Rosemary Ainslie's team are preparing a demonstration to be held on Saturday March 12th 2011.
They are inviting academics from South African universities to attend.
They're hoping for accreditation of an anomaly on the switching circuit. More on this is available on her blog at:
http://newlightondarkenergy.blogspot.com/
Please spread the word.
They are hoping for widespread interest of this event from internet supporters of Over Unity concepts.
A full report of the circuit and the components will be available after that demonstration.
Regards, Stefan.
Rosemary, if you are reading here, please PLEASE learn to set your scope's timebase to display 3 or 4 full cycles ONLY. The "comb" that you are showing might look nice to you, but it is not very informative in any sense but to illustrate sampling artifacts and aliasing. If you display 3 or 4 full cycles, one may much more easily see phase relationships and other information from the displayed signal, and pixelization and aliasing won't show up as much.
Of course, if your intent is to obscure information, and if you still think Moire patterns caused by aliasing are showing you something significant, you have accomplished that in spades.
The parameter values displayed (the meaningless integral and the averages) will not be affected by the choice of a more appropriate horizontal timebase setting. Also, the bottom trace isn't giving you a frequency parameter because your vertical scale on that trace is not set appropriately: there should be more amplification so the scope can latch onto the peaks to give a frequency parameter.
Good luck on your demonstration. I will be eagerly awaiting a report on how it went.
Rosie it takes a lot of determination to do what you are attempting go for it.
Women or not this ladies got balls!
We need more people to come up in opposition to our current laws and theories because with them we seem to be stuck from finding new energy sources. We have to be missing a whole hell of a lot cause there is much that we still do not understand.
Rosie coming back, Wow :o ;D :D :-* ;)
Great news!
All the best, Rosie :)
Bob
Many thanks guys. Much appreciated.
I would be very glad if you could just spread the word. I'm hoping that this will generate some widespread interest on the internet - mainly to ensure that this event doesn't get lost for want of attention.
Great to be back here - but I have very little time to post.
Kindest regards,
Rosie
Hi Rose;
Its hard to keep up with you, I'm looking forward to seeing you Demo. I refused to join the other forum poynt started because I knew it would be just more of the same but I finally broke down and joined because it was the only place I could find you.
Then Boom you quit and I don't blame you one bit, now I have your blog so I guess thats the best we can do for now. Its got to be hard with all the negativity every one throws at you its so predictable it's almost a new form of entertainment.
I hope you are now working with open minded people and the demo will finally quiet your detractors but I'm sure they will find a flaw in how your results are obtained, they can't help them self's. Then you have the other's who will try to claim the technology as there own if they can't find fault in you measurements its so predictable its almost funny.
Well keep up the good fight and let me know if you find a non hostile forum not every one wants to see you fail you can count me a one.
Good luck Pete
Quote from: vonwolf on February 22, 2011, 01:39:38 PM
Hi Rose;
Its hard to keep up with you, I'm looking forward to seeing you Demo. I refused to join the other forum poynt started because I knew it would be just more of the same but I finally broke down and joined because it was the only place I could find you.
Then Boom you quit and I don't blame you one bit, now I have your blog so I guess thats the best we can do for now. Its got to be hard with all the negativity every one throws at you its so predictable it's almost a new form of entertainment.
I hope you are now working with open minded people and the demo will finally quiet your detractors but I'm sure they will find a flaw in how your results are obtained, they can't help them self's. Then you have the other's who will try to claim the technology as there own if they can't find fault in you measurements its so predictable its almost funny.
Well keep up the good fight and let me know if you find a non hostile forum not every one wants to see you fail you can count me a one.
Good luck Pete
Thanks very much Pete. Your support means a lot. I have considerably more faith in our academics. They're more inclined to give an unbiased assessement. Poynty's forum is only there to deny new physics. And EF.com promotes flimflam. Our academics - thank God - are simply trying to establish the facts from the experimental evidence. And no-one's going to argue that evidence. But it certainly needs to be carefully evaluated. And they're well able to do this. I cannot tell you how much in love I am with our own academy. I just hope that when the 'facts are out that they'll be given due tribute for their impeccable adherence to science - whichever way the results fall. They at least are looking at the experimental evidence. But it's all so scarey. And this subject is just so contentious. I can assure you of one thing. Academics are an entirely different animal to our forum researchers. They may attack the science. But they don't presume to attack the scientist. Such a pleasure. And they're just so clever. It's been an enormous learning curve for me.
Kindest and best as ever,
Rosie
Quote from: Rosemary Ainslie on February 22, 2011, 03:40:17 PM
Thanks very much Pete. Your support means a lot. I have considerably more faith in our academics. They're more inclined to give an unbiased assessement. Poynty's forum is only there to deny new physics. And EF.com promotes flimflam. Our academics - thank God - are simply trying to establish the facts from the experimental evidence. And no-one's going to argue that evidence. But it certainly needs to be carefully evaluated. And they're well able to do this. I cannot tell you how much in love I am with our own academy. I just hope that when the 'facts are out that they'll be given due tribute for their impeccable adherence to science - whichever way the results fall. They at least are looking at the experimental evidence. But it's all so scarey. And this subject is just so contentious. I can assure you of one thing. Academics are an entirely different animal to our forum researchers. They may attack the science. But they don't presume to attack the scientist. Such a pleasure. And they're just so clever. It's been an enormous learning curve for me.
Kindest and best as ever,
Rosie
I know we have bucked heads before Rosemary but I would like to extend the olive branch and say good luck.
I to know exactly what you are talking about in the EF.com reference. I agree with you. After checking on the owner of the forum I found out some pretty amazing stuff about him and why he does what he does on that supposed public forum. He is after all a school taught salesman and nothing more. He is more an agent for a few guys selling products that they leech from that community. Everything else is a lie.
I am glad you came here to spread your wings and fly. At least here there is little to hold you back from what you are doing in your area. Again good luck to you on your showing.
P.S. After getting several of my post deleted about the proof of the lies he banned my account and IP. It was nothing more then the proof of his deceits and was further pushed from another user who is a founder of an organization which utilizes that forum as well. Those posts were deleted as well in an earlier incident.. Go figure...
It's 8 PM Sat in S Africa, assuming the demo is underway and/or concluded.
Quote from: Rosemary Ainslie on February 21, 2011, 09:06:57 PM
Many thanks guys. Much appreciated.
I would be very glad if you could just spread the word. I'm hoping that this will generate some widespread interest on the internet - mainly to ensure that this event doesn't get lost for want of attention.
Great to be back here - but I have very little time to post.
Kindest regards,
Rosie
If you truly have a over unity device then your problem isn't trying to get people interested, it would be quite the opposite. Any genuine over unity device would also be a guaranteed crowd gather device too lol
Report on the demo:
http://newlightondarkenergy.blogspot.com/
Congratulation to Rosie and team on a successful demonstration.
Academics will now ask: Is the Rosie Circuit an OPEN system bringing-in energy from the environment? In Aaron’s words: OPEN system in non-equilibrium thermodynamics?
Or would they look at my classical explanation of “energy is brought-in†at resonance via the ordered pulsing?
Quote from: ltseung888 on March 12, 2011, 06:55:18 PM
Congratulation to Rosie and team on a successful demonstration.
Academics will now ask: Is the Rosie Circuit an OPEN system bringing-in energy from the environment? In Aaron’s words: OPEN system in non-equilibrium thermodynamics?
Or would they look at my classical explanation of “energy is brought-in†at resonance via the ordered pulsing?
Whatever happened to your lead-out wheel? Powering any light bulbs these days?
Well... congratulations on getting such a comprehensive report out so very quickly. One almost wonders whether the report had been prepared in advance of the actual demonstration.
There are many problems with this report, but I'll just point out one serious one. The "Control Experiment" where DC power at various power levels was applied, and stable temperatures plotted, is a proper control experiment. But it wasn't used properly, unfortunately.
In an EXPERIMENT, a researcher varies one or more "independent variables" and measures the effect of this variation on "dependent variables". In the present case the Independent variable of interest is the POWER SUPPLY, whether DC or the Ainslie circuit, and one dependent variable of interest is the time-temperature curve that results from each supply. We are presented with data from the DC circuit supplying power at various levels, and we should be supplied with a graph from the Ainslie circuit supplying power at the same levels... but we aren't. Nor are we shown anything like a graph of supply voltage versus time for the Ainslie circuit, nor are we shown any evidence AT ALL that the batteries are actually being recharged. Get two sets of batteries, use one set to heat up the load at DC power to a certain temperature and hold it. Use the second set of batteries to power the Ainslie circuit to achieve the SAME time-temp profile as in the DC case. Run both circuits for a given time. Then disconnect the batteries and run a load test... not a "Voltage" test, but a real battery load test, putting a constant load on them and timing how long it takes to run down.
These tests are easy, obvious, and are ACTUAL tests of the Ainslie conjectures. However, you don't see them being performed. At least, not since I did them, nearly two years ago now.
As a paper reporting an experiment, there are some major areas that need revision. As an experiment itself, it needs to be severely redesigned in order ACTUALLY to test any well-formed hypothesis that might be constructed from Rosemary's conjectures.
Quote from: ltseung888 on March 12, 2011, 06:55:18 PM
Congratulation to Rosie and team on a successful demonstration.
Academics will now ask: Is the Rosie Circuit an OPEN system bringing-in energy from the environment? In Aaron’s words: OPEN system in non-equilibrium thermodynamics?
Or would they look at my classical explanation of “energy is brought-in†at resonance via the ordered pulsing?
Lawrance, I know you've been pushing this idea with the tuning forks for some time but it isn't at all obvious that resonance leads to OU in your case. When you consider the energy balance from the beginning to the end of the main for vibrating as well as the mutual bouncing back and forth of energies between all forks (each one becomes a source once it stars vibrating, right?) the balance is unity when you include the losses. You're observing each one isolated from the rest and are not including the tie variation of energy of each one. That isn't the way they behave in reality. Resonance isn't a mechanism for OU.
TK,
Have you seen the battery voltage wave forms? They are nutsoid! There is no way to get a proper power in measurement with a battery voltage wave form oscillating like that. It should be nice and solid, with perhaps some sagging and ripple, but not with 60V or so of sinusoidal swing at Fo.
.99
Quote from: poynt99 on March 13, 2011, 12:46:03 AM
TK,
Have you seen the battery voltage wave forms? They are nutsoid! There is no way to get a proper power in measurement with a battery voltage wave form oscillating like that. It should be nice and solid, with perhaps some sagging and ripple, but not with 60V or so of sinusoidal swing at Fo.
.99
I back up Rosie 100% in this case. I have seen and have hundreds of waveforms measured across the battery having large swings. That seemed to happen near resonance and pseudo resonance conditions for many different circuits.
