Rosemary Ainslie Circuit Demonstration, June 1 2013

[TinselKoala]

I've been able to do this in the sim in the past (and I've posted results of it), but the present circuit Q1 will not go into osc. for some reason. I think it is due to the placement of inductances; i.e. I'm missing one. Anyway, that is not so interesting and is known. I was hoping to see the larger amplitude osc. on Q1 as you adjusted the bias, did I miss it? The amplitude seemed about the same as Q2's. When you use the FG, isn't the Q1 osc. amplitude quite a bit higher than Q2's? Also, this may not make a huge difference, but I was using a 50 Ohm in series with my DC bias supply to emulate the FG.

You might have noticed that the very first time I hit the oscs, the Fluke started chirping and the waveform looked ragged (it was untriggered), and I quickly backed down a bit to silence the Fluke and display a clean block of oscs. So the amplitude is there, I believe. That HP721A PS is current-limited at 225 mA, and the Interstate F43 can actually source more than that !!
I'll try again with a series 50R and let you know later on this afternoon. I could also set the FG to a very slow period, essentially emulating the PS but with a bit more power available.

[markdansie]

I took the zinc should be back on deck tomorrow.
I will write up the conclusion to these tests and that will be the end of this story.
I wanted some closure as do many people I see with technology....to know the truth.
i was on a suicide mission to get involved , but many lesson have been learned and some knowledge gained.
Is there any over unity....no, but there are some interesting things to explore.
I ask people not to be judgmental, I though the exercise of putting up some theories building something to test them was great, hey its what we all like to do. The failure was the lacking of the technical expertise needed to measure and interpret what was being seen. Simple mistakes needed up being the foundations to support the theory, something I have seen often in Universities.
Add to this some personality clashes.
Anyway many thanks to everyone and read my write up before end of week
Kind Regards
Mark

[poynt99]

A quick post for the link to the "negative mean power" demonstration. I'll do a proper post tomorrow if I can.

It's pretty much self-explanatory.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pnZLwA2Uohs

[markdansie]

of topic but was thinking of you TK lol plus we need a break from this
http://revolution-green.com/2013/07/02/magnetic-advanced-generation-jet-electric-turbine/

[picowatt]

From her...

And that was screwed due to the incorrect positioning of the zero reference of the signal probe.  It's an error.  God did not create us to be free from error.  The most RESPECTABLE OF ALL SCIENTISTS are prone to error.  Very few papers are EVER submitted without needing amendment for error.  There is NOTHING SHAMEFUL in this.  More as as I've now been assured that these errors can be corrected PROVIDED ONLY THAT IT DOES NOT EFFECT THE CLAIM.  And ours most certainly doesn't.]

No one but she herself has ever claimed to be "free from error", even though numerous people have pointed out many errors to her.  It is her constant denial, arguing, and insulting attitude toward those that pointed out these errors that is "shameful", particularly when such errors are so obvious to most. 

So now, she is apparently admitting that all but the FIG5 tests were performed with the CSR probe on the wrong side of the CSR making all current and power measurements related to those tests completely invalid.

As well, from the demo we can see that when the CSR probe is on the wrong side of the CSR, there is little if any change in the Q2 oscillation amplitude observed by the CSR probe.  Ths indicates that the CSR resistance is an insignificant value compared to the amount of inductive reactance in the CSR lead wiring between the CSR probe and probe reference.  As such, even if the CSR probe would have been placed on the correct side of the CSR, all measurements made of the Q2 oscillation AC currents are invalid due to the observed lead and wiring inductance.

There is little that can be salvaged from the papers with the only possible way to correct them being to re-perform all tests with more attention to proper measurement.     

As .99's recent video demonstrates, the elimination of measurement errors due to wiring and lead inductance would most likely confirm that her circuit does not produce a negative mean power product and that her batteries are discharging just as one would expect, and as she herself has confirmed.

PW

.