Claimed OU circuit of Rosemary Ainslie

[MileHigh]

PART 2 OF 2

   4. You and Poynt's claim there is NO AC in this circuit at all (FACT - there is)

>  Not sure what you are really talking about but I can tell you this:  You have a difficulty with terminology with respect to AC and DC.  I seem to recall that you claimed a DC pulse train that varied between zero volts and five volts was "not AC but chopped DC."  WAKE UP, that's an AC waveform with an added DC bias and any parts of your circuit that will react to AC will react to "chopped DC" also.  WAKE UP!!!

   5. All claims the diode can't help charge input battery (FACT - it does)

>  A KNOWN FACT that anybody that knows anything about electronics knows:  You put a diode across a coil if you want to absorb the coil discharge to prevent any spikes from disturbing the rest of your circuit.  This is STANDARD PRACTICE.

>  YES, you are getting a recharging spike going into the battery, but BIG DEAL, the numbers I have heard so far indicate that it contains between 1/100th and 1/25th of the energy of the discharging waveform.  Time to stop tilting your hat at windmills.

   6. All claims the spikes will damage the mosfet and that the ringing should be stopped (FACT - this mosfet is designed EXACTLY for this kind of application)

>  For this one I an going to show you no mercy:  You are a f*cking moron.  Suck on that!

   7. Your claim that the spike would be too small to be significant (FACT - on a decent circuit the voltage is 4 times the input voltage, it charges batteries or caps - it is VERY significant)

>  Time to LEARN SOMETHING - PUSH IT IN - It's all about the spike energy, and not about the spike voltage.  Your statement above is one of those clues where you are clearly demonstrating your "just above electronics beginner" status, after seven years.  And you are not aware that you are doing it.

   8. You and Poynt claiming when the mosfet is off, the battery cannot conduct (FACT - the diode in the mosfet allows just this exact current conduction as it is designed to do this!)

>  No it is NOT designed to do this.  That's good ol' Despot Aaron talking and pushing the envelope of his electronics knowledge way way past his comfort zone.   You are letting your fear get the better of yourself so you issue a proclamation about the function of the diode when in reality you are clueless.  Another telltale statement that reveals the true extent of your electronics knowledge.  You haven't gone online or opened a book, you are just BSing and trying to make yourself sound important.  The diode works the OTHER WAY, and is designed to breakdown at a certain voltage and protect the MOSFET from abuse, the very abuse that you are now recommending.

   9. Your claim that the spike will disappear with improved circuit connections, etc... (FACT - it only makes the spike bigger)

>  Bulls*it misdirection on your part.  Take a generic statement by me and apply it to a specific case that may indeed be what you saw for that very specific case.  Aaron, you are a DISINFORMATION AGENT.

  10. All claims that the inductive resistor will change resistance as it heats up will throw off all the numbers (FACT - these resistors are made to be VERY ACCURATE at these operating temperatures. That is the whole point. They can be within 5% across a WIDE range of temperatures but the most discrepancy will be when they are extremely cold (way below ambient - or way too hot - this demonstrates the skeptics knowledge of this kind of resistor is completely lacking)

>  More straw man DISINFORMATION AGENT work by the despot, trying to take one small fact about the particular resistor that you are using and use this to impugn the (ex)skeptics in the thread.

  11. Skeptics claim that a battery capacitance analyzer is an accurate way to determine battery capacitance for load testing and this supposedly makes the actual draw down tests unnecessary. (FACT - they are good only for sorting through batteries to see which ones need replacing or not. They are in NO WAY AT ALL - an accurate way to see what a battery will deliver.)

>  I don't disagree with you there.  On the other had your and Rosemary's proposed battery rundown tests are a farce and so full of technical holes that they are pure Swiss cheese.  Yes indeed you could do battery rundown testing, but not using the rank amateurish methodology that you are proposing.  And I assume that you have been handing out advice on battery rundown testing to your subscribers for years.

The above points and COUNTLESS other points and claims you and your crew have brought up show that you skeptics simply have zero credibility and zero background necessary to review this circuit in any capacity whatsoever.

>  I enjoyed rebutting your points.  You would not have wanted me to keep a running tally of all of the ridiculous nonsensical points and processes that you made in your thread and in your clips about "Rosemary's circuit."  The listing would be in the HUNDREDS.

Quite simply put, you're not even qualified to be skeptical about this circuit because you have no valid frame of reference through which to analyze this circuit.

>  Total cognitive dissonance at play on your part Aaron.  Keep the good fight going on in that brain or yours.  Do you remember that Star Trek with the master male humanoid robot that's in charge of all of the female clone humanoid robots?  The crew goes around switching the female clones off because the crew's actions are illogical and "don't compute."  Then the cut to the shot of the poor master male robot's head smoking up a storm?  Think about that scene.

Poynt claims a few posts ago that he knows this circuit well enough! That's ridiculous and some of the above points clearly show that none of you know this circuit from a hole in the ground that you all keep digging for yourselves.

>  You are the one in the hole, read above!