You may not believe in resonance bringing-out electron motion energy. But with the success of Rosie, many others will follow. ;D
Dear Rosemary , congratulations on your successful demo . There are still unanswered questions , but to me , it looks like a fait accompli . Not a lot of development work will be needed here to develop useful device . If you can make 40 watts of heat , 1Kw is just a case of scaling up . Or it could be made to run a light bulb with an inductive filament . The pulse driver circuit can be cheap , and eventually , special Mosfets can be developed to optimise the effect .A door has been opened to a whole host of possibilities . Nd the icing on the cake is that it is open source . Renewed hope is given to all those working on back EMF type devices . Rosemary , I hope you quickly receive the rewards you so richly deserve .
Quote from: neptune on March 13, 2011, 12:16:35 PM
Dear Rosemary , congratulations on your successful demo . There are still unanswered questions , but to me , it looks like a fait accompli . Not a lot of development work will be needed here to develop useful device . If you can make 40 watts of heat , 1Kw is just a case of scaling up . Or it could be made to run a light bulb with an inductive filament . The pulse driver circuit can be cheap , and eventually , special Mosfets can be developed to optimise the effect .A door has been opened to a whole host of possibilities . Nd the icing on the cake is that it is open source . Renewed hope is given to all those working on back EMF type devices . Rosemary , I hope you quickly receive the rewards you so richly deserve .
:) Thanks Neptune. It's definitely scalable. Just for those who can - hurry up with applications. We'll try and do our bit at this end. For any theorists out there - just note the implications. It seems that a continual negative signal at the gate is what's required. Not sure how much it would cost to apply this - BUT. Once you've got it I think we've got something that will just keep going. It's all small steps - but in the right direction. And I think that research and more research it about all the reward we all need. Just keep the questions going. We've lots to learn
Kindest regards,
Rosemary
BTW - note that upwards of 44 watts is the actual heat - and then we have to work fast to keep it low. It wants to climb. We just dare not measure it at its full potential because the scopes can't take those extreme voltage spikes. But we've taken the temperature to above 210 degrees centigrade with the zero wattage loss to the battery. But it gets too hot too quick. VERY promising. And that with just 4 batteries. Those spikes exceed 40 volts across the shunt - at fast frequencies. The current is HUGE. The secret - I think - is in that amazing oscillation. It just pumps the current around the circuit.
And Harti, btw
We'll post a youtube video of the proceedings sometime soon. I'll send you the link and post it here.
Thanks guys,
Rosemary
Quote from: poynt99 on March 13, 2011, 12:46:03 AM
TK,
Have you seen the battery voltage wave forms? They are nutsoid! There is no way to get a proper power in measurement with a battery voltage wave form oscillating like that. It should be nice and solid, with perhaps some sagging and ripple, but not with 60V or so of sinusoidal swing at Fo.
.99
It depends where these traces are positioned. Perhaps you could post here an example. The I and V curves may not be sine waves and may be of weird shape and yet the Pin and Pout can be established very precisely by averaging the instantaneous IiVi powers over one period to get the Pin and the instantaneous Ii^2R powers to get Pout. Only in some limited cases that approach can be suspect. That's why it would be good if you could post graphs of these transients.
So what you are claiming is no wattage loss to the battery...
I believe this should say that basically the same tests that Tinsel Kola has asked for have already been done correct me if wrong?
I don't know for fact 100% mathematically weather this is overunity or not but I will say that as the tests stand this device could improve even our most energy efficient electric water heaters!
Which no matter how you peer into this peer review is a step in the correct direction!
There are people on here who have forgotten more than I will ever know . However it seems to me that it would be very easy to prolong the ringing or oscillation of the circuit by using a simple make before break switch to disconnect the mosfet driver during the off period and substitute a couple of AAA cells to maintain the negative condition on the fet .As the tests show more energy going back to the battery than is leaving it , why not try substituting capacitors . That would confound the naysayers more than the most expensive test equipment in the world . If there is some magic about lead acid batteries , such that it has to be lead acid , then substitute the lowest amp-hour batteries that will do the job . That way , the overunity will be apparent in a shorter time . A capacitor test would be cheap and easy , and prove everything beyond doubt .Elsewhere on this forum is a discussion on a chip that efficiently converts heat to electricity .A marriage made in heaven? New Energy technology discoveries are being claimed daily now . But this is Super Special , because it is open source and lends itself to the do-it- yourself workshop .. It also proves that when the world is in deep doo-doo , the best man for the Job is a Woman .
Hello Everyone,
TinselKoala wonders...
Quote:
“Well... congratulations on getting such a comprehensive report out so very quickly. One almost wonders whether the report had been prepared in advance of the actual demonstration.â€
I was wondering the same myself and blog entry #88 begins:
http://newlightondarkenergy.blogspot.com/
Quote:
“Wednesday, March 9, 2011
88 - nearly there
Dear Reader,
Just a short note to let you know that the report is nearly finalised. Hopefully we can get this ready and printed for tomorrow. I need to send a couple of copies out for preview to a few people and then - hopefully by Saturday - we'll have the finished product.â€
So yes, the report was probably finished by Thursday and was going to be published after the demonstration, which now appears to be a publicity stunt to make people pay attention to the report. It most assuredly does not have results “from†the demonstration if it was prepared in advance!
So lets have a look at the report...
Of note here to me is “5 MOSFET transistors in parallelâ€
All of the circuit components specifications are given EXCEPT:
Function Generator and 6x12V batteries â€" Raylite Silver Calcium.
This is very strange, why would you omit the specifications of such vital circuit components and yet provide the others ?
For example, the Raylite batteries sold by Battery Centre list this page for Raylite Silver Calcium cells:
http://www.batterycentre.co.za/fnbSpec02/b-spec.asp?id=3
and this page for the features and benefits of this technology:
http://www.batterycentre.co.za/SilverCalciumBattery.htm
So which model of 12V silver calcium cell did Battery Centre give you ? It will say the model number on the casing ;)
Anomalies 4.2 gets interesting:
4.2 When the offset of the function generator is adjusted (see Figure 3), the falling edge of the pulse results in a burst oscillation mode. Parasitic inductance is a well-known consequence of MOSFETs placed in parallel. It is undesirable for switching applications and is therefore, traditionally, factored out of the circuitry. On this application we have enabled that oscillation to the limit of the function generator’s slowest switching speed at 2.7 minutes or 6.172mHz. No material or evident variation or decay of that resonance through that entire period, is observed (see Figure 4). This results in a measured increase of recharge at the battery supply as well as sustaining the temperature over the resistor. It would be desirable to extend this period of oscillation to see whether decay in this oscillation, eventually takes place. These results may warrant further research, as the implications are that the current flow may be perpetuated through this self-oscillation.
And figure 4 text:
Fig 4: Evidence of ringing for a period of 2.7 minutes. No evident variation in amplitude of oscillation. Channel 1: Rshunt, Channel 2: batteries, Channel 3: gate, Channel D: math trace - product of Channels 1 & 2.
So, you freely admit that parasitic inductance is a well known consequence of MOSFET's connected in parallel, that this is undesirable for switching applications, and are traditionally factored out of the circuitry.
What you fail to mention is parasitic capacitance, which when combined with parasitic inductance forms resonant circuits that lead to ringing and EMI.
Don't believe me ?
http://www.en-genius.net/site/zones/rlcZONE/technical_notes/rlct_072108
and here is the PDF download:
http://www.en-genius.net/includes/files/rlct_072108.pdf
Estimating Parasitic Inductance and Capacitance
by Ted Rees, Intersil Corporation
There are many electronic design cases where parasitic inductance and/or parasitic capacitance are significant elements that restrict circuit performance. Parasitic inductance and capacitance are defined as the inductance and capacitance primarily of the traces that connect components together. Given an applied voltage, the parasitic inductance limits the rate at which the current can change. Given an applied current, the parasitic capacitance limits the rate at which the voltage can change. Taken together, the parasitic components form resonant circuits that lead to ringing and EMI. Frequently the physical size of the parasitic elements is so small that they can not be easily measured, so it's useful to be able to calculate approximately how much parasitic capacitance and inductance are associated with a specific layout.
Maybe you should contact Ted Rees and ask him to evaluate your circuit :)
Then we have your statement in Fig.4 about evidence of ringing for 2.7 minutes, which also happens to be:
“On this application we have enabled that oscillation to the limit of the function generator’s slowest switching speed at 2.7 minutes or 6.172mHz.â€
So when we also combine this with:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Amplitude
and note that you never refer to what Amplitude you are measuring, and paying particular attention to the section:
Ambiguity
In general, the use of peak amplitude is simple and unambiguous only for symmetric periodic waves, like a sine wave, a square wave, or a triangular wave. For an asymmetric wave (periodic pulses in one direction, for example), the peak amplitude becomes ambiguous. This is because the value is different depending on whether the maximum positive signal is measured relative to the mean, the maximum negative signal is measured relative to the mean, or the maximum positive signal is measured relative to the maximum negative signal (the peak-to-peak amplitude) and then divided by two. In electrical engineering, the usual solution to this ambiguity is to measure the amplitude from a defined reference potential (such as ground or 0V). Strictly speaking, this is no longer amplitude since there is the possibility that a constant (DC component) is included in the measurement.
Correct me if I am wrong but I believe you are running a DC circuit...
It looks like you have not considered or addressed any of the issues mentioned above.
Ok, so lets look at something you have considered:
You claim infinite COP. This basically means you have achieved overunity and can produce more energy from a process than you have put in to “enable†it.
You so far seem very reluctant to even discuss using little batteries to conclusively prove your thesis. Using 12V Lead Acid type batteries with massive Amp Hour capacity is quite frankly ridiculous in an application that has such relatively little power draw requirements.
Were you to hook up some much smaller Amp Hour batteries in series then it would very soon become obvious whether the current returning to the batteries was greater than the current being drawn from them. Leave the circuit running constantly for months and months and if it keeps going then there is a good chance you have achieved what you have claimed.
Using 6off 12V minimum 40 Amp hour batteries measured at 20 hour Rate in series only serves to hide the actual processes occurring by making the energy involved in the circuit operation significantly small in comparison to the total energy source available for the system.
If you are reluctant to prove your circuit works as you claim using this method of performing all the calculations within the system itself rather than from theoretical assumptions then there is another option.
Keep your 6 off 12V huge amp hour batteries and simply add on more circuits and more circuits and more circuits and more circuits and more circuits... you get the idea...
If your claims are correct then you have achieved exponential energy growth and you can provide power for the entire world off 6 car batteries.
I currently believe the reason you have not performed either of these two fool proof methods of proving your technology is because you cannot. It is so obvious to do these tests that to avoid even discussing the possibility is a massive red flag.
Furthermore, I fully expect you to completely ignore my questions and requests for clarification and proof based on your previous writings and replies and ignorings of others who have requested same.
However your complete disregard for the scientific method, obvious conclusive proofing methods, and theoretical cherry picking of what fits your thesis is evidence that you will see me as a negative detractor and refuse to engage me on those grounds.
I want to believe in you and your work, but the evidence you have presented prohibits that possibility at present, until you have openly and conclusively addressed the concerns of the community, and provided proof!
RM :)
P.S. Its a bit rich ltseung888 to hijack Rosie's thread, post your work here, direct everyone to discuss it on your own forum, and then request that everyone leaves this thread to Rosie. You that desperate for traffic ? Surely your work demands attention, not begs for it... ??
