Rosemary Ainslie circuit demonstration on Saturday March 12th 2011

[Rosemary Ainslie]

Consider the cup as half-full Rose. The fact that I am able to show evidence produced by a simulation that is similar to your own, is a good thing.

The only sad part in my opinion, is that no one, including yourself has yet questioned or challenged the results I have presented.

.99

Poynt - how can you say that?  You've given a variation of the circuit that includes a resistor at the positive rail of the battery.  Why?  We have NO SUCH RESISTOR ON OUR CIRCUIT.  Why do you NOT include 3.3mH inductance on the wires on either side of the battery terminals?  Why do you NOT vary the inductance around the circuit components to reach that negative product?  We're NOT lying about the results on the LeCroy.  We couldn't if we wanted to.  So.  If you're NOT getting the same results then rather ASK ME what to vary.  Or better still.  Tell us why your variation works?  Even that would help.  The ONLY THING THAT COUNTS IS THIS.  How much energy is being delivered by the supply?  If that results shows a NEGATIVE product - THEN THERE'S SOMETHING EXTRAORDINARY GOING ON!!!!!!!  That you find ANY value with a negative voltage product through a simulation is AMAZING.  WHY are you NOT amazed?  It is PROFOUNDLY SIGNIFICANT.  It means - at its least - that your software which is designed within classical structures and algorithms ALLOWS FOR OVER UNITY?  THAT'S EXTRAORDINARY.  It should be a WOW moment.  It should be keeping you awake at nights. 

UNLESS you plan to argue that the vi dt IS NOT THE CORRECT equation to apply to the power measurements.  In which case you'd need to take up cudgels with many, many more people than I need to with my own eccentric take on current flow.

Rosemary

ADDED 
For instance - too - WHY did you include capacitance in your evaluation on the previous circuit and yet on this variation you DON'T?  You change things Poynt - and you DON'T explain why you do so.  And they're small and subtle changes.  And you and I both know what a HUGE difference this makes.  I'm inclined to think that you WILL NOT find those negative values on our test because that's your whole intention.  But you must surely KNOW that there are others who will be doing this and who WILL find it.  And I'm not sure why you run that risk.  I am sick and tired of second guessing.  What's very apparent is that you are NOT playing your cards openly.  And this is OPEN SOURCE.

[Rosemary Ainslie]

And guys,  for those of you who are not familiar with the circuit parameters.  What's needed is that one uses thick copper wire - resistors with a great deal of mass and not too much inductance - and that way you will - invariably - generate more energy away from the supply than first delivered.

And the reason for this - as propounded in that thesis - is that the inductive/conductive circuit material itself may have the required properties to liberate their own energy potentials through the simple application of inductive laws.  Therefore INDUCTANCE IS MUCH REQUIRED.  But NOT in the form of an inductor - as that also generates a counter force that negates the benefit in the thermal efficiencies that is otherwise enabled.   

Regards,
Rosemary

[poynt99]

Poynt - how can you say that?  You've given a variation of the circuit that includes a resistor at the positive rail of the battery.  Why?  We have NO SUCH RESISTOR ON OUR CIRCUIT.

The 2 Ohm resistance included in my recent schematics was added because your own simulation diagrams show this resistor. This value is somewhat realistic for the total battery wiring resistance. Of course you have not added a physical resistor there, but the wiring will exhibit a finite resistance per foot, and that resistance is "unseen", just as the wire inductance is also unseen. You have included that inductance in the simulation, and so have I; why do you not object to that as well?

Why do you NOT include 3.3mH inductance on the wires on either side of the battery terminals?

I have included 2uH on either side of the battery wiring. I am sure you meant uH and not mH.

Why do you NOT vary the inductance around the circuit components to reach that negative product?

I am not sure what you mean here. I have indeed shown a negative product.

That you find ANY value with a negative voltage product through a simulation is AMAZING.  WHY are you NOT amazed?  It is PROFOUNDLY SIGNIFICANT.  It means - at its least - that your software which is designed within classical structures and algorithms ALLOWS FOR OVER UNITY?  THAT'S EXTRAORDINARY.  It should be a WOW moment.  It should be keeping you awake at nights. 

Please explain why it is amazing and how that negative product is produced?

UNLESS you plan to argue that the vi dt IS NOT THE CORRECT equation to apply to the power measurements.

Instantaneous power measurement is valid if applied properly. The measurement I made with the sim produces a result of -125W. In your opinion is that measurement correct? (note the VBAT probe position).

For instance - too - WHY did you include capacitance in your evaluation on the previous circuit and yet on this variation you DON'T?

I removed the capacitor to appease YOUR objection to it. The small capacitor that was there makes very little difference to the results, so it is essentially immaterial.

You change things Poynt - and you DON'T explain why you do so.

Indeed I do explain things, and I just did again.

I'm inclined to think that you WILL NOT find those negative values on our test because that's your whole intention.  But you must surely KNOW that there are others who will be doing this and who WILL find it.

I have no doubt that you can and will find those negative values. I have never denied that they exist when the measurements are taken according to your methods.

I am sick and tired of second guessing.  What's very apparent is that you are NOT playing your cards openly.

I ask only for your participation in the walk-through exercise I am attempting to engage in here. No second guessing is necessary. My cards are on the table, and the simulation is not lying. I have clearly shown the measurement results and how and where those results were obtained. Those results are completely open for debate, challenge and questioning, yet no one has done so. I invite any criticism of those results and how I obtained them (keeping in mind that Rose has endorsed them as being in line with her own results, so the results obtained by simulation should NOT be one of the criticisms please; I believe we are already well beyond that debate).

.99

[Rosemary Ainslie]

Poynty - I am happy to discuss this with you OFF forum - until such time as this thread has been scrubbed and disinfected.

Until then I will ONLY report on our continuing results.  And - as required - complain about the need of some URGENT INTERVENTIONS.

Regards,
Rosemary

[Rosemary Ainslie]

And Poynty - if you want me to discuss the circuit then give me reason to discuss OUR circuit and not your variation of it.  You have NOT endorsed our numbers through Spice.  Until you do - then there really is no basis for any argument at all.

And WHY this is required is because there is no way to modify the amount of energy applied without the use of the 2 Q-array - at least.  The 2 Q-array - together with the functions generator allows for the control over the switch that it can become a booster converter without ANY COST OF ENERGY  from the supply to enable those boosted energy levels.  We're dealing with a remarkably efficient technology that is able to far exceed the efficiencies of power delivery together with the efficient control over the reqired and effective level of wattage dissipated on the load.

Regards,
Rosie