Rosemary Ainslie circuit demonstration on Saturday March 12th 2011

[teslaalset]

@Rosemary,
Sorry, but I have to support Poynt here.
Seems you have not used Pspice ever, otherwise you would understand the negative power values of the battery.

Rose, is your setup still working?
Why not (as suggested earlier in the this thread) keep it running for a week and see how the batteries are doing after a week? 

[teslaalset]

Deleted, double post. Srry.

[Rosemary Ainslie]

Guys - I was rather angry when I wrote those posts.  With good reason.  But it may be that I need to explain this carefully. 

The reason I am that anxious to get these measurements evaluated by those EXPERTS is precisely beause the minute one gets to a sum that shows a negative cycle mean voltage on a waveform - then one has definitive proof of COP infinity.

We get this using 1 MOSFET applied in the typical way - or these stack of MOSFETS applied atypically.  Because the minute you take the product of the a negative and a positive then it results in a negative.  And if you have a negative product then you are showing more energy being returned than was initially supplied.  Then we can get this same negative value over the cycle mean even when we dissipate really hefty wattage values over the resistor element.  That's the first point.

But what we wanted to highlight at that demonstration - is that we ALSO get a negative mean wattage without the sum of the voltage across the shunt being negative.  In other words it's the phase angle between the voltages that ALSO has a hidden benefit.  This is because when the battery voltage is climbing from a 'recharge' then too the shunt voltage is falling.  And vice versa.    In other words - just about any way we cut it we're into INFINITE COP territory.

Now.  There is a question of measurement error.  For instance, it was Poynty et al who insisted that I put the probes directly across the battery.  I did this.  But what they expected to find was that the battery voltage would flatline - with a small ripple.  Poynty was ON RECORD with this prediction.  We did the test.  He was WRONG.  But what it did do was give us a reduced voltage value across the battery.  And this, frankly was a relief to find.  Because we had persistently recorded a wattage that I simply COULD NOT RECONCILE with the wattages that we found on the circuit.

In the same way - there may yet be some proof that this energy is erroneous.  But it is absolutely NOT in the absurdities in Poynty's exercises.  Those analyses are not even scientific.  They are utterly misleading - and as ever - it requires a 'fudging' of the values to get there.  There is something happening on this circuit that points to an anomaly.  This because it is absolutely NOT POSSIBLE in terms of classical paradigms - to find more energy returned than delivered.  And that returned energy would show itself as a NEGATIVE VALUE in power analysis.  Otherwise one would absolutely NEVER find a negative mean average or a negative power value on any circuit EVER.  And it is at precisely this point that we have PROOF of an anomaly.

Kindest regards,
Rosemary

[Rosemary Ainslie]

I see now one thing that is tripping you up; it's the p(t) trace. I usually fore go displaying that, and I go directly to the application of the AVG function on that trace.

When you see the trace statement as" "W(R1)" for example, that means the trace is of p(t) for R1.

When you see the traces statement as: "AVG(W(R1))" using the same example, that indicates MEAN[p(t)]. This latter trace statement is what is required to obtain a numerical value of the average/real power in the device of interest.

Here is what p(t) looks like before applying the AVG function.


.99

THANK YOU FOR THAT DOWNLOAD.  NOW POYNTY POINT.  IF YOUR SIMULATION ANALYSIS IS SHOWING A NEGATIVE WATTAGE WHICH IS A CORRECT REFLECTION OF THE FACT - THEN EXPLAIN IT.  Because there is no way under the sun that this is possible according to the HOST OF EXPERTS that I have spoken to.

At this point you should think this through and come back with an explanation that is not based on the absurdities of saying that this 'represents the net LOSS of the energy from the battery'.  There are enough of us readers here to KNOW that you are NOW TALKING NONSENSE.

AND THEN FOR THE FIRST TIME YOUR POSTS WILL BE ON TOPIC.

Regards,
Rosemary

[i_ron]

And Poynty.  That highlighted bit of nonsense in your download of the battery voltage.  WHAT A JOKE.  You write this.

negative power of the battery = -33.3 watts.  Then you add (a negative battery power is normal and indicates a net loss of energy over time) - in paranthesis.

WHAT A LOAD OF COBBLERS.  IF ANYONE EVER - ANYWHERE IN THE WHOLE WORLD - EVER FOUND A NEGATIVE POWER VALUE - THEN THERE WOULD BE NOTHING BUT AMAZEMENT.  There is absolutely NOTHING normal in a negative wattage value.  In fact - so EXTRAORDINARY is this that it would be an entirely meaningless term.  Wattage is NEVER NEGATIVE.  Nor is it EVER EXPECTED TO COMPUTE TO A NEGATIVE VALUE.  IF AND WHEN IT DOES THEN IT IS EXTRAORDINARY.  This truth is so enshrined that I was ASSURED - by every expert that I have ever spoken to - that it is ENTIRELY IMPOSSIBLE TO GET A NEGATIVE WATTAGE VALUE because it is ENTIRELY IMPOSSIBLE TO RETURN MORE ENERGY THAN DELIVERED.  And a NEGATIVE WATTAGE ABSOLUTELY HAS NOTHING TO DO WITH THE ENERGY LOST OVER TIME.

You really do take us all for fools.  God help us if the nonsense that you expound is believed by anyone ever.  It is a travesty of science.

Rosemary

Good posts Rosemary!

Unfortunately simulations are only as good as their programing... which follows the dictum, Garbage in equals Garbage Out

Ron