Thank you, I may try that. I always love to try to learn something new.
Bill
Remember what craze there was about WM2D. Here this is a similar situation but in electricity. WM2D turned out to be very useful for certain things although for other it has subtle flaws. I think PSpice is more sophisticated because it was paid for by the government initially then business had picked it up and today it's a major tool in every major university where theory of electricity is being taught. I learned that recently and I was astounded how many important things are only kept withing certain communities. Same was my experience with LaTeX. A friend was telling me for years to start using it but somehow it did not seem appealing initially. Now that's the main editor I'm using and you can see that actascientiae.org/v is LaTeX enhanced (lack of LaTeX is a major deficiency here in the OU.om forum). Now, speaking of PSpice, I was amazed to observe that it has only been mentioned occasionally in this forum despite the vigorous discussions taking place regarding electrical devices.
Omni:
I am no genius. Having said that, the only thing that makes me somewhat dubious about ANY electronics program is....who programed it and using what data? Sure, I am sure most work 99% of the time using "known" values and simulations. But what about the guy, like me, or anyone else, that hooks stuff up backward, or uses a diode instead of a resistor or any other happy mistake? I have to freely admit here that most of the things I have done here on OU (documented on Youtube) have been sort of happy mistakes. The same way nylon was discovered and about 100 other things.
I am not putting this software down as, I have said, I have never seen it nor played with it. I am just concerned that if, back in the day, some aeronautical genius wrote flight software back in 1902, it might have shown the the Wright's plane could never leave the ground. No fault to the programmer, he only input what was known at the time.
I will check it out though as I am sure that software knows much more than I do at present.
Bill
@Pirate88179,
I disagree. That bodies heavier than air can fly is immediately obvious. Look at the birds. Birds have flown for centuries in the air and they are heavier than air. That achievement of Wright brothers that is pushed so hard to justify suppressed innovations is a no good example. It is foreseeable and I believe it has been foisted on the public exactly by the powers that be that suppress the really important controversial achievements. Manipulations are subtle, you know, and sometimes the most plausible are the nastiest.
Well, we can disagree then. I have read the studies of the early scientists of aerodynamics of that period and...it was a foregone conclusion that a heavier than air machine could never fly. I agree with you about the birds...all they had to do was look out the window.
Same with the "sound barrier." the leading aerodynamists (not all of them but the majority) prior to Oct. 14th, 1947 thought that air loads would go to infinity when reaching the speed of sound. They could, and did, prove it mathematically on their blackboards but yet chuck Yeager went through it with no problems.
I have omitted the famed bumblebee example because that one, supposedly was never true.
Physicians stated without a doubt that the 4 minute mile could NEVER be broken by man. Physically impossible.
Anyhow, it is these exceptions that concern me with software in general. But, I am reasonably sure that any of my projects would be covered with great accuracy. I was thinking more about the next guy.
Bill
Evolvingape,
Always intrigues me how people choose their avatars. I think the term is nominative determinism. Something like that. I wish you well in this reach.
You keep on and on about batteries. Perhaps you could take the trouble to read the para under discussion. What was meant here is that while we have evidence of 'retained' potential difference over an extended period - I have NEVER seen a charge beyond it's starting point. Yet the instantaneous wattage analysis indicates that the batteries should have been cooking. I have no idea how to resolve this. We STRESS that in the report. HOWEVER. Nor is it something that can be evaluated by any of us. It needs a chemist to do a proper analysis. All I know is that if you take any current from any plug - rectify it that the negative moves to one application and the positive to another - then one could apply a signal at the gate to each half of the input sinewave in antiphase - and we could, theoretically, bill our utility suppliers. That's the point. Either there is some measurements error - or there's an anomaly that also requires some resolution. With the utmost respect to your own expertise - I think we need the expert advice of chemists to establish the recharged condition of the batteries. I have not tested the batteries over an extended period - because, frankly, it is NOT the object of the demonstration nor of the report. I have been seduced - in the past - to doing battery draw down comparisons to prove out performance over rated capacities. And it made not a blind bit of difference. Quite apart from which it's a tedious series of tests and controls to prove it. And even proven - it is regardless NOT considered conclusive - or certainly NOT by mainstream. And their opinion matters rather more than your own.
Your comments regarding the parasitic oscillation are noted - but are also spurious. Parasitic oscillation is NOT associated with a resonance that so perfectly reinforces itself. Usually one expects enough variation to have the one phase cancel out the other - in some kind of waveform pattern that also generates a variation to the amplitudes. Nor does one expect oscillation to be sustained with such high levels of current flow. The intention - in using more FETs was to test whether the full potentials in that spike were, perhaps, being blocked by some resistance in the Zener diode. Clearly it was. And clearly there is some exploitable advantage to sustaining this oscillation. And it is easily managed. But it does appear that it requires the body diode of the MOSFETS because this condition is not managed with diodes simply placed across a single transistor. Again. We are only pointing to an anomaly.
The report was prepared in order to show the repeatable evidence of previously recorded effects. I'm not sure how you can possibly object to this. It's the most honest means we have of duplicating an experiment in line with the claims.
Finally - as mentioned in the report. We have two options. Either there is something wrong with the established measurements protocols applied to this kind of circuit. Or we've got an alternate energy supply. My hope is that the second alternative will be considered because - as far as I can tell - it's the only way to generate a similar waveform.
Rosemary
:)
BTW - and for the record. The report was printed prior to the demo and then distributed at the demo.
Quote from: Pirate88179 on March 14, 2011, 07:48:34 AM
Yes, notice how Lawrence never assigns a velocity value to the moving pistons but yet extrapolates numbers from the different collisions? This reminds me of the initial problems I had with his pendulum experiments. he never accounted for the initial input energy to the moving pendulum but gave all sorts of output numbers to its movement.
I like Lawrence and I am not making fun but, I am no scientists and yet with my engineering background I can usually spot some major flaws in this theory. The JT circuits he is using for OU experiments on OUR and other places, are no where near the level of the art that we in the JT topic developed and yet, even though ours are far more efficient, he says his shows OU. Then ours must be really good then.
I am just a fan of reality and not against anything that shows promise. I have always admired Lawrence's tenacity and he has my respect for that. But, you can't leave out one side of an equation and then use the figures as being real.
Bill
Dear Bill,
Please check the spreadsheets. The piston velocity was assigned to be 100 units for the model. With spreadsheets, you can change and play with the initial value.
Rosie can now do the following:
1. Inform the South African Academics that her circuit is an OPEN system in non-equilibrium thermodynamics (Aaron’s terminology). Let the Academics wonder what is non-equilibrium thermodynamics. Or
2. Inform the South African Academics that her circuit is an OPEN system that brings-in electron motion energy at resonance. Ask the Academics to examine the tuning fork example. That example uses Newtonian Mechanics to conclusively demonstrate that a pulsing order of molecular motion can be produced by the vibrating piston. That pulsing order can do useful work such as pulse-push other identical tuning forks. The energy comes from the kinetic energy of the air molecules. The Academics will hotly discuss the issue (behind closed doors usually.)
3. Smile and wait for the “Official Report†from the Academics. Let the Academics fight Newtonian Mechanics with Newtonian Mechanics. That may take time. She can (and we shall help) promote it to other Academics. But Rosie and team have already put a flag on this new territory of Bring-in Energy. God bless her and team.
Hello Lawrence,
I need to put on record that your 'tuning fork' experiment does not - in any way - resolve the resonance that is evident on our circuit. Perhaps you see a difference? I think I may have pointed this out in the previous post.
However. Your good wishes are much appreciated and I'll inform the team. I would be happier if you would acknowledge, more freely, your reliance on the hard work that preceded your own variation of the Joule Thief circuits. It seems to be lacking in your posts. I'm not sure that there is sufficient tribute paid to this. And I'm not sure that your thesis is strictly as comprehensive as you seem to imply. Resonance is a very interesting phenomenon. And it is clearly under exploited. But this has been mentioned - and even shown - in a huge variety of tests - even on this forum. In fact, I think the true precursor to this knowledge is Tesla. I'm not sure that you've got a monopoly here. And I'm not sure that your thesis is sufficient explanation. I'm being blunt because I feel this needs saying.
But having said that - I think your efforts towards promotion of your circuit are deserving of every respect. It's hard work. I know that only too well. And your dedication to OU causes is exemplary.
I personally, was absolutely surprised by this resonance. I expected an improvement. I never expected it to show itself in this way.
Kindest regards,
Rosemary
Quote from: Rosemary Ainslie on March 14, 2011, 11:34:00 AM
Hello Lawrence,
I need to put on record that your 'tuning fork' experiment does not - in any way - resolve the resonance that is evident on our circuit. Perhaps you see a difference? I think I may have pointed this out in the previous post.
However. Your good wishes are much appreciated and I'll inform the team. I would be happier if you would acknowledge, more freely, your reliance on the hard work that preceded your own variation of the Joule Thief circuits. It seems to be lacking in your posts. I'm not sure that there is sufficient tribute paid to this. And I'm not sure that your thesis is strictly as comprehensive as you seem to imply. Resonance is a very interesting phenomenon. And it is clearly under exploited. But this has been mentioned - and even shown - in a huge variety of tests - even on this forum. In fact, I think the true precursor to this knowledge is Tesla. I'm not sure that you've got a monopoly here. And I'm not sure that your thesis is sufficient explanation. I'm being blunt because I feel this needs saying.
But having said that - I think your efforts towards promotion of your circuit are deserving of every respect. It's hard work. I know that only too well. And your dedication to OU causes is exemplary.
I personally, was absolutely surprised by this resonance. I expected an improvement. I never expected it to show itself in this way.
Kindest regards,
Rosemary
Dear Rosemary,
Thank you for your speedy reply. Congratulations to you and team.
As I mentioned multiple times, I do not regard myself as an inventor. I regard myself as an instrument in the Divine Revelations. I may not have acknowledged openly and sufficiently the hard work and achievement of other inventors. There are far too many to quote and they all labored towards a worthy cause. Most of them struggled with insufficient resources. I hereby thank them openly for their gallant efforts.
The first Divine Revelation is that the tuning fork setup is an
OPEN system bringing in kinetic energy of air molecules at
resonance.The first key phrase is OPEN â€" meaning that energy can flow in and out. In the case of the tuning fork setup, this is obvious. The second key phrase is bringing-in â€" meaning that we are using existing, available energy. The last key phrase is resonance â€" this is where all our hard work comes in. The hunting for resonance is still somewhat an art than a science.
It is a matter of applying the concept to electrical resonance (LCR) circuits. My gut feel is that your circuit has the elements of LCR resonance â€" almost all circuits do. It requires much tuning to get to the sweet spot or resonance condition. The effort is not easy and I salute you and team for doing such a wonderful job and openly demonstrating it to the Academics and the World.
Just think resonance and I shall provide the full Newtonian Theoretical backup.The real debate is not in the Open Forums. The real debate is behind closed doors at the top Academic Institutions. Your efforts will not be in vain.
May God bless you and team. Amen.
