Rosemary Ainslie circuit demonstration on Saturday March 12th 2011

[Rosemary Ainslie]

And in a further effort to move this argument forward - here's the thing.  When the voltage measured across the shunt is greater than zero then those same oscillations take the battery voltage to its lowest values.  And, correspondingly, when the voltage measured across the shunt is less than zero then the oscillations in the battery take that battery voltage to its highest levels.  therefore the discharge value is based on a decreasing voltage * amperage * time while the recharge is based on an increasing voltage * amperage * time.  Effectively, in discharging the circuit is potentialised to ensure that the second induced cycle corresponds to a high recharge cycle.  That's the advantage of the 180 degree anti phase relationship of those voltages across the shunt and the battery. 

And it's obvious why this has not been fully exposed prior to these tests.  It's simply because no-one has identified a use for that oscillation.  It's KNOWN to generate unwanted heat.  It's been discarded - or 'snuffed out'.  It has NOT been exploited.  Much is written on how to get rid of it. Nothing is written on why or even how, one should actually exploit it.

And then - to get back to those simulations.  One assumes that Kirchhoff's Laws are a natural consequence of energy transfers.  Therefore there was never a need to 'write in' any code that stated 'in the event that the circuit measures a negative wattage - then display 'THERE'S A BREACH IN THERMODYNAMIC CONSTRAINTS - THEREFORE THERE IS AN IMPLICIT ERROR IN THE SETTINGS IN THIS PROGRAM.  GO CHECK THE SETTINGS' - or such like warning.  The algorithms are classical and applied with the full confidence that NOTHING can, in fact, breach those constraints.  So.  When classical measurement protocols are applied - as they are in any such software - then one SHOULD be able to rely on some value that returns a positive rather than a negative wattage.  If they don't - and if the software simply and continually measures the results as they present themselves - and those results show that extraordinary 'gain' to the supply source, then there is only ONE CONCLUSION.  Classical measurement protocols have always allowed for this result - this breach in the energy barriers - and Kirchhoff's Laws are simply based on assumption and NOTHING ELSE.  Therefore - there is nothing NEW in our circuit.  Nothing NEW in this effect.  It's been there all along.

Which is embarrassing.  Because since the turn of the 19th Century - there has been one scientific consensus which is that the electromagnetic force obeys Thermodynamic Laws.  It clearly does not.  Or it certainly doesn't obey the 2nd Law.  However, the good news is manifold.  It absolutely conforms to Einstein's mass/energy equivalence and it promises that our electric applications can be about as clean and as green as it required to halt the rampant pollution resulting from the applied and wasteful abuse of this energy.  And this circuit - albeit highly efficient - is just the first unfolding of all this potential. 

I think we're near the end of this thread.  I'm still sending out reports and circulars - but this next week will be spent in finalising and then submitting the paper.  For those who do not know this - we've been invited - again - to submit.  This time I think there will be some active protection at the review stage that it isn't entirely rejected but - hopefully - simply for editorial amendment as required.  Then I trust we'll finally get to the stage that I've been yearning for for over a decade.  Its passage to the academic forum will then be ensured.  And that will be wonderful.  This technology badly needs close scrutiny from our experts and proper research - in order to advance it.  But I must pay tribute to these forums.  It's honed the argument precisely because it's been so brutally attacked.  And - I think - it's also weathered this storm.  Battered and bruised - but still very much alive.

Regards,
Rosemary 

[poynt99]

A summary of the detailed analysis performed thus far:

In order to more fully explore the subtleties of this circuit, the battery array and battery jumper wiring was included in the diagram, and hence in the simulation. The jumper wiring adds a total of 2uH inductance (5 jumpers x 400nH ea.) to the battery circuit. In addition, the DC feed wires from the battery array (RED and BLACK) to the MOSFETs and Load Element mounted on the perf board, were broken down into 3 wire segments, each with an inherent inductance of 1.1uH and resistance of 0.33 Ohms.

So the expanded DC feed wiring still exhibits a significant magnitude of total inductance (3.3uH) and resistance (1 Ohm) in keeping with previous diagrams and simulations, with the exception that about 1/3 more inductance was added at Rose's request. The previous total inductance was 2uH in each leg, now there is 3.3uH. The battery jumper wiring has a total of 2uH as previously mentioned.

