainly there is absolutely NOT any evidence conservation. 

Poynty et al are relying on enough variation in the measurement across the battery to obviate this.  If this happens then - even then, we'd have to say that the excess was due to the wires.  Which means what?  We must eliminate those wires?  That the benefit was erroneous?  And so it goes.  Round and round in circles.  I've had a belly full.  In every respect.

But I'll do these last tests.  I know it won't resolve anything.  But I'll do that test.  And if I can get someone to do that design of yours Neptune - then count on it.  I'll CERTAINLY do that one.  That, at least, will give some kind of resolution.

Kindest regards,
Rosemary

[Rosemary Ainslie]

Poynty

I should be able to get that oscillation with just one battery.  The scope wires would be connected directly to the battery.  No other wires in the setup. 

Now.  Tell me what will change that I - at it's least - know what it is that YOU expect. 

Will there now be no evidence of that wild voltage oscillation at the battery?  Will it peak and trough at lower and higher values - correspondingly?  Or will it simply stay level? With the occassional ripple?

Will the antiphase condition between the voltage and the shunt now change?  Will this be out of phase and therefore 'no advantage'?

If I apply the math trace - a product of the battery and shunt voltages - will they now show 'positive' as opposed to negative?

Will the mean average across the shunt change to default always to positive?

Let me know what you expect to see Poynty.  Because this time I want the argument 'up front' if possible.

Rosemary