Hi Rosemary
Congradulations with your efforts.
I have to agree with TK re the assumptions made with the battery measurements.
Also enguaging with the resident villiage idiot or clown does not do your credability anygood.. he is a harmless, self deluded enthusiest.
Mark
Quote from: markdansie on March 14, 2011, 03:31:55 PM
I have to agree with TK re the assumptions made with the battery measurements.
you agree with assumptions??? wow... how scientific of you, i didn't know you went through such trouble. ::)
Quote from: markdansie on March 14, 2011, 03:31:55 PM
Also enguaging with the resident villiage idiot or clown does not do your credability anygood.. he is a harmless, self deluded enthusiest.
Mark
engaging, village, credibility and finally
enthusiast. i assume you are referring to tk with this sentence... or perhaps yourself, seeing the 3rd grade spelling in your post. :) furthermore,
engaging anyone in conversation or otherwise has
nothing to do with credibility, and suggesting such is a logical fallacy.
Hello Rosemary,
Thankyou for your reply,
I will not pay you the discourtesy that you have paid me and cherry pick the statements that I want to answer and ignore the rest. I will attempt to answer all your questions and wonderings and I will stand by what I have said.
Furthermore, reply #42 in this thread, made by yourself, says in part:
“You keep on and on about batteries. Perhaps you could take the trouble to read the para under discussion. What was meant here is that while we have evidence of 'retained' potential difference over an extended period - I have NEVER seen a charge beyond it's starting point. Yet the instantaneous wattage analysis indicates that the batteries should have been cooking. I have no idea how to resolve this. We STRESS that in the report. HOWEVER. Nor is it something that can be evaluated by any of us. It needs a chemist to do a proper analysis. All I know is that if you take any current from any plug - rectify it that the negative moves to one application and the positive to another - then one could apply a signal at the gate to each half of the input sinewave in antiphase - and we could, theoretically, bill our utility suppliers. That's the point. Either there is some measurements error - or there's an anomaly that also requires some resolution. With the utmost respect to your own expertise - I think we need the expert advice of chemists to establish the recharged condition of the batteries. I have not tested the batteries over an extended period - because, frankly, it is NOT the object of the demonstration nor of the report. I have been seduced - in the past - to doing battery draw down comparisons to prove out performance over rated capacities. And it made not a blind bit of difference. Quite apart from which it's a tedious series of tests and controls to prove it. And even proven - it is regardless NOT considered conclusive - or certainly NOT by mainstream. And their opinion matters rather more than your own. â€
The Para 4.2 under discussion actually states:
“When the offset of the function generator is adjusted (see Figure 3), the falling edge of the pulse results in a burst oscillation mode. Parasitic inductance is a well-known consequence of MOSFETs placed in parallel. It is undesirable for switching applications and is therefore, traditionally, factored out of the circuitry. On this application we have enabled that oscillation to the limit of the function generator’s slowest switching speed at 2.7 minutes or 6.172mHz. No material or evident variation or decay of that resonance through that entire period, is observed (see Figure 4). This results in a measured increase of recharge at the battery supply as well as sustaining the temperature over the resistor. It would be desirable to extend this period of oscillation to see whether decay in this oscillation, eventually takes place. These results may warrant further research, as the implications are that the current flow may be perpetuated through this self-oscillation.â€
I did take the trouble to read para 4.2, I even took the trouble to reproduce it here. What it was meant to say, and what it did say are two entirely different things. To imply that my ability to read and understand the statement in question is in error, when your correction of what it is was meant to say in no way resembles what it did say is not an error on my part, I feel.
You state:
“the instantaneous wattage analysis indicates that the batteries should have been cooking. I have no idea how to resolve this.â€
You have been told how to resolve this and have completely ignored the suggestions. Hook the circuit up to self run and if the batteries cook then your “analysis†was correct. If the batteries lose charge over time then the circuit is drawing power to operate. This is so very simple.
You state:
“Nor is it something that can be evaluated by any of us. It needs a chemist to do a proper analysis.â€
This is complete nonsense! No chemist is ever used to establish state of charge of a battery cell. State of charge is established by doing a load test under controlled conditions. This is such a simple procedure that millions of qualified electrical engineers are capable and equipped to perform this test tomorrow.
Furthermore TK eloquently explained exactly how to do this in reply #14 in this thread:
“There are many problems with this report, but I'll just point out one serious one. The "Control Experiment" where DC power at various power levels was applied, and stable temperatures plotted, is a proper control experiment. But it wasn't used properly, unfortunately.
In an EXPERIMENT, a researcher varies one or more "independent variables" and measures the effect of this variation on "dependent variables". In the present case the Independent variable of interest is the POWER SUPPLY, whether DC or the Ainslie circuit, and one dependent variable of interest is the time-temperature curve that results from each supply. We are presented with data from the DC circuit supplying power at various levels, and we should be supplied with a graph from the Ainslie circuit supplying power at the same levels... but we aren't. Nor are we shown anything like a graph of supply voltage versus time for the Ainslie circuit, nor are we shown any evidence AT ALL that the batteries are actually being recharged.
Get two sets of batteries, use one set to heat up the load at DC power to a certain temperature and hold it. Use the second set of batteries to power the Ainslie circuit to achieve the SAME time-temp profile as in the DC case. Run both circuits for a given time. Then disconnect the batteries and run a load test... not a "Voltage" test, but a real battery load test, putting a constant load on them and timing how long it takes to run down.
These tests are easy, obvious, and are ACTUAL tests of the Ainslie conjectures. However, you don't see them being performed. At least, not since I did them, nearly two years ago now.
As a paper reporting an experiment, there are some major areas that need revision. As an experiment itself, it needs to be severely redesigned in order ACTUALLY to test any well-formed hypothesis that might be constructed from Rosemary's conjectures.â€
I am not the only one saying this, and I am not the only one being ignored. More massive red flags. This test is so simple and so commonplace that I am simply staggered that you think you can deceive an educated community in this manner.
Furthermore, you state:
“I have not tested the batteries over an extended period - because, frankly, it is NOT the object of the demonstration nor of the report. I have been seduced - in the past - to doing battery draw down comparisons to prove out performance over rated capacities. And it made not a blind bit of difference. Quite apart from which it's a tedious series of tests and controls to prove it. And even proven - it is regardless NOT considered conclusive - or certainly NOT by mainstream. And their opinion matters rather more than your own. â€
If testing the batteries is not in any way important to you I am confused as to how you feel you can confidently state in Para 6: Discussion:
“The results of this demonstration are consistent with the previous reported test results related to this circuitry. The difference here is that there is an extended period of self-induced oscillation following the falling edge of the gate drive signal. This appears to enhance the circuit performance to what is now measured with what appears to be an infinite co-efficient of performance. This value has been carefully measured, but it is preferred that the circuit and all its effects be carefully evaluated by experts.â€
An infinite co-efficient of performance... no evidence whatsoever, despite claiming it has been carefully measured, and no intention of providing said evidence even though your target audience is knowledgeable that such tests in electrical circuits are not only common but easily and conclusively performed. The fact that these tests are used daily to perform COP<1 measurements is irrelevant as they will also show COP>1.
You state:
“Your comments regarding the parasitic oscillation are noted - but are also spurious. Parasitic oscillation is NOT associated with a resonance that so perfectly reinforces itself. Usually one expects enough variation to have the one phase cancel out the other - in some kind of waveform pattern that also generates a variation to the amplitudes. Nor does one expect oscillation to be sustained with such high levels of current flow. The intention - in using more FETs was to test whether the full potentials in that spike were, perhaps, being blocked by some resistance in the Zener diode. Clearly it was. And clearly there is some exploitable advantage to sustaining this oscillation. And it is easily managed. But it does appear that it requires the body diode of the MOSFETS because this condition is not managed with diodes simply placed across a single transistor. Again. We are only pointing to an anomaly.
So...
You claim my observation of parasitic oscillation (which you have previously never even mentioned) is noted but spurious. You also state that you are only pointing to an anomaly. May I suggest that it is premature of you to assume that parasitic oscillation is not the cause of your anomaly before scientifically calculating and predicting the parasitic oscillation you would expect to see in your circuit. I have provided you with the information to perform said calculations. May I also suggest that you consider a constant signal with no loss of amplitude (despite your deliberate lack of clarity on what amplitude you are actually calculating) could be a product of an overlooked component of a DC circuit signal as implied by ambiguity.
I would also like to point out that I am not attacking you, I am simply attacking your scientific method of evidence for making your assumptions. Does that make me an Academic ? :)
You seem not to care about the opinions of individuals in this community as much as you care about the opinions of the Academic community, who will not give you the time of day. I would like to point out that the people that gravitate here, on the whole, care about the Truth, the Proof and Replication, not about continuance of the paycheck and public recognition.
As a fellow OU researcher I respect you. Never forget this. Any professional disagreements we may have are purely that, they are not personal.
As for my Avatar... well that's my business... and has no place in the forefront of our scientific discussion.
Answers to all of the questions regarding component specifications currently outstanding and your intention of conforming to the scientific method in future, to present respectable evidence that can be peer reviewed would be appreciated.
On a final note I would appreciate an accurate quote of where I objected to your report in respect of your previously documented claims of repeatable evidence. I made no such objection, and was merely commenting on the fact that your report could not possibly have included results from the demonstration considering it was prepared and distributed before the event.
With Respect,
RM :)
Dear Evolvingape,
I spent an hour answering your post and found myself halfway through and growing increasingly bored. Please feel free to regard the draw down as a critical test criteria. It is an aspect of the test that I will not - under any circumstances engage in - without having a chemist on the team.
Just one quick point. Here's the reference under discussion. I'm not sure how you got sidetracked.
Some mention must be made of those aspects of the tests that have not been thoroughly explored. The first relates to the battery recharge. It is a truth that the batteries used in these experiments have been used on a regular basis for over 5 months. During that time they have been continually subjected to both light and heavy use and they have never shown any evidence of loss of voltage. Nor have they been recharged by a conventional battery recharger. However there has not been a close analysis of the electrolytic condition of the batteries, before, during or even after their use. This will require a fuller study by our chemistry experts. - from our report under 'discussion'.
Kindest
Rosemary
Thanks Lawrence - for your well wishes. I trust that, in time, you'll be able to explain your thesis better. And indeed, we need reminders that ALL our efforts are needed. It must, surely, help this drive to clean green.
Mark - thanks for your qualified tribute. I do not share your opinion though, on who or who not, is a clown.
WILBY - NICE TO SEE YOU AROUND.
Rosemary :)
edited
Hi Rosemary,
I respect your opinion but sugest you go read some of the persons posts over the last few years..like UFO's comming to the olympics and many of the other hundreds of claims.
As for the argument with the batteries that is a big red flag ..use a cap charged to a certain level perhaps and if that does not drop voltage then you have a winner. Until then your results do not have any validity. A chemist is not needed just someone who knows how to do a load test on a battery.
You have to remove all doubt.
All the best
Mark
Quote from: markdansie on March 14, 2011, 03:31:55 PM
Hi Rosemary
Congradulations with your efforts.