From here, battery voltage measurements were taken across several points in the battery wiring part of the circuit. When multiplied with the CSR probe voltage, first the instantaneous, then average INPUT power was reiteratively computed for each battery voltage measurement point, and displayed in the many scope shots. The battery voltage measurement points start at node 7 shown on the diagram. This is the voltage measured at node 7 in reference to the GND BUS node 4. From here the battery voltage probes were moved progressively to the left (on both the RED and BLACK wire simultaneously) in the schematic such that the wiring inductance effects on the battery voltage measurement become evident. After 4 measurements, the battery probes end up located at nodes 1 and 3. At this point, the battery voltage is being measured across the battery/jumper array and the CSR inclusive (see "schema04.png"). This measurement point eliminates the effects of the inductance and resistance contributed by the RED and BLACK battery feed wires. Because the interest is strictly in the battery voltage alone, the bottom battery voltage probe was moved to node 2 in the schematic (see "schema05.png"). This now eliminates the effects of the CSR resistance and inductance on the battery voltage measurement. Throughout this progression of battery voltage measurement points closer and closer to the battery array, it was shown that the net battery power, although negative in polarity, was decreasing in magnitude with each progressive move closer to the battery array. Note, for each and every measurement throughout the exercise, the CSR probes remain across the CSR unchanged.

Next, it was explained that a valid INPUT power analysis can be performed by measuring only one of the six batteries in the array, assuming that each of the six are in a similar operating condition. Combining the voltage measurement across the last battery in the array with the adjacent CSR voltage (current) reading, INPUT power can be computed. Total circuit power is computed simply by multiplying by 6.

The next battery voltage measurement was taken across the last 12V battery (VBat6) and its associated wire jumper (LJumper5). See "schema06.png". Here it is shown that the INPUT power still computes to a negative value (-3.8W) (assuming CSR=1Ohm).

Once again, because the interest is strictly in the voltage across the battery itself, the top battery voltage probe was moved down, eliminating the effects of the jumper inductance on the measurement and providing a direct measurement of the battery voltage alone. See "schema07.png". As a reminder, it is critical to keep in mind how the INPUT power is computed; PBAT(t) = VBAT(t) x IBAT(t). VBAT is the battery voltage (either a single 12V, or all six), and this can not include the voltage contributed by any stray inductance. It is imperative therefore to measure the battery voltage directly across the battery terminals; no jumper or feed wiring can be included in this battery voltage measurement.

With the battery voltage probes placed directly across the last battery (Vbat6), the battery power computes to about +1.37W. As a result of measuring the battery voltage directly, thus eliminating the effects of the jumper inductance, the battery net average power figure has actually reversed polarity. Previously, when "LJumper5" was included in the battery voltage measurement, the net average battery (Vbat6) power computed to about -3.8W. This is the most important point all ought to pay close attention to, because it clearly shows how the inductance associated with only ~20 inches of wire can completely skew the net average power computation.

Next, it was shown that the total net average power from all six batteries computed to -32.7W (-5.45W ea.) using the Wattage probe available in PSpice. Note that the polarity of this net average power is negative, and this is the correct polarity for a source that is sourcing a net power. If the battery source was receiving a net power, the polarity would have been positive. This -32.7W is the TRUE power being sourced by the six batteries, and the key word is sourced. The evidence produced from the simulation clearly shows that the batteries are not receiving a net power and are not being charged, despite what appears to be the contrary when the battery voltage measurements are NOT made with the probes directly across the battery terminals (i.e. with inductance affecting the measurement as is the case shown in "schema06.png").

The probes as placed across the CSR are reversed, relative to the orientation of the probes as placed across the battery Vbat6. See "schema07.png". From top to bottom starting at the top of Vbat6, the probes are placed as follows: +, -, -, +. This is the reason a power computation using the probes configured as such, will yield a positive power (when made with no inductance in the battery voltage measurement) when multiplied together and averaged to produce a net power figure. The figure of +1.37W previously obtained clearly illustrates this fact (for a refresher, please refer to the previous discussion on the correct power polarity for power sources (NEG) and power sinks (POS)). The only reason the probes were placed in reverse across the CSR in the simulation, is because this is the best method available when using standard passive scope probes; it allows for a common ground point for both scope channels at node 2. This is how the Ainslie team was advised to orient the probes, therefore it was done this way in the simulation as well in order to keep the results the same.

The issue regarding the actual value that should be used for the CSR, is an issue that will be addressed in the next installments.

.99

[Rosemary Ainslie]

I'm finally honing in on the point OF POYNT'S confusions.  Reading CORRECTLY from the positive terminal THROUGH the circuit TO the negative terminal as is correct then the probes are ACTUALLY positioned as follows. 

Probe battery at positive terminal on the drain rail  +
Probe shunt at junction of the SHUNT AND circuit wire +
Ground of shunt and battery probes at battery negative terminal -

This is ABSOLUTELY CONSISTENT with conventional protocols and allows a consistent reading of both probes of all the circuit's measured voltages relative, as they are, to zero.  Therefore the following...

