Claimed OU circuit of Rosemary Ainslie

[Rosemary Ainslie]

Rosemary,

But we did not expect Aaron to reduce the power dissipated in the circuit to a level that the meter could not register! As I said earlier - please think hard about this because both you and Aaron claim that the circuit is returning more to the battery than it is taking, whist the inductive resistor is running hot. Surely, this is a case of Aaron moving the goalposts, not us!!

Hoppy

Hoppy.  Let me start this again.  Aaron had a decent number over a 1Ohm inductive resistor which he was using as a shunt.  His own calibtrated 0.25 Ohm shunt was elsewhere on the circuit.  The surprise was that he then found that extraordinary waveform - and his voltage values were significant. Harvey - in the interest of good measurement required that the 0.25Ohm resistor be placed at the negative rail of the battery.  That's when the values of the voltages fell - inevitably.  But the waveform shape persisted and the implications of this were supported.  The actual measurements across the shunt are, of necessity, small - the more so as the actual draw down from the battery appears to be even smaller.

Then through the next two pages on both forums we get into a discussion on the accuracy of the measurement across the 0.25Ohm shunt - which was only used to prove that the waveform retained its shape.  Now - surprise, suprise - it seems that this measurement across the 0.25 Ohm shunt is the only one that is of any relevance.  Personally I preferred the reading on the 1 Ohm shunt, the more so as it also had as much heat or cooling as the R10 load resistor.  Both are 100 watt rated.  So 1 degree loss in temperature over ambient represents a smudge more than 0.1 watt.  Edit.  Not sure that this is strictly correct because it's not a linear relationship - and certainly I'm unsure when it comes to 'cooling' that the wattages are computed the same way.  It will be a difficult value to establish over a control because it would be impossible to generate the cooling effect without using the same circuitry.

[Hoppy]

No Poynt - absolutely NOT.  I refuse to believe that any voltmeter anywhere will improve on the accuracy of the Tektronix.  Sorry.  I simply will not do this test nor recommend that it be done.  It is crazy.  I need Jibbguy here to argue this.  But even I, as an amateur, know that you're now asking for inferior data to prove what?

Rosemary,

We are not talking about accuracy, simply the direction of current. Of course a meter cannot measure as accurately as the DSO; nobody here is saying that it can. If the battery is charging whilst supplying the load and the current is of sufficient level to register on the meter, then the meter will show this with its polarity indicator. That's all we want it to do. A millivolt meter across the shunt resistor will do the same job and not load the circuit anymore than the scope, as Poynt99 has said. The ultimate test is with the cap. Once we see the cap charging and the resistor running hot, we can all get excited!

Hoppy

[Hoppy]

Hoppy.  Let me start this again.  Aaron had a decent number over a 1Ohm inductive resistor which he was using as a shunt.  His own calibtrated 0.25 Ohm shunt was elsewhere on the circuit.  The surprise was that he then found that extraordinary waveform - and his voltage values were significant. Harvey - in the interest of good measurement required that the 0.25Ohm resistor be placed at the negative rail of the battery.  That's when the values of the voltages fell - inevitably.  But the waveform shape persisted and the implications of this were supported.  The actual measurements across the shunt are, of necessity, small - the more so as the actual draw down from the battery appears to be even smaller.

Then through the next two pages on both forums we get into a discussion on the accuracy of the measurement across the 0.25Ohm shunt - which was only used to prove that the waveform retained its shape.  Now - surprise, suprise - it seems that this measurement across the 0.25 Ohm shunt is the only one that is of any relevance.  Personally I preferred the reading on the 1 Ohm shunt, the more so as it also had as much heat or cooling as the R10 load resistor.  Both are 100 watt rated.  So 1 degree loss in temperature over ambient represents a smudge more than 0.1 watt.  Edit.  Not sure that this is strictly correct because it's not a linear relationship - and certainly I'm unsure when it comes to 'cooling' that the wattages are computed the same way.  It will be a difficult value to establish over a control because it would be impossible to generate the cooling effect without using the same circuitry.