When valid points are brought up about various items that show you and your crew obviously don't know what you're talking about in regards to this circuit, you ignore them and start to discuss something else. That is because you can't deal with the truth or are intentionally spreading disinformation.

>  Cognitive dissonance, your hair is on fire like Michael Jackson's.

Time to lick your wounds and move on.  Sorry, I kicked your ass and you deserved it.  Wether you believe it or not, I am just trying to help you and Rosemary get to the right conclusion, make the right measurements, and see for YOURSELVES what is REALLY going on.

MileHigh

[poynt99]

Not to take away from your thunder MH, good stuff

This was probably my final post at EF as no doubt Aaron will kick my arse as well. The post is equally valid here so I'd like to cross-post it:



You know,

We (as in the two divided camps here) are probably never going to establish any common ground in terms of the tests, the results, how they were processed and interpreted, and the final conclusion drawn from them.

I will tell you what is likely to happen as this story continues to unfold:

Aaron and Peter will do their tests using an unpublished test procedure. If the test procedure is published, it will no doubt contain several serious flaws that by professional standards would invalidate the test.

Nonetheless, the results will be published, and in all likelihood they will appear "positive" in terms of achieving COP>1. The chances of the results appearing to support a COP=17 are slim to none, but anything is possible where the desire to believe is much stronger than the perceived need for transparency. [NOTE: Bias is going to kill any credibility here. The only way both parties could ever hope to agree on the results, is if the tests are performed by an unbiased 3rd party technically capable and willing to oblige. Does such a party exist? Unfortunately, not very likely.)

The classicists will cry "foul play!" and the new-agers will bite their thumbs at them. Debate and argument will ensue and in the end the classicists will maintain the results are "inconclusive" while the new-age zealots proclaim victory, success, and fulfillment of their grandest dream.

No agreement, and no common ground.

The RA builders thread will continue for a while, the supporting members still enchanted and enthralled by their self-proclaimed victory. All the while the classicists will discuss things a bit longer and TK will have tested the circuit in all it's fantabulous glory beyond the limits normally humanly possible before closing the book and moving on from this cantakerous debacle.

Aaron and Peter will eventually throw in the towel exclaiming that the circuit has too limited an output and is not viable, but nonetheless exhibits "copious amounts of COP" (tongue-in-cheek) or something to that effect. Meanwhile, Rosemary (peace, love, and light to you) will fade back to familiar surroundings once more and continue to develop her grand anti-thesis which by no small measure shall change our view of the very fabric of nature.

And then some time later when conditions allow, the next Rosemary Ainslie will appear and the story will repeat...

.99

[allcanadian]

@milehigh

I have to answer a lingering question from across the great divide (one tab away) for Quantum, Joit, and Harvey:  Michael's circuit converts the resistive load of the water heater into a reactive load using the triac/heater coil/diode/second heating element.  Most older household electricity meters can't measure reactive power, hence Michael's electrical costs go down.  That's probably a legal loophole in most areas and you can't be accused of stealing electricity, just guessing.  As you can see, it has absolutely nothing to do with Rosemary's circuit.

Let's see both Michael's circuit and Rosemary's circuit --
1)charge an inductive resistance with current to saturation
2)disrupt the source current at a low duty cycle
3)the disruption to current produces an inductive discharge
4)the inductive discharge then charges a resistance producing heat
Yes I can see how you came to the conclusion that they have nothing in common, LOL.

Now about this reactive power you mention, what is reactive power?, Here is one definition:

reactive loads such as inductors and capacitors dissipate zero power, yet the fact that they drop voltage and draw current gives the deceptive impression that they actually do dissipate power. This “phantom power” is called reactive power, and it is measured in a unit called Volt-Amps-Reactive (VAR), rather than watts.

It would seem reactive power is when an inductance draws current and produces a voltage drop but dissipates zero power. In this respect we could say the inductance only stores power in the form of a magnetic field and this power is not dissipated. Now let me get this straight, both Michael and Rosemary's nearly identical circuits draw current from the source and produce a voltage drop furnished by the source which is by definition real power VA or energy in watt/sec, but is not dissipated--so it is now imaginary or phantom power, this current is then disrupted or cutoff from the source --- But Michael is somehow stealing reactive power through the power meter which cannot see these amps or volts?---Hmm. If the Amps and volts were imaginary "phantom power" then I wonder what produced the inductive discharge when the source was disconnected. This is quite a predicament we have because something must have charged the inductance to produce the magnetic field which collapsed producing the very real inductive discharge which heated michael's secondary resistance, Im going to take a wild guess and say it was current and volts(power) from the source. Maybe you can clarify your statements for me, or perhaps someone else here can?
Regards
AC

[ramset]

YEEESH......
Banning ??,closing the door to researchers ?
This is truly a conundrum, a paradox.
I cannot understand Aaron?? ,there is toooooo much at stake here !!
Things really do have to change!
And Banning is not the answer
WE are at war!! ,throwing the cannons overboard is not the answer!!

[0c]

Doncha know? This is how all "conventional" or "classic" science should be treated? 

Now if TK would like to do something with a lot more promise, there's a couple things sittin there on his back burner.