I have to agree with TK re the assumptions made with the battery measurements.
Also enguaging with the resident villiage idiot or clown does not do your credability anygood.. he is a harmless, self deluded enthusiest.
Mark
Your are correct Mark. He is indeed! From pendulums to Tong wheels to JT variant circuit and now the new hobby horse is kinetic motion in tuning forks! What a deluded clown.
Oh, who can forget about the flying saucer landing at the (2008) Beijing Olympics and the Obama White House lawn. Yawn...
cheers
chrisC
Quote from: markdansie on March 15, 2011, 12:24:49 AM
Hi Rosemary,
I respect your opinion but sugest you go read some of the persons posts over the last few years..like UFO's comming to the olympics and many of the other hundreds of claims.
As for the argument with the batteries that is a big red flag ..use a cap charged to a certain level perhaps and if that does not drop voltage then you have a winner. Until then your results do not have any validity. A chemist is not needed just someone who knows how to do a load test on a battery.
You have to remove all doubt.
All the best
Mark
No Mark. I could never do that. Not me nor any member of the team. Doubts will always persist. Frankly I do not think that the battery 'gains' charge. It simply retains it. But I'm certainly NOT considering this technology ONLY as it applies to batteries. The theoretical implications are that it can apply to a grid supply. That's the challenge. The battery assessments can only be competently managed by experts. All we can do is measure that voltage. And - as it is - even that is in doubt. LOL. We're using instruments that not even God would argue against - yet there are those of you who doubt it. Doubt is the inevitable consequence of any such claims. And history is the only way this doubt will be addressed. So. Let history tell us the truth. But - at its least - let's get this researched properly. Let history get a chance at evaluating all this. Right now - with this much denial - there's not goingto be much chance of it.
Rosemary
The instruments God would not argue against, have never been the issue Rose.
The perfect measuring instrument is only as good as the hands that use it.
.99
Quote from: poynt99 on March 15, 2011, 09:32:20 AM
The instruments God would not argue against, have never been the issue Rose.
The perfect measuring instrument is only as good as the hands that use it.
.99
Doubts will be there until hundreds of similar results are demonstrated. But….if classical Newtonian Mechanics proves that her results are possible, that will help her cause.
I never expect the simple tuning fork experiments and computer model using only Newtonian Mechanics â€" Conservation of momentum and Conservation of energy â€" can show that kinetic energy of air molecules can be brought-in at resonance. I regard that as a Divine Revelation.
You do not believe in resonance can bring-in environmental energy. That belief blinded you. That belief led you to think that you are the only one in the World who can use an oscilloscope. May God open your eyes. Amen.
Hello Rosemary,
A quote from Reply #42, made by yourself in this thread, March 14, 2011, 04:01:27 PM
“Your comments regarding the parasitic oscillation are noted - but are also spurious. Parasitic oscillation is NOT associated with a resonance that so perfectly reinforces itself. Usually one expects enough variation to have the one phase cancel out the other - in some kind of waveform pattern that also generates a variation to the amplitudes. Nor does one expect oscillation to be sustained with such high levels of current flow. The intention - in using more FETs was to test whether the full potentials in that spike were, perhaps, being blocked by some resistance in the Zener diode. Clearly it was. And clearly there is some exploitable advantage to sustaining this oscillation. And it is easily managed. But it does appear that it requires the body diode of the MOSFETS because this condition is not managed with diodes simply placed across a single transistor. Again. We are only pointing to an anomaly.â€
So what does spurious mean ?
http://www.thefreedictionary.com/spurious
“Lacking authenticity or validity in essence or origin; not genuine; false.â€
Your Blog entry for March 14, 2011:
http://newlightondarkenergy.blogspot.com/
91 - yet again
Dear Reader,
I am reminded, again and again, of the sad but predominant need to decry and deny any good news related to this technology of ours. My only comfort is that truth cannot - forever - be suppressed.
All I would like to draw your attention to - which is the sole reason that we held that demonstration - is that what is known of in the trade as 'parasitic oscillation' is a very exploitable event. This is very easily verified. You need to put those MOSFETS in parallel - then let the system do its thing. If nothing else comes from this - then at least, to those who experiment at all - just test this for yourselves. We have, traditionally, been throwing away a potential in back electromotive force - that actually needs to be encouraged. Parasitic oscillation is - self-evidently - the need for all that energy to manifest as current flow. And for this you need to 'widen the throat' - so to speak - the 'path' to allow it to flow. For those who've grasped the implications. The circuit now acts as a booster converter - without the attendant energy expense.
We have tested this to 30 amps. I have every reason to believe that with more FETs we could have accommodated even more current. And then, the theoretical implication is that this should obviate those extremes spikes at the transitional phases - when we go into heavy duty mode. And then too it should just comfortably osciallate. This is what requires advancement, research. Let's just look at all that potential. It will, most certainly, put paid to all those equivalence requirements applied to electromagnetic energy transfer - that has dogged our theoreticians for way too long. They're nonsense. Certainly NOT applicable to electric energy.
And. Dear God. What harm to test this? And what harm to view that test? What harm? Anywhere? Just look again at the crisis of nuclear energy. Just look at the catastrophes that result from using such dangerous technology. Look at the political crises escalating around the globe as result of abuses related to energy rights. The crisis of pollution. The crisis and risks to the continuation of our species.
At the risk of referencing something where I'm ill equipped to comment - while God may have given us supremacy over all things - I wonder if he would not prefer it that we were a little less prodigal and a little less self-serving - in our use of all that abundance. And I wonder then - that with the small inclusion of some transistors to some of our circuitry then the indications are that - at its least - we can do away with some of those toxic energy supplies. Not a bad thing at all.
I wonder at the malice that keeps dogging my best efforts. I am only trying to do my best in the interests of clean green. I'm increasingly aware of the need to silence me and to discredit the technology. It is a fact that the latest reach - that lastest entire distortion of the events at the demonstration - was by a nuclear physicist. Let him go public with his name as he is, so publicly yet so vicariously, able to distort the facts.
Kindest regards,
Rosemary
So... Let me get this straight...
You are now claiming that what you are seeing in this circuit is what is known in the trade as “parasitic oscillation†?
May I suggest that it is not only the nuclear physicist that is engaged in distortion of the facts.
Thanks Rosemary, I have not laughed that hard in ages, I almost fell off my chair! ;D
RM :)
Quote from: poynt99 on March 15, 2011, 09:32:20 AM
The instruments God would not argue against, have never been the issue Rose.
The perfect measuring instrument is only as good as the hands that use it.
.99
Poynty
Let me know when you discover an error in the USE of our DSO's. Also. Let me know when you're ready to talk about the results and not the assumed errors. Then I'll be happy to engage with you fully. Until then - I'm afraid you're tarnished with the same bias that pollutes your members on your forum. Their criticisms and concerns are laughably immoderate and utterly irrelevant. And they're voiced in the desperate hope that they can yet quieten all this escalating interest. We are talking here about results that have been demonstrated and witnessed. And I took NO ACTIVE PART in that demonstration.
And now you accuse them of not being able to find their way around a DSO? Are you projecting your own inabilities here?
Rosemary
Hello evolvingape
Thanks for the comprehensive quote from my blog. Delighted that it also served to amuse you. Personally I've always enjoyed a good laugh.
Kindest regards,
Rosemary
;D Hi Rosie
good to see you are still fighting your corner, any news on the promised video ?
Good luck as always
cat
Quote from: powercat on March 15, 2011, 11:13:55 AM
;D Hi Rosie
good to see you are still fighting your corner, any news on the promised video ?
Good luck as always
cat
Cat, always a pleasure. Yes. We're still downloading. It was done in high def and the files are HUGE. Also, it has to be labelled and edited which I can't do. It's all adding to the delays. But sit tight. Maybe finished by Friday.
Kindest regards,
Rosie
Guys, it's on my mind and I hope you'll get this.
The fact is that the spike that is generated from BEMF is well known. According to mainstream it's the energy that is stored in the circuit materials as a result of the input of energy from a supply source. Our circuits are designed that this voltage can induce a current flow with a counter clockwise path through the Zener diode. What we found was that the sum of the energy that was returned from the circuit and the energy dissipated at the resistor also exceeded the amount of energy first supplied by the source. In effect, the counter clockwise path through the battery supply also served to recharge it - thereby taking our co-efficient of performance to a value greater than 1. This was variously hotly contended - denied or replicated. Take your pick. They all resulted and they generated varying degrees of indifference - denial and abuse. Most attempts at explaining this simple event was cloaked and hidden in utter obscurity. And, predictably, notwithstanding some scholarly presentation of the results - the entire event faded from view.
Then despite some serious allegations against my rights to progress this at all - I was invited to develop this in a CPUT laboratory. The thinking was this. We'd start with a conventional typical element - resistor and then systematically vary the resistor to realise the optimised value of the inductance - then thinking that this would need to be increased. So. We start of with minimal inductance and work upwards. The surprise was to find that this element actually gave better results than any we'd previously tested. The trick, apparently, was to reduce and not increase the inductance. That was the first surprise. We could generate a significant 100 degrees C with - surprise, surprise, a zero discharge of energy from the supply.
Also interesting was that this result was NOT frequency dependent. But, invariably, the circuit would generate it's own resonating frequency - at a little over 50% on - which, in line with previous findings - also overrode the duty cycle setting. The difference was this. Before we had a result that invariably 'cost' the battery - albeit only a small fraction. This time there was clear evidence that the battery was now the happy beneficiary of more energy than was first measured to be supplied.
However, there was still no clear evidence of what exactly was going on. Also apparent was that while the technology was scalable - at approximately a 20 degree rise for every battery added - there was an upper limit determined by the amperage that the zener could manage. So. The next test was to up the ante by putting those MOSFETs in parallel. I went for the full monty - at about 30 amps - thinking that this would still keep the battery voltage in line with the DSO's voltage tolerances. That was when I recorded our 'first surprise' in my blog. What was immediately apparent was there was an antiphase relationship of voltage on the source and ground rail - that spoke volumes. When the drain voltage peaked - the source voltage was at it's lowest. And when the drain voltage 'troughed' the source voltage was at its highest. In effect, the returning energy trumped the output - every time - and all the way through each cycle. Also. The resonance - that was always restricted to a long spike and some ringing - now 'flattened out' and for a brief period gave a resonating waveform where there was clear early indications of absolute re-inforcement at each phase and stage. But also apparent was that this resonance actually only occured when the signal at the gate defaulted to negative. In effect - it was a negative triggering - and that's where the benefit had been hiding.
Now. If you think about it. Under usual circumstances, the initial spike that then generates the back EMF - occurs at the moment that the switch applies a positive signal at the gate and when the circuit is, effectively closed. But this then rings flat and out and does not appear again until the next cycle. What was now evident was that the discharge of current from this spike has only one path to discharge - through a Zener diode that can barely tolerate 6 amps. So what does it do if there is more than 6 amps worth of potential difference in that voltage spike? It can only discharge this as heat over the sundry components including that poor punished diode. Now. With a wider path established through those MOSFET's and their zeners - all in parallel - then the current flow is enabled to the full potential of that voltage spike.
