Claimed OU circuit of Rosemary Ainslie

[MileHigh]

Aaron:

The difference between a positive dominant waveform and negative dominant waveform is that the
“negative dominant waveform” can be quantitatively shown to have more power below zero or ground
than above. This appears to indicate that there is a theoretical chance that at higher voltages, the battery
can recharge.

Okay so this is the essence of the report that you prepared.  In this case what I would have done is take stock of the situation.  You are measuring heat production in various parts of the setup.  This is telling you that the battery *is* putting out power.  Yet your measurements state that there is a net charging of the battery from the load and the 555 circuit.

Even though you want to believe in over unity, the right thing to do in this case is operate from the assumption that there is a net power outflow from the battery, and somehow your measurements need a second looking at.  There is nothing "wrong" about this and there is nothing wrong in questioning your own measurements, and I commend you because you clearly state that these are not definitive results.  It's really like the first go round, and if you continue investigating you may be able to fine tune your measurements in a second round.  This is of course natural and healthy.

I don't think you made it perfectly clear where you placed your ground clips for your measurements.  If I was going to look at load current and the 555 current, and knowing that you are worried about fractions of milliwatts here, I would have soldered the two resistors right onto the negative battery terminal.  Then all of my ground clips from my three scope channels would be physically connected to the battery ground terminal.  This would eliminate any minor potentials due to current flowing through the wire interconnects affecting the precision of your readings.  I am just being very conservative here.

I would also add the load current to the 555 current.  You would have to make precise shunt resistance measurements and then convert the shunt voltage waveforms in Excel into true current values.  Then add up the true current values to get the true waveform for current in and out of the battery.  I an not saying that there is anything wrong with treating them as separate entities, I just feel more comfortable adding them together to look at the true current waveform for the battery.  I am assuming that ugly 5 Mhz noise on the 555 current waveform (which becomes a VERY ugly 5 MHz noise modulation on the 555's Vcc pin) just might go away if your got rid of the 555's "power adjustment pot."

Anyway, to repeat:  You made a first crack of measuring the net power flow from the battery and you got negative power flow.  Even though you want to believe in over unity the correct approach is to assume that altough your measurements are probably quite accurate, they just quite aren't there and need tweaking and refinement.  If you get the measurements spot on, you should show a small net power out-flow from the battery.  Do you recall me telling you that there was a good chance high frequency excitation of the coil-resistor with a narrow duty cycle waveform would yield very little power flow because the inductor was going to choke off the current flow because inductors block high frequencies?  It looks to me like you were seeing this very thing when you ran your experiment.

As .99 stated the ambient temperature of the coil-resistor is not the room ambient temperature, it is whatever your thermocouple was picking up on the coil-resistor itself before you started the experiment.  If you put your thermocouple inside the coil-resistor, I view that as a potentially unstable thermal environment.  Putting the thermocouple on the outside is the way to go.

In this experiment I assume you had the coil-resistor siting on the wooden plank.  For future experiments I strongly recommend suspending it vertically by a wire or a string.  The wooden plank + desk is an unknown heat sink that has a serious potential to affect your temperature readings.

MileHigh

[MileHigh]

As far as your current waveform goes, that is one funky freaky Frankenstein Monster current waveform.  You can clearly see how different effects are taking place at different times in the cycle.  You clearly see what looks like an exponential decay curve at the center of your scope shot.  Then there are positive and negative peaks that may be the coil kick-back and who knows what else.

Interestingly enough, the voltage waveform across the coil-resistor is basically a sine wave with a few mysterious spikes poking their way through.  This looks like there is some sort of series LC circuit phenomenon going on that is being driven by the MOSFET gate signal.  You may have noticed in your circuit travels that as you make your square wave excitation high in frequency everything starts to look like Sine waves anyways.  Something about filtering out all of the higher harmonics and Fourier transforms come into play there.

The real teaser is that you did not show a display on the DSO with the coil-resistor voltage waveform, the load current waveform, and the MOSFET gate voltage waveform.  That just might give you enough information to understand the Frankenstein current waveform and the coil-resistor voltage waveform.

