Claimed OU circuit of Rosemary Ainslie

[TinselKoala]

@MH: Aaron's test plan will be one that demonstrates to all us fools that he does indeed have OU in whatever device he chooses to test. Curiously, none of us will be able to repeat his measurements or calculations. You may put this prediction into a sealed envelope and open it when Aaron announces proof of OU from his digital scope.

@Rosemary and the rest of her crewe: I know you all have trouble with my videos; maybe it's the south Texas accent or the fact that I often forget my audience and use technical terms like "integration" or "instantaneous power waveform", for which I apologize. Just as sincerely as you apologize to me. But never mind: in the video linked below you may simply "cut to the chase" and start viewing at 1:09. Hopefully you will not seek to castigate (or perhaps castrate) me for calling the voltage on the B trace "600 milliVolts" instead of its true measurement of slightly less than 500 mV. You will note, I hope, that I am showing, ON THE FLUKE 199 DSO, the trace obtained ACROSS THE SHUNT RESISTOR on the "B" trace of the scope...JUST AS I ALWAYS DO and ALWAYS HAVE DONE.
(Those are shouts, by the way, to overcome the evidently dense medium between facts and Rosemary's brain.)

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=C7zQdplnCA8

[MileHigh]

TK:

Yes I agree, it is amazingly easy to discover over unity when you want to find it and you don't know what you are doing.  My analytical engineering side still cringes when I see all of those ridiculous battery voltage before-after tests that everybody does.  I found a great posting on this forum that was plucked from Sterling Allen's site about Lutec and I will have to find it and post it because it really illustrates the point.  I hope that Gotoluc is listening.

.99:

I was tired yesterday and so today returned back to the discussion about your recent power waveform plots in post #1021.  I honestly can't explain how you get a quite significant pulse of return power going back into the battery when you have no fly-back diode and a much larger inductor.  Don't worry about it though, please don't feel obliged to drop more probes and all that.  You still have net discharging as you pointed out and I am burned out on the subject.

A fun question about PSpice:  Can you ask it to integrate on any waveform?  Like for example integrating on the ring-down power through the 10-ohm resistor?

MileHigh

[TinselKoala]

GAHH!!!
It never stops with this madwoman.

I don't always find your links because I don't always get access to your forum? or is it your thread? Either way.

It is the 123 Fluke - but you're right. I always get them confused. Sorry.

The positioning of the probes as per the diagram is with the use of the dual channel showing the both waveforms across both the load and the shunt simultaneously. In which case the waveform is inverted.

First, your papers say you used a Fluke 199C ScopeMeter. Second, see the video linked above. The probes are positioned as specified and as they always ARE AND HAVE BEEN for two months now, and as they were for the LeCroy energy flow calculation video.
Third, the waveforms shown are NOT inverted. Up is positive, down is negative voltage. You do not understand waveform inversion or oscilloscope displays and you continue to make that abundantly clear. Perhaps your confusion lies in the distinction between positive and negative flows of CURRENT as conventionally depicted, versus the flows of ENERGY back and forth in the ringing and spikes. Or perhaps the explanation is that you simply refuse to educate yourself because you know it all already.

And zeroeth, it is neither my forum nor my thread. I have absolutely no control over anything that goes on here, except for my own postings.
Your difficulties in accessing this forum are entirely your own problem.

[MileHigh]

Hey All,

The Lutec report in all its glory is reported below.

I would like to highlight two key points for Aaron and Gotoluc:

KEY POINT #1

They assumed that the battery terminal voltage would decrease linearly as the battery was used.

KEY POINT #2

Unfortunately, battery terminal voltage is almost flat for perhaps 90 percent of the battery capacity, before it drops off rather steeply for the last 10 percent of it's capacity.

CONCLUSION:

Can you please stop all of these riduculous battery voltage before-after tests and spread the word to all of the other experimenters?  You are going to have to develop a strategy for running battery charge-discharge cycle tests to make ENERGY measurements to derive any useful data for all of your experiments.  This will be much more time consuming and much harder to do.

Colour commentary:  This posting if made on the Energetic Forum would get my ass booted off right away.  Such is life in a police state.   

MH
-------
Quote: http://freeenergynews.com/Directory/Lutec1000/
Rosenthal and Cole
Report by Sterling D. Allan
March 8, 2003

Engineers, Walt Rosenthal and Parke Cole were invited to measure the Lutec1000 in January 2001.
Their measurements showed results that showed 28% efficiency.
The exchange was amendable, despite the negative test results.
Rosenthal stated, "I walked them through the calculations carefully so they would understand,
but they didn't want to believe the results."  Test entailed a dynamometer measuring output the motor,
powering with power supply from wall producing DC volts, optical shaft encoder on end of shaft to measure rpm.
Results showed 50 Watts power going in and 14 Watts equivalent of mechanical power coming out.

After receiving the above synopsis, Walt Rosenthal added the following:

Report by Walt Rosenthal
(recorded March 8, 2003)

The inventors would start with fully charged batteries for the demonstration.
They assumed that the battery terminal voltage would decrease linearly as the battery was used.
So, after using the battery for, say, 30 minutes, they would again measure the battery terminal voltage,
and subtract this value from the start voltage, then multiply that difference voltage times the known amp-hour
capacity of the battery bank, to come up with their assumption of the total energy consumed from the battery bank.
Unfortunately, battery terminal voltage is almost flat for perhaps 90 percent of the battery capacity, before it
drops off rather steeply for the last 10 percent of it's capacity.
Parke Cole and I tried to explain this to the inventors. I am not sure we succeeded.
We were about the 15th group of people to show up on their door step after they went public.
We were the first people to bring our own test equipment.
The inventors said that the first people to show up were the Russian Mafia.
Our bottom line was 50 watts of DC power input, which resulted in 14 watts of rotary mechanical power output.
I hope the inventors have improved their device from where we tested it so that it now matches their statements of it's performance.
End Quote:

[TinselKoala]

It's not a trivial problem, for certain.
This article may be useful, for those with eyeballs to see.
http://www.mpoweruk.com/performance.htm
and
http://www.mpoweruk.com/soc.htm

Also interesting:
http://batteryuniversity.com/partone-16a.htm
and further at that site.