But. And here's the thing. The value of that stored potential difference - that was first established by the flow of current from the battery supply - is now developed on the circuit from the collapsed voltage at the spike. This generates a positive potential difference or a potential 'clockwise' flow of current from the circuit material. And there is no resitriction to the flow of energy from the battery as, now, the signal at the gate is negative. A negative will not repel a positive. And THERE is the benefit. Both negative and positive voltages now have a path to discharge their voltage - in either a clockwise or an anticlockwise direction to an extent or at a value that is commensurate - not with the initial discharge from the supply - but with the potentials in the circuit material itself. What is intriguing is this. There are two entirely different voltages - resulting in two entirely different current flow paths - and they never vary - the one from the other - in their periodicity. It's as steady as a heart beat. And always - I have never seen this vary - there is more energy in the anti clockwise direction than the clockwise. And - in either direction - the beneficiary is to the heat on the resistor and to the retained charged condition of the battery supply.
And this is how subtle is the tuning. It can be tuned to retain the 'off' time to that period that is precisely as long as is required to ensure that the advantage is to the battery. Then. One can increase the offset so that current is actually discharged from the battery during that short 'on' time. The spike is then HUGE. And the subsequent ringing - or resonance rather - triggered during the 'off[ time is also then correspondingly increased. Now we have a condition where the energy dissipated at the resistor is greater than is allowed under conventional power delivery. It's acting with all the advantage of a booster converter. And yet ther is no discharge from the supply. That's where this technology goes from adequate to super efficient.
Which brings me back to the point of this post with apologies for its length. I feel I'm testing all kinds of tolerances here. That oscillation - that resonance - is adjustable to whatever value is required to ensure that there is a zero discharge from the supply. And the beauty of those wonderful DSOs is that they enable that fine tuning. The math function does an immediate calculation of the instantaneous voltage. And when this crosses into the negative value then one knows that the best tuning has been reached. I am not sure how this can be managed without that sophisticated measuring instrument. It's possibly going to be problematic.
But try it out for yourselves. If and where you use one MOSFET try two - or more. And set the gate signal to negative to enable that closed path condition in both directions. You will see the benefit for yourselves. It's so much more reliable than our previous tests. And the results are also that much more conclusive. I am well aware of the fact that my presentations are usually met with a parade of those who know better and see some need to prove this wrong. It is not wrong. And it's too important to second guess.
Rosemary
:)
edited Sorry for the typos. My eyes just not good enough to edit it out tonight. I'll try tomorrow.
so have you had any thoughts how you can close loop this and provide any usable energy?
PS why not use Caps rather than Batteries
Mark
Mark,
Would this not make a super efficient water heater ?
Welding or soldering electronics ?
How about very cheap electric heat that could run off of stored solar power?
I could go on but this does need more looking into from a COE standpoint if this works even remotely close to what is proposed to it could mean a lot for the world.
Is free energy the only objective "Overunity" well while the name says that I tend to think a little outside of the box I'll tell you if you could do things at a lesser and lesser cost it makes renewable energy more likely to be exploited and used which in turn decreases the grip of big oil, and makes everyone's life easier until that pie in the sky of OU is discovered.
These are all stepping stones .... Hell why not try it you may like the results.
I would try it myself if I had every component on hand or knew some more specifics but I see a lot of uses for a closed loop if it works as proposed or even close to it.
Hello Mark - and Infringer. It is a closed loop - already. But infringer, you're spot on. I see a single solar panel as desirable as it would supply a stored energy that could trickle charge to the batteries. I think that a high voltage source also needs to be stable at a given value notwithstanding the roller coaster voltage values when it gets into oscillation mode. We tested this on batteries with huge capacities. And it would be nice to know that we could use something a little more modest. I've not tried this on anything other than the batteries disclosed in the report.
Now. The next point - which may - I hope - bend your minds. I referenced this simple fact. During the period when the gate signal is negative - is the time that we induce this crazy oscillation. This much is evident. The current path is first anticlockwise - indicating that it comes from the circuit to the supply source. Then. The current path reverses and goes from the battery to the the circuit. How is it that there is no resitriction to the flow of this current from the battery? I have not heard anyone ask this. The assumption is made that the flow from the supply can only happen when the gate is positive. Surely? What I'm hoping is that those that are more insightful here - will see what I'm referencing. Current may, indeed, have properties of charge.
I'll try this again. The applied signal at the gate is positive. It allows a kind of bridge to the applied voltage from the battery supply that the current can flow from the supply - through the circuit and back to the negative terminal. We all know that. Now we apply a negative signal at the same point. And this still allows the unrestricted flow of current from the battery supply through the circuit. Not only that but the flow of that current is really strong. That's the point - I think - where this circuit gets interesting. To my way of seeing this - if the current from the battery supply has a distinctly 'positive' charge - evidenced in a clockwise directional flow - then there is, self-evidently - nothing at the gate to prevent its flow when the gate signal reverses to negative. And this is the point where I suspect there may yet be some consessions to the concept of current having two distinct charge potentials. If so. Then - with apologies for all these 'ifs' - if current flow comprises electrons - then it could NEVER 'swap' directions and charges as an electron is a monopole. An electron would either be repelled or attracted at the 'gate'. Here we have a condition where the charge is not restricted - at all. On the contrary. Therefore is there the proposal that this may be proof that our current - whatever else it is - is NOT the flow of electrons. Wrap your minds around this possibility and I assure you that you'll then need to talk 'unkown energy supply sources' or 'aether energy' or dark energy. I do hope you'll see the point here.
You guys have been looking for the 'secret' to all that abundant energies. I think on a deep but subliminal level we all know it's out there. Compulsively interesting. But ever elusive. But I also think that you expect it to announce itself with some kind of definitive 'tan tan tara'. I'm reasonably satisfied that it has never been considered as the properties of that well known electromagnetic interaction. All have presumed that this is based on the flow or movement of electrons. Never proven - but always assumed. What is here suggested is that it's in the actual material of charge which has NOTHING to do with the atoms. It's a force field that operates outside the atom. And - if this is so, then all we need to do is use all that current potential way more efficiently. And the best way to do this is to let that current 'just do it's thing'.
So. It's rather prosaic in its fundamentals. Just the well known electromagnetic interaction. Yet it's strangely and entirely different - in its actual fundamental constructs. That, I hope, is what this oscillation proves. Please note, Infringer. That crazy oscillation only needs some small inductive value on the circuit materials - and a continually applied negative charge at the gate - and the indications are that we have - dare I say it - PERPETUAL current flow. That thing that is only, under known circumstances, enabled in REALLY cold conditions. And what's really interesting - is that this puts paid to the idea that current flow will COST anything at all.
Kindest regards,
Rosemary
Quote from: markdansie on March 15, 2011, 05:35:13 PM
so have you had any thoughts how you can close loop this and provide any usable energy?
PS why not use Caps rather than Batteries
Mark
Mark - we have a booster converter type thing going on where the applied voltage can be greatly reduced to get precisely as much energy as is required. We can cook the resistor at just about any value. And the cost of this is zero loss of charge from the battery supply. Are you serious? Surely this is usable?
Rosemary
Hello
JR Hempel made an attempt to measure current in 2 ways:
1) Amps measured with clamp meter
2) Amps measured hot-wire ammeter
(http://www.practicalphysics.org/go/Experiment_698.html)
with 1) you measure both cold and normal current flow
with 2) you measure only current flow (this flow that causes heat)
Adjust them both to show the same value when applied to a normal power supply.
IMHO 2) measures RMS , if so ,choose a clamp meter that also does.
If there are differences between the 2 measuring methods you are dealing with cold current.
@Infinger and Rosemary
yes I can see the device as is is very usefull even as a heat generator. Just a matter of engineering and scaling for different applications.
However and this is me being picky pain in but, i would much prefer to see a cap used as power source or at least some credible way to measure the battery (volts does not cut it)
That's my only beef at this stage and that why i get paid the big bucks sometimes
If you noted my past posts I have always encouraged you or given some unsolicited advice.
mark
Quote from: TheCell on March 16, 2011, 03:47:21 AM
Hello
JR Hempel made an attempt to measure current in 2 ways:
1) Amps measured with clamp meter
2) Amps measured hot-wire ammeter
(http://www.practicalphysics.org/go/Experiment_698.html)
with 1) you measure both cold and normal current flow
with 2) you measure only current flow (this flow that causes heat)
Adjust them both to show the same value when applied to a normal power supply.
IMHO 2) measures RMS , if so ,choose a clamp meter that also does.
If there are differences between the 2 measuring methods you are dealing with cold current.
I'm not sure which 'THE CELL' has posted here. I do not know what cold current is. It's one of those vague terms that somehow has crept into esoteric science. We do not measure with any ammeters at all. We infer the current flow from the voltage measured across the resistors. But thanks for the advice in any event. I think we need to apply classical protocols or we'll never cut it with mainstream.
And again, Mark - I really need you to get this. I do not care AT ALL what supply is being used. It's the theoretical implications of the measurements and the consequent waveform that is of interest. And this is NOT, absolutey not, restricted to a battery supply. Why do you guys keep going on about this. Think power source. Think plugs. It is NOT REQUIRED that this is only supplied by a battery. Nor would the replacement of the batteries with caps change anything at all whether or not it worked. It's irrelevant. We are not discussing the electrolytic condition of the batteries. We're only talking about the applied energy to a circuit and some means of optimising the output from that supply. That's it. The numbers stack. If they're wrong - then strangely, they seem to be giving exploitable benefits notwithstanding. And no-one has faulted the measurements nor the protocols.
Anyway. Hope you get this.
Rosemary
The advantage of being a numbskull like me is that I get to ask questions that my learned friends would not dare . I have never yet used Mosfets . I understand that a positive voltage has to be applied to the gate to switch the mosfet on and allow current to flow from drain to source . Looking at data on the net I deduce it needs about 7.5 volts positive on the gate to fully switch on . Am I right? . The gate is driven by the 555 timer which has a square wave output . Question . If the 555 is driven by a12 volt supply . the output switches between zero and a positive voltage Question WHAT IS THAT VOLTAGE? Or does it switch between a pos voltage and a neg voltage . If it does NOT then how can the gate ever become negative ? Question . If we set up the circuit and tune it , why can we not then just disconnect the 555 circuit and substitute a small battery to keep the gate negative ?
Applications? too many to mention .Imagine a small portable heater . Hand crank a small generator to charge the caps , or plug into the car cigarette lighter for 30 seconds . I bet that would be useful in Japan right now or if youwere trapped in a car in a snowdrift , or as a night heater for truckers .Or for camping/ life off the grid . A few peltier cells to supply current for lighting . Could some one please answer my idiotic questions?
