Claimed OU circuit of Rosemary Ainslie

[Harvey]

.99,

Did you do the temperature control for the 2.5KHz experiment,

http://www.overunity.com/index.php?topic=7620.msg205850#msg205850

Paul

I would be more interested in knowing if the shunt resistor used was inductive as this would affect the data values at the core of its interest.

[PaulLowrance]

I would be more interested in knowing if the shunt resistor used was inductive as this would affect the data values at the core of its interest.

That's true, which is one of many reasons to not mess with trying to calculate the power produced from the pulses, but there's no concern with inductance with the temperature measurements. Right?

Paul

[Rosemary Ainslie]

Rosie this is the avatar picture I have been using since I became Powercat

Cat - pretty little kitty there - but was hoping for a real life number?  LOL

[Harvey]

That's true, which is one of many reasons to not mess with trying to calculate the power produced from the pulses, but there's no concern with inductance with the temperature measurements. Right?

Paul

The sole purpose of the 'shunt' (current sensing resistor) is to determine the current supplied by the battery to the circuit. If this is inductive, as Poynt has clearly stated, it will skew the calculated current significantly during certain periods of the operation. Therefore, even though we have extremely accurate data of a voltage nature, any calculations used off of that data must be in reference to a solid and known resistance at that exact instance in time. What Poynt has called into question, is whether an inductance as low as 1µh can shift the negative 'shunt' readings by 180° into the future. Since his tests clearly show the same time shift, I am curious as to what his shunt values are inductively for comparison purposes.

[Harvey]

Since the first hurdle here has been to provide a replication that actually produces similar results to the original test done by Ainslie and Buckley which was then submitted to Quantum has now been achieved by Glen L., the next hurdle is to provide a falsification test. This is of course a separate aspect from the tests done by Ainslie and Martin that were submitted to IET and IEEE. Additionally, the plethora of tests that were done by Ainslie and Buckley for submission to specific Academics who shall remain in confidence, did in fact include specific water related temperature tests all of which are not being attempted under the current replication.

Therefore, this specific replication is intended to show the source current (and therefore the source power) provided to the circuit in comparison to the work done by the circuit. We are open for suggestions and encourage other replicators to provide a falsification test to this end. This may be a good thing for Poynt to focus on as he already has much of the materials at hand.

An example of a falsification test, would be to run the system for an extended period on a supply incapable of producing that quantity of work for the period observed.