Overunity.com Archives is Temporarily on Read Mode Only!



Free Energy will change the World - Free Energy will stop Climate Change - Free Energy will give us hope
and we will not surrender until free energy will be enabled all over the world, to power planes, cars, ships and trains.
Free energy will help the poor to become independent of needing expensive fuels.
So all in all Free energy will bring far more peace to the world than any other invention has already brought to the world.
Those beautiful words were written by Stefan Hartmann/Owner/Admin at overunity.com
Unfortunately now, Stefan Hartmann is very ill and He needs our help
Stefan wanted that I have all these massive data to get it back online
even being as ill as Stefan is, he transferred all databases and folders
that without his help, this Forum Archives would have never been published here
so, please, as the Webmaster and Creator of this Forum, I am asking that you help him
by making a donation on the Paypal Button above
Thanks to ALL for your help!!


Claimed OU circuit of Rosemary Ainslie

Started by TinselKoala, June 16, 2009, 09:52:52 PM

Previous topic - Next topic

0 Members and 46 Guests are viewing this topic.

PaulLowrance

If there are high frequencies involved here, then some other considerations is the nearby environment. That is, the type of ground plane, what objects are nearby. In antenna design such parameters makes a huge difference, mostly because of the ground type. The dielectric constant of the ground, it's resistivity, consistency. Those are more advanced transmission line parameters that will make a huge difference in open wires.

Most people ignore the effects of high frequency transmission propagation because they don't see too much of it on their scope, but that's because a lot of such signals reflect from the probe due to the sudden change of impedance.

Paul

PaulLowrance

Electrical current produces heat. So unless Ainslie is claiming it's not electrical current, then the temperature experiments will be valid, when they're completed. Actually, the temperature measurements would be far more valid than any scope measurements of signal spikes through wire wound components, LOL. Such scope calculations would be the ones that could *easily* be in error.

Paul

fuzzytomcat

Hi everyone,

Here is TEST #8 "Clean Up" and "Mosfet Shunt"
http://www.energeticforum.com/73814-post3108.html

Part 1 - A short test after doing some recommended "Device Under Test" (DUT) circuit modifications ....

1) Prototype "Load Resistor" - remove circuit alligator test clips and connect with crimp-on wire ring terminals

2) Mosfet Source Pin - remove 3" wire extension wire for probe connection, probe now connected to Mosfet "source" pin

3) Battery Probe Connection - relocated to the common probe ground terminal connection point, Probe tip now twelve (12) inches from prototype "Load Resistor"

*************************************************************************

Part 2 - A test using only two oscilloscope probes with one probe tip on Channel-1 between the Mosfet and Shunt and Channel-2 between the Shunt and the Battery Negative (B-) terminal.

Both probe grounds Channel-1 and Channel-2 connected to a separate isolated AC ground point "NOT" to the battery negative (B-) terminal

Fuzzy
:)

Rosemary Ainslie

Poynty - What double chin?  I thought I was just emphasising a prominence?  I shall have to look into this.

I would rather suggest that Glen hold on tight to his resistors until you've checked out the calibration of that meter of yours.  Thanks anyway - but I'd strongly recommend Fuzzy pass on this kind offer.  It's not you I don't trust Poynty Poynt.  It's the effectiveness of your instrument.  LOL

We also feel the lack of the required differential probes.  But we trust the lack is temporary.  But it is in no way critical for the collation and analysis of the data.  I'm still trying to work out how you knew of this application and its lack.  Nothing posted anywhere.  Are you telepathic?   ::)

Regarding your proposed thermal analysis - there's nothing wrong here.  But it's limited to showing the amount of energy dissipated.  It says nothing about the amount of energy delivered to compare this value.  If we try and establish the energy delivered compared to the watt hour rating of the batteries - we burden our experimental replicators with long hours of tests.  But hey - if you or they are up for it - then it's definitely an empirical measurement.  And our own earlier tests seem to indicate that the battery watt hour ratings are exceeded by some considerable margin.

But it needs those tests run in conjunction with controls.  And the detailed data extrapolations required are likely to stress the patience of any experamentalist to breaking point.  And at the end of that experiment?  My guess is that 50% of opinion will still claim that battery draw down rates are irrelevant being subject to the vagaries associated with their ratings.  Way, way too variable.

;D


PaulLowrance

Quote from: witsend on November 07, 2009, 04:31:22 PM
Regarding your proposed thermal analysis - there's nothing wrong here.  But it's limited to showing the amount of energy dissipated.  It says nothing about the amount of energy delivered to compare this value.

Actually it does. That's why he measures the DC current from the battery, and the DC voltage. That's the amount of power the battery is producing.

Paul