The probes as placed across the CSR are reversed, relative to the orientation of the probes as placed across the battery Vbat6. See "schema07.png".

The probes are absolutely NOT reversed according to your 'schma07.png'.  They are both positioned PRECISELY as required by ALL STANDARD CONVENTIONS that the positive and the negative voltages across both the battery and the shunt are consistent with the directional flow of current.  I'm afraid I have to contradict you here Poynty.  You have NOT reversed them.  What you have done is INCORRECTLY REFERENCED THEM AS FOLLOWS.

From top to bottom starting at the top of Vbat6, the probes are placed as follows: +, -, -, +.

SO.  You CANNOT read the probes from 'top to bottom' for goodness sake.  And nor can PSpice read them from 'top to bottom'.  How PSpice is reading them and how you SHOULD be reading those voltages - is their series positions starting from the positive terminal of the supply to the negative terminal of the supply though the circuit.  Therefore - correctly - the probes are as follows + + and COMMON -.  Else you are NOT reading the true voltages but reading a REVERSED voltage over the second or CSR probe.  You have made a mistake here Poynty.  Why?  You surely know better?

Which rather makes nonsense of the following.

This is the reason a power computation using the probes configured as such, will yield a positive power (when made with no inductance in the battery voltage measurement) when multiplied together and averaged to produce a net power figure.

It would be nice to blame this result on the incorrect positioning of the probes.  But the fact is this.  IF PSpice is showing a positive reading when the probes are positioned as the ARE INDEED positioned - THEN THAT READING IS CORRECT.  Therefore, INDEED, the following value is ALSO....

The figure of +1.37W previously obtained clearly illustrates this fact

...CORRECT.  In exactly the same way as the previous figures per schema 1,2,3,4,5 and 6 are ALSO correct.  All probe positions were ALL correctly positioned for PSpice to read a consistent polarity of current and voltage through the circuit.  So.  I do not get your point AT ALL with respect to any reference to a 'reversal of probe' polarities. 

(for a refresher, please refer to the previous discussion on the correct power polarity for power sources (NEG) and power sinks (POS)).

And I'm not at all sure that it's 'we' who need the refresher course here Poynty Point.  So 

The only reason the probes were placed in reverse across the CSR in the simulation, is because this is the best method available when using standard passive scope probes;

This is NOT the best method at all.  It's the ONLY method.  Good gracious.

it allows for a common ground point for both scope channels at node 2. This is how the Ainslie team was advised to orient the probes, therefore it was done this way in the simulation as well in order to keep the results the same.

I personally was NEVER advised on this.  Nor were any members of our team.  I assure you.  Happily we all KNOW that this is the ONLY AND CORRECT METHOD TO POSITION THE PROBES TO GET A CORRECT READING.

Good heavens Poynty.  WHAT are you going on about? 
Rosie

Added. It's a matter of some concern that we're at this level of 'dialogue' Poynt.  I thought you would have known better.  Or are you depending on our readers not knowing better?  I simply never know with you.  But if you doubt what I've said here - then go and speak to ANY of your own members.  Even MileHigh.  You ERR here, GROSSLY.  ... Actually, on second thoughts DON'T ask MileHigh.  Ask WW

[TinselKoala]

"Poynty", I do believe you've touched a nerve.


Rosemary, you either aren't understanding what poynt99 is saying, or you are deliberately obfuscating. Your objections to his analysis make no sense.

[Rosemary Ainslie]

"Poynty", I do believe you've touched a nerve.


Rosemary, you either aren't understanding what poynt99 is saying, or you are deliberately obfuscating. Your objections to his analysis make no sense.

No TK.  I'm not obfuscating.  I'm clarifying.  It's Poynty who's been obfuscating.  You've all grown rather too reliant on your assumption of my idiocy.  Fortunately the readers of this thread and my blog include some heavy weights - unlike yourselves.  And it's that readership that is actually advancing this cause.  I don't want to be too precipitous here - but rest assured - right now I feel entirely HOPEFUL.  To be precise, I think I've finally slain the Jabberwocky.  "One, two! One, two! And through and through".  Our paper will be due for submission by mid month.  WHAT will you guys do when and if that's published?!?  You all really need to think HARD TK. 
All that good news.  Where will it put you?     

Kindest regards,
Rosie



and here's that all important link.
http://www.jabberwocky.com/carroll/jabber/jabberwocky.html
I'ts been a long walk TK.  "The vorpal blade went snicker-snack!
                                        He left it dead, and with its head
                                        He went galumphing back"