Quote from: neptune on March 16, 2011, 06:56:16 AM
The advantage of being a numbskull like me is that I get to ask questions that my learned friends would not dare . I have never yet used Mosfets . I understand that a positive voltage has to be applied to the gate to switch the mosfet on and allow current to flow from drain to gate . Looking at data on the net I deduce it needs about 7.5 volts positive on the gate to fully switch on . Am I right? . The gate is driven by the 555 timer which has a square wave output . Question . If the 555 is driven by a12 volt supply . the output switches between zero and a positive voltage Question WHAT IS THAT VOLTAGE? Or does it switch between a pos voltage and a neg voltage . If it does NOT then how can the gate ever become negative ? Question . If we set up the circuit and tune it , why can we not then just disconnect the 555 circuit and substitute a small battery to keep the gate negative ?
Applications? too many to mention .Imagine a small portable heater . Hand crank a small generator to charge the caps , or plug into the car cigarette lighter for 30 seconds . I bet that would be useful in Japan right now or if youwere trapped in a car in a snowdrift , or as a night heater for truckers .Or for camping/ life off the grid . A few peltier cells to supply current for lighting . Could some one please answer my idiotic questions?
Why should anybody care to answer your questions since you never bother to post feedback? I answered your question in the other thread but you never told me if my answer made you understand what you were asking me or there still are hanaging ends.
Quote from: neptune on March 16, 2011, 06:56:16 AM
The advantage of being a numbskull like me is that I get to ask questions that my learned friends would not dare . I have never yet used Mosfets . I understand that a positive voltage has to be applied to the gate to switch the mosfet on and allow current to flow from drain to gate . Looking at data on the net I deduce it needs about 7.5 volts positive on the gate to fully switch on . Am I right? . The gate is driven by the 555 timer which has a square wave output . Question . If the 555 is driven by a12 volt supply . the output switches between zero and a positive voltage Question WHAT IS THAT VOLTAGE? Or does it switch between a pos voltage and a neg voltage . If it does NOT then how can the gate ever become negative ? Question . If we set up the circuit and tune it , why can we not then just disconnect the 555 circuit and substitute a small battery to keep the gate negative ?
Applications? too many to mention .Imagine a small portable heater . Hand crank a small generator to charge the caps , or plug into the car cigarette lighter for 30 seconds . I bet that would be useful in Japan right now or if youwere trapped in a car in a snowdrift , or as a night heater for truckers .Or for camping/ life off the grid . A few peltier cells to supply current for lighting . Could some one please answer my idiotic questions?
Hi Neptune. We used a functions generator to drive the FETs. But I've just checked. It's very doable to get the negative signal to the gate with a 555. You'll need to get someone else to show you how. I have no idea how its done.
Your applications are good. I actually think it would take between 72 and 96 volts from a battery supply to get your hot water cylinders off grid. That may be considered as well.
Rosemary
Hello Rosemary,
In Reply #68 made by you today, you state:
“I think we need to apply classical protocols or we'll never cut it with mainstream. “
http://www.thefreedictionary.com/protocols
1. The plan for a course of medical treatment or for a scientific experiment.
Your absolutely right, unless you apply a logical plan via the scientific method you will never cut it with mainstream or anyone else with the ability to think for themselves.
You state:
“I do not care AT ALL what supply is being used. It's the theoretical implications of the measurements and the consequent waveform that is of interest. And this is NOT, absolutey not, restricted to a battery supply. Why do you guys keep going on about this.â€
Well mainstream does care about what power supply is being used, and I think you will find a lot of people who occupy this forum will care too. Until you have accurately established the state of your power supply before, during and after the experiment you have no basis to draw any theoretical conclusions at all. That is why we keep going on about this, and I am beginning to wonder why you refuse to perform such simple and commonplace procedures. As it currently stands your results have no validity whatsoever.
You state:
“We do not measure with any ammeters at all. We infer the current flow from the voltage measured across the resistors.â€
Volts x Amps = Watts
You refuse to easily measure one parameter and simply calculate it from the other(s)? Any scientist worth his salt would always check his theoretical calculations and verify them with actual measurements whenever possible. Indeed, this is actually the basis of the scientific method itself.
You state:
“Nor would the replacement of the batteries with caps change anything at all whether or not it worked. It's irrelevant. We are not discussing the electrolytic condition of the batteries. We're only talking about the applied energy to a circuit and some means of optimising the output from that supply. That's it. The numbers stack.â€
Erm... no, the replacement of Batteries with Caps is not irrelevant at all. Batteries have a stored potential, Caps have an applied potential. Caps would very quickly show whether your circuit is running down or not and consuming power. 6 car Batteries would hide this extremely well even over lengthy testing periods.
Of course we are discussing the electrolytic condition of the batteries, because they are part of the system that you are making theoretical assumptions from. A chemist can only have limited options for checking a battery cell.
They will perform a hydrometer test to check the specific gravity of the electrolyte, they will visually check the plates and electrolyte for sulphation, and then they will...
perform a controlled load test...
because a load test is THE ONLY WAY to confirm the charge storing potential state of the cell!
You are using maintenance free sealed cells so a chemist will ONLY be able to perform a load test because otherwise he would have to destroy the environment of the cell to check the other parameters and therefore invalidate his own tests.
If you were using lead acid cells you could at least measure the voltage under load of each individual 2V cell of the 6off 2V (12V) battery.
This is why we keep going on about this... to constantly avoid the question and attempt misdirection is hugely suspicious and displays a huge lack of understanding of the basics of the technology that you feel you can make theoretical assumptions from and claim infinite COP.
You state:
“If they're wrong - then strangely, they seem to be giving exploitable benefits notwithstanding. And no-one has faulted the measurements nor the protocols.â€
So far the only exploitable benefits that have been demonstrated are the fact that you can take 6 car batteries and heat a small wire with them, while producing a parasitic oscillation on an oscilloscope. Hopefully the demonstration video will show more than this :)
I feel I have to point out that your statement that no-one has faulted the measurements or the protocols is demonstrably wrong! If you doubt this obvious fact then I suggest you go back to page 1 of this thread and read it through from the beginning. If you arrive back here and still have the opinion that no-one has faulted the measurements or protocols then you are in denial.
This needed to be said, so I hope you “get thisâ€.
RM :)
@Omnibus .Sorry I did not post feedback in other threads .This was because my questions were answered satisfactorily , and I wanted to avoid cluttering the threads ,so thanks anyway . So we are all in this together , and , to recap , my questions are .
1 What positive voltage is needed on the gate of the Mosfet to fully switch it on ?
2 The output of the 555 timer is a square wave , what is the voltage difference between the 2 output states .
3 The 2 output states are a positive voltage and zero volts [ or is it a positive voltage and a negative voltage] ?
4 Rosemary says that the oscillation occurs when the gate is negative . If true , why not get oscillation occurring and switch in a small battery in place of the 555 circuit , and keep the oscillation going . There would be no drain on this battery due to the high gate impedance.
5 What else , other than a signal from the 555 timer could cause the gate to go negative?
@evolvinggape
"Erm... no, the replacement of Batteries with Caps is not irrelevant at all. Batteries have a stored potential, Caps have an applied potential. Caps would very quickly show whether your circuit is running down or not and consuming power. 6 car Batteries would hide this extremely well even over lengthy testing periods."
So well put. This has been the failing of many experiments. I have even seen others even fool themselves when using a power supply. That's why many people I know prefer to use caps.
Mark
Mark and evolvingape
I am reminded how destructive is membership on these forums to any emerging technology.
Here's the problem. I have a thesis that proposes that the forces are actually magnetic fields in varying dimensions - being one, two or three dimensional. And in the field they exist outside our own timeframe. But that's not pertinent to the discussion. And it's certain to be far outside your own interests. But the whole idea of this circuit was intended to prove that thesis. The idea is that any amalgam - any three dimensional object - comprises an atomic and/or molecular structure that is bound by discrete packages of one dimensional fields. They're extraneous to the atom. And they simply interact with the atomic energy levels which is here proposed to comprise two dimensional magnetic field. So. These small one dimensional fields simply bind those atoms and molecules into a crystalline structure.
The proposal - as it relates to the transfer of electric energy or to the electromagnetic interaction - is that provided that material is conductive and/or inductive then it is able to induce its own potential difference which is the manifest voltage measured across circuit components. These fields have unbound from their previous 'holding pattern'. But this voltage - which is an imbalanced field condition - relies on the amount of mass of those fields. And this, in turn, is determined by the number of atoms that it binds. Effectively - the more the mass - the more the fields - the more energy is then brought into play in that electromagnetic interaction.
Now it seems that you are all satisfied that if I were to eliminate the batteries then I would also thereby prove something? Exactly what? I take away the source of all those magnetic fields and somehow I must then get this to operate in terms of the prediction in that thesis? I've tried to get an analogy to this before because it's also MileHigh's favourite complaint. My answer was something like this. It's like saying I see you can run. But can you run without legs? Or I see you can fly - but can you fly without wings? I absolutely require all that mass - both in the batteries and in the circuit material. And if the supply was from a plug source - I would still require all that applied voltage and it would still need to be returned to the plug. It is the value or the amount of those imbalanced voltages that, I believe, generates that oscillation - or that resonance. What is valid is to test this on smaller batteries. Feel free - but then you also may need to reduce the size of the resistor to get that oscillation. I'm not sure. But it's possible. You'll need to scale it from all aspects.
Again. I am absolutely indifferent to the source itself. I only require that voltage and the actual material property of that voltage which I propose is particulate and bipolar. The results are non classical - for a reason. The concepts that predicted this result are non classical. While the measurements are standard - the thing that is actually being tested is not. But - surprisingly - NOR does that conflict with known science. It simply conflicts with what has been assumed is the property of current flow. And, while there's been a great deal ASSUMED about this - there has never been definitive proof of it. The proposal here is that current flow DOES NOT comprise the flow of electrons.
Rosemary
i have to concur with the other members who say that the issue of the power source is of key importance here
*IF* there is an energy anomaly in this setup (and this has yet to be established - hopefully by inspection of suitably comprehensive test results) then it will be absolutely necessary to identify the cause and mechanism by which this occurs
one strand of investigation will be to confirm which elements of the system are necessary and sufficient to cause the effect
one possibility (as suggested by Bedini & followers) is that under certain pulsing conditions, a battery can be made to operate as a kind of 'negative resistor' and store more energy than it supplies
if *THIS* is true then Mark's suggestion of using capacitors would not be a sufficient test to confirm OU here because capacitors, as has been mentioned, operate mainly electrically, not chemically
if Rosemary were to repeat her tests using capacitors as the energy source (albeit scaled down due to smaller energy capacity of capacitors compared to the batteries), the results will show one of two things:
A) Rosemary's 'effect' still occurs - therefore the 'magic' is in the circuit/components;
(also, as a result, more people in different disciplines, will be prepared to believe that something unusual has occurred and that it's not just due to the extensive battery energy involved in the original tests)
B) the energy in the capacitors just depletes - with or without parasitic oscillation;
this would disprove Rosemary's assertion** that it doesn't matter what supplies the electrical energy
(eg "I am absolutely indifferent to the source itself"; it can be "wall-plug", "battery";... etc)
in this case, attention must therefore focus back on the batteries - are they a necessary part of an anomaly? ...or are they just masking the eventual depletion of energy?
in this case, a new test protocol must be developed which enables Rosemary (or others) to establish EXACTLY what is the role played by the batteries in this 'effect'
so, Rosemary - people are only asking you to do the same thing we'd all need to do in the same circumstance - run additional, different tests which answer some real, nagging questions at the back of any good engineer's mind ("have i accounted for all possible conventional explanations?")
ok - said my piece - let's see what the present test results show
all the best
np
http://docsfreelunch.blogspot.com/ (http://docsfreelunch.blogspot.com/)
I am somewhat disappointed that there is no one on here that is able to answer my questions about the 555 timer circuit that I asked in my last post . I do expect Rosemary to answer as it is not her field of expertise . These questions are at the very heart of this device .