It's all about taking it to the next level.  Instead of just setting up the circuit and making measurements looking for over unity with this particular oscillation mode, in the best case scenario you would have seen that Frankenstein current waveform and tried to figure out what was going on there before you started making the measurements.  However, this is really not trivial stuff, and takes a lot of skill to pull off.  It would not be easy for anybody to do.

However, there would be a huge bonus to figuring out the Frankenstein current waveform:  You would understand what was really going on and that would shoot an arrow straight through your and Rosemary's "resonance for maximum COP" argument.  Once you really understood what was going on in that oscillation mode, you would be able to account for all of the energy, and come to the realization that there are no magic free heat pies coming out of the "stressed fabric of space-time through sympathetic resonances" argument.  You would see and understand for yourself the energy audit trail through one cycle of the oscillation.

With respect to the coil-resistor dropping in temperature after the experiment starts, forget it, assume that you had that problem with room ambient vs. the start temperature of the coil-resistor being used in the test (NOT one sitting next to it).

All of the speculations about negative temperature and negative energy, all the musings in the posts the past few days are simply "Acid."  ALL of that discussion is NONSENSE, plain and simple.  The coil-resistor would NEVER drop in temperature when you started to put juice through it.  I suggest that you just drop the subject, it is pie in the sky.

MileHigh

[MileHigh]

Aaron:

This one will wrap it up for tonight.

If you add all those up, conventional theory will require that it is definitely in the positive wattage range at whatever watts. To know the wattage needed is irrelevant to the point that definite heat is produced on the circuit at negative wattages.

That is all real work even if load stays ambient. There is very obvious positive work (heat) shown and is absolutely MORE than the negative wattage that is the net draw on the circuit. So that COP is what? Do we divide positive watts the circuit is showing by the negative input? In any case, it is a very clear and very straight forward proof of concept that more work is done than input.

So, I believe that because there is heat and the battery is showing gain as the circuit is running negative, the argument stands no matter what.

No matter what, there is clear evidence that heat is being dissipated on the circuit (mosfet up to 1 above) (timer up to 8C above) and (timer power pot up to 10C above) while the circuit total draw is around negative -0.3 watts.

That is heat produced on the switching side of the circuit - even without any cooling or heating on load - for negative wattage.

That appears to be free energy to me and I don't know that this has been shown at this precise of detail with the high sampling data dumps openly before. What is the COP? I don't know but it is over 1.0 for sure.

Does RF come into play? Even with my computer off, I get the same results. But there still is RF all over the place. In either case, this shows classical electron theory of electricity may need some serious revisions.

Rosemary, all the evidence points towards your theory as being much more accurate to describe the electromagnetics than conventional electron theory.

Personally, I think the negative is a break in the symmetry of the vacuum and this causes a potential difference that acts as a sink for negative energy to move into the circuit from the active vacuum. Instead of lifting the board at one end to break the symmetry, you're taking one end of the board and pulling it below ground.

So you did your first round (?) of testing and the conclusion is that you have a negative wattage draw from the battery, the coil-resistor is not showing any real heat, and the support components (555, trimpot, MOSFET, resistors, etc) are all showing increased temperature indicating the real production of heat in the support components.

It sounds just great, battery getting a net energy influx, and heat being generated in some components.

Now there is another school of thought that says that somehow your energy in/out measurements based on the shunt resistor currents and battery voltage are just slightly off, tipping the balance in favour of negative wattage.  In other words, a fake-out.  Then there is no real surprise that the coil-resistor is staying cold because I have stated that possibility many times, perhaps more than a month ago.  At least we agree that the support components are heating up and dissipating energy.

So there is a perfectly logical followup test to determine which school of thought is on the right track.  You probably have a nice big fat 50,000 uF/25-volt electrolytic capacitor floating around or something similar?

All that you have to do is swap out your battery and hook up your big fat capacitor charged to 12.6 volts and see what happens.

If you are right, the voltage on the cap will slowly increase because of the negative wattage.

If I am right, the voltage on the cap will go down.