Rosemary,

The truth is that Aaron could not even display a decent waveform at the beginning until MH and TK helped him to use his timebase properly! As for an extraordinary waveform being discovered, this is a matter of opinion and certainly not mine. My scope shows no indication of negative power when I display the full waveform cycle but I accept that Aaron has a much better scope than I have, so if calibrated correctly, I see no reason why the DSO should show a net negative power.

Its a bit academic talking about heating effects until the accuracy of the data can be confirmed.


Hoppy

[Rosemary Ainslie]

Rosemary,

The truth is that Aaron could not even display a decent waveform at the beginning until MH and TK helped him to use his timebase properly! As for an extraordinary waveform being discovered, this is a matter of opinion and certainly not mine. My scope shows no indication of negative power when I display the full waveform cycle but I accept that Aaron has a much better scope than I have, so if calibrated correctly, I see no reason why the DSO should show a net negative power.

Its a bit academic talking about heating effects until the accuracy of the data can be confirmed.

Hoppy

Hoppy what nonsense is this?  Aaron romped home with a waveform that showed spikes reaching heaven when all TK did was winge about 555's - erroneus designs - and sundry nonsense - in a dreary monologue over a six week period.  When he did, belatedly, get that aperiodic osciallation - his waveform was 'horrible' to quote Harvey on the issue.  And as for MH teaching anyone?  His advice may very well be good.  But it lacks the authority needed because he only preaches.  He needs to do some replication before he'll earn respect.  Then I'm sure we'll always read his advices - in full. 

Regarding the 'extraordinary' nature of the waveform.  Hoppy show me where - in mainstream science - one can generate a full above and below ground perfectly symmetrical waveform over a resistor - from a dc supply source where the supply is interrupted from a switched supply for at least 50% of each duty cycle.  I think that is, indeed, extraordinary. 

Regarding the heating effects.  Or rather the cooling effects?  That's been replicated by Fuzzy.  But not with the same voltage values.  I think his were closer to yours.  I think this 'negative energy' if such it is needs to be proven.  I'm not sure about capacitors doing this proof.  Personally I'd like to see these tests at higher voltages.  Alternatively I'd like to see some clear evidence of gain to the system - apart from the 'cooling' or heating.  But if proven through the calibration run on the tektronix - then I'm satisfied that the tests are conclusive and they merit some serious academic attention.  Alternatively Harvey must find some way to progress this.

The only thing that I'm not prepared to do here is to minimise this significance of this effect.

[MileHigh]

Rosemary:

The "do the replications" deal.  I did all of this stuff in my Pulse Circuits class about 28 years ago and got an A+ in the course, the best mark in the class.  However, when we ran square waves through capacitors and inductors, and watched the discharges through resistors on the scope, we had to measure the time constants and verify that corresponded to the inductance and capacitance values.  We had to account for tolerances and margins of error.  We had to see if the energy stored in the capacitor or inductor was in accord with the observed energy in the exponential decay waveform.  In other words, we took the derivations based on the differential equations describing capacitors and inductors and verified the results experimentally.

When I tell you that the famous spike generated by an inductor comes from the battery itself and not from the "foam bubble vacuum" or the "compressed time potential" its because it is true, and also because I have done the experiment to see it and verify it for myself.

I am never going to do any of these trivial experiments.  However, it is fun to try to help people doing them for the first time.

Regarding the 'extraordinary' nature of the waveform.  Hoppy show me where - in mainstream science - one can generate a full above and below ground perfectly symmetrical waveform over a resistor - from a dc supply source where the supply is interrupted from a switched supply for at least 50% of each duty cycle.  I think that is, indeed, extraordinary.

There is absolutely nothing, NOTHING, extraordinary about that, I assure you.

Or rather the cooling effects?

There are no cooling effects.  We touched on this the other day.  Any discussions of "cooling effects" allegedly generated by this circuit are a complete waste of time and a complete farce.

MileHigh