Don't you dare try to play the "but you have to have a battery to make it work" card.  I read the whole thread tonight and your whole premise is based on net negative watts of power measured at the battery terminals.  If you put a capacitor in place of the battery then you should get the same kind of result - negative output wattage.  If you want to model the battery more closely, you are welcome to measure the output impedance of your battery and then put an equivalent resistance in series with the capacitor.  It might have an output impedance of about 0.1 ohms (just guessing).

So that's it Aaron, everything that you said tonight in your discussions with Rosemary and Harvey indicate that you can put a trusty big fat electrolytic cap in place of the battery and you should see the cap voltage slowly increase as you run the circuit and you have changed the entire world.

However, Aaron, I think deep down inside you know that the cap voltage is going to go down, and most of tonight's discussion was "Acid mode."

Beyond that, here we are in a new nook and cranny, and you are investigating something that has absolutely nothing to do with the claim in the Ainsley white paper.  You got somewhat unexpected results, and the Free Energy Spin Doctors have said, "Hey!  Let's run with THIS one!"

One more time, you are all running down a blind alley.  This discussion has almost nothing to do with the Ainsley claim made in her white paper.

So, please do the capacitor test, watch the voltage drop, and if you still have that awesome 4-channel (heart skipping beat) DSO, then PLEASE try to investigate the claim made in the Ainsley white paper.  Is that asking for too much?

MileHigh

[Hoppy]

@ Milehigh

I posted earlier an Excel chart of the 555 power measurements taken from Aaron's data. Can you explain why this chart is showing negative power? Surely the passive 555 circuit cannot cause a reverse current flow in its supply shunt resistor?

Hoppy

[MileHigh]

Hi Hoppy,

I can't explain why the 555 circuit sometimes shows negative power.  The strange thing is that you can see how there is a corelation between the sinusoidal voltage waveform across the coil-resistor and the sinusoidal waveform of the power measurement of the 555.  It almost looks like something is modulating the power consumption of the 555 up and down so that sometimes the power is negative.  This is all taking place at around 400 KHz, which is a moderately high frequency.  The fact is that the 555 circuit simply cannot be outputting power itself, so there is some sort of a fake-out going on.

Like I said in my earlier postings, the "555 power limiting trimpot" should simply not be there and that complicates things.  Also note that the 555 circuit is active, not passive.

It simply does not make any sense that this is happening.  It would have to be carefully looked at with a scope and playing with the routing of the wires in the setup and so on.

The first thing that I would do would be to build a stand-alone version of the 555 circuit, taking the MOSFET and the coil-resistor out of the the equation to see what happens.  For starters I would even keep the "555 power limiting trimpot" in place even though it makes me nauseous.

You can assume that you would see a normal power flow from the battery into the 555 circuit in this case with no kind of modulation on the power waveform going into negative territory.  There would be no modulation at all.  Then when you plugged this 555 reference circuit back into the full blown setup with the MOSFET and coil-resistor, you would expect to see the power modulation stuff that goes into negative territory again.  Looking at the differences in the 555 circuit with and without the MOSFET + coil-resistor would be the key to figuring it all out.

If I was doing this and calling the shots I would remove the "Bizarro logic" power limiting trimpot and I then would expect to see the 555 frequency and duty cycle change.  Therefore the main "on pot" and "off pot" settings would need to be adjusted to bring the frequency and duty cycle back to your desired settings.  You can expect that measuring the power on this modified setup would be normal, you would not see any negative power consumption at all.

Then I would plug this back into the MOSFET + coil-resistor setup and see what happens.  Chances are the oscillations would be killed by these improvements to the 555 circuit so it is kind of a moot point since what you are looking for is the oscillation.

If I can make a suggestion to Aaron, why not just measure the vanilla circuit in its normal running mode without oscillation?  How about some nice clean exponential curves and no horrendous noise and oscillation.  Both you and Rosemary have repeatedly claimed that the normal operating mode for this circuit will be over unity and produce excess heat in the coil-resistor.  In fact, if I recall correctly, the COP 17 claim in Rosemery's paper is based on the normal running of the circuit.

Why not keep life simple and just look at the circuit in its normal operating mode and leave the esoteric and complicated spurious oscillation mode testing for step 2?  Just Keep It Simple, Aaron.

MileHigh