Neptune, Please repeat your question about the 555 & I will try to answer it for you.
.
Quote from: neptune on March 16, 2011, 04:20:26 PM
I am somewhat disappointed that there is no one on here that is able to answer my questions about the 555 timer circuit that I asked in my last post . I do expect Rosemary to answer as it is not her field of expertise . These questions are at the very heart of this device .
1) - usually several volts (depends on actual device used);
were there any side-effects on the drive-level due to multi MOSFETs being used in parallel?
2), 3) i think we're waiting to see some close detail waveform data from Rosemary to confirm this - or is this now available to us somewhere?
4) need to establish first if the oscillation sustains with true disconnection of SigGen - and with what remnant DC bias connection (eg. resistive/capacitive connection to ground) - again, need close view of one or two driving pulses
5) other possible causes of negative voltage on the gate could be, say, voltage spikes caused by inductive or capacitive coupling to high-voltage or current pulses nearby
hope this helps
np
http://docsfreelunch.blogspot.com/ (http://docsfreelunch.blogspot.com/)
@FatBird , thanks . My questions are
1 The output of the 555 timer circuit is a square wave ,what is the voltage difference between these 2 states .
2 Is it true that the 2 states are a positive voltage and zero volts , or is it a positive voltage and a negative voltage .
3 What positive voltage is necessary on the gate of the Mosfet to turn it completely on . is it about 7.5 volts ?
4 If the output of the 555 toggles between pos volts and zero , can you see any way in which the Mosfet gate can become Negative?
Rosemary talks about the desired oscillation occurring when the gate is negative , and this has happened for up to 2 or 3 seconds .If this is the case , one could at that point disconnect the 555 from the gate and replace it with a small battery giving a negative potential , and the oscillation might continue indefinitely .What do you think ?
@Nul-points . You replied whilst I was typing . Thanks for replying , your info is very helpful
1. The V out depends on the supply voltage. Example, if you used a 12 V supply, the Output V would be about + 11.5 Volts.
2. The Output High is a Positive V. The Low is about + .2 V, which is Ground for all practical purposes.
3. Depends on the Mosfet. An approximate average full turn on V for a 5 Amp, 200 V Mosfet is about 1 V.
4. No, EXCEPT if her circuit had an inductance that would RING (oscillate). In that case the ringing can indeed drop negative.
If I remember right, her load resistor is wire wound. If so, then it could ring negative.
Neptune asks = If this is the case , one could at that point disconnect the 555 from the gate and replace it with a small battery
giving a negative potential , and the oscillation might continue indefinitely .
5. Probably so, but the circuit switching arrangement would be tricky & involved.
.
Hello All...Newbie here.
I've been following Rosemary's work on her blog page lately and I've noticed a couple of things that seem strange to me.
First, I can't find anywhere that she says what her measurements of input power or voltage or current actually are. Never once is a number actually given for any of these values, as far as I can tell. All the scope traces I've seen her present show an input (battery) voltage with over a hundred volts of AC at over 1MHz on it. That can't be right. There must be some large inductances or long wires being used in the battery circuit. No decent battery would have such a high impedance on its own as to allow such a large AC voltage swing. She says her batteries are brand new and very high quality types.
Second, she recently showed her latest circuit and parts values. I noticed that the shunt being used to measure the battery current flow is made up of several quite long ceramic wirewound resistors. She states the combined inductance as being 130nH or something like that and 0.25 Ohms combined parallel resistance. With an oscillation frequency of over 1MHz, the inductance is the predominating part of the shunt impedance (by a huge margin) and the shunt impedance will be adding a large phase shift and showing much larger voltages across it than a pure 0.25 Ohm resistor would.
So, when the wildly oscillating AC "battery voltage" is multiplied (sample by sample) within her oscilloscope math by the phase-skewed voltage across her inductive shunt, the results will be totally unrelated to the actual DC-equivalent average power.
Measurements made on this deeply-flawed basis could quite easily show a negative (reflected) power being returned to the battery when such was not actually the case at all. Or they could easily show zero (or close to zero) power being drawn when, in reality, significant power was being drawn out of the battery.
I would suggest that a simple low-pass filter be applied on both the shunt voltage measurement and the battery voltage measurement in order to find the actual DC equivalent input power. This will eliminate the false readings associated with the phase shifts and inductive parasitics in the circuitry and reveal quickly the actual DC net power flow either out of or into the battery.
This has been suggested to Rosemary many times by many folks on several forums but, so far, she refuses to do it and has ignored all such advice. Adding fifty cents worth of R and C to form a simple first-order low-pass filter and then just measuring the results with a DMM is all that is needed.
It's much easier than trying to change the batteries to smaller ones or run using a capacitor or DC power supply. It could be done in five minutes at almost no cost and would give results that are far more ACCURATE AND TRUSTWORTHY than doing math on 8-bit scope traces which are wildly swinging around with huge imposed AC voltages far beyond what would appear across any decent battery or a pure resistive shunt.
This technique has been used for decades and is well-known to any engineer who has tried to make accurate DC-equivalent power measurements on circuits that have pulsed or high frequency AC current draw. Multiplying phase-skewed values derived across inductive shunts and batteries hooked up with long wires and no bypass capacitors has no chance of ever yielding accurate DC-equivalent power numbers.
Doesn't anyone else here know this? I have not seen it pointed out or heard similar suggestions on this forum.
cHeeseburger - to go! (Hold the lettuce)
P.S. Hooking two or more MOSFETS directly in parallel is well known to cause parasitic oscillations that are, in fact, difficult to get rid of when they are unwanted. Rosemary is using a function generator and has liberally applied DC offset voltages to the pulse output and tweaked that offset to enhance the oscillations, so using a 555 timer circuit will probably not work the same way at all. Anyone desiring to replicate should forget all about the earlier Rosemary Ainslie COP 17 schematics and use the latest circuit shown in her blog report. Don't forget to use at least ten feet of wire to hook up the batteries! And NEVER add any bypass caps ANYWHERE! Oh...and use a long twisted pair of small-guage wires to run from the signal generator to the MOSFET gates. That extra inductance and impedance mismatch can get a solid oscillation going even with a single MOSFET.
@cheeseburger
Your modifications for testing as you suggest the logical way to go. I have spoken to a few other engineers who did not have ideas too distant from yours. I guess myself and others were dumbing it down to try and point out that nothing can be claimed to support her hypothesis if many of the variables or red flags are not eliminated especially the power supply.
@rosemary
In many ways you are just subjecting yourself to peer review here as you would have to in mainstream. We are in many ways much kinder. Please do not bring in emotional comments as there is no room for sentiment in scientific methodology and process.
However option B for you is adopting the "Ignorance is Bliss" stance.
No one is attacking you here...but many more qualified than me are speaking volumes here...please listen.
Kind Regards
Mark
Hi, Mark!
I believe the evidence points to the idea that Rosemary has chosen option B a long time ago. To expect that any thinking person would accept her claims without even a statement from her regarding her measured input power seems just nuts to me.
After all, what else is there to measure? She long ago (and with good reasoning supported by almost everyone commenting) decided that measuring the output power via voltage and current multiplication at the load would not work easily because of the load inductance and its inherent phase shift and non-unity power factor. So the 'scope method was shunned in regard to measuring output power with not so much as a peep of objection from her or anyone else.
Instead, the thermal integration method was chosen...even in her original 2002 publication. Comparing the thermal equalibrium temperature of the load driven by her circuit against the DC power from a bench supply that was required to reach the same thermal equalibrium temperature. Perfectly acceptable and reasonable way to proceed.
What she and everyone else seems to have blindly overlooked is that the measurement of input power is plagued with the exact same complications of inductance-based phase shifts and power factor complexities that were deemed too difficult to overcome on the output side. There is no difference!
Yet, thosands of forum posts and blogs and hundreds of thousands of words and arduous special arrangements to borrow fancy oscilloscopes and try to lern to use them and bitter heated arguments have since ensued all regarding the correct measurement of the inpuit power. To date, no numbers have emerged!
All I am suggesting is that simple techniques that in no way alter the circuit operation, i.e. using a simple RC low-pass filter on the battery voltage and current shunt voltage will give the exact same advantage that using the thermal integratiion method of obtaining equivalent DC power provides in the output measurement. Even better, there is no need for a "control" or comparison test at the input side as must be done on the output side.
The only reason to use an oscilloscope in this whole exercise is to "tune and tweak" the circuit for whatever characteristics Rosemary thinks are best. Once that is done, the scope should be turned off and forgotten.
Measure the average DC-equivalent input voltage and current using a good DMM and the RC filter. Multiply. End of story!
cHeeseburger
a dirty great pi filter would be even better but then it would show clear results.
Quote from: cHeeseburger on March 16, 2011, 05:49:13 PM
...All the scope traces I've seen her present show an input (battery) voltage with over a hundred volts of AC at over 1MHz on it. That can't be right.
Well then. It seems then that cHeeseburger knows that they're wrong. To the best of my knowledge there is nothing unfolded in these waveforms that are not in line with previous replications. I distinctly recall the evidence of AC waveforms - in one form or another - on every single test either on own circuit or on replications.
Quote from: cHeeseburger on March 16, 2011, 05:49:13 PMThere must be some large inductances or long wires being used in the battery circuit.
Indeed. There are. They need to span a large bank of batteries.
Quote from: cHeeseburger on March 16, 2011, 05:49:13 PMNo decent battery would have such a high impedance on its own as to allow such a large AC voltage swing. She says her batteries are brand new and very high quality types.
Here cHeesburger is wrong. I have never claimed that the batteries are high quality types. I've simply shown the battery brand. And they most certainly ARE NOT brand new. They've had a known shelf life for 9 months prior to their use and they've been used rather extensively for the last 5 months.
Quote from: cHeeseburger on March 16, 2011, 05:49:13 PMSecond, she recently showed her latest circuit and parts values. I noticed that the shunt being used to measure the battery current flow is made up of several quite long ceramic wirewound resistors. She states the combined inductance as being 130nH or something like that and 0.25 Ohms combined parallel resistance. With an oscillation frequency of over 1MHz, the inductance is the predominating part of the shunt impedance (by a huge margin) and the shunt impedance will be adding a large phase shift and showing much larger voltages across it than a pure 0.25 Ohm resistor would.
Here cHeesburger makes his first valid point. Indeed. There is no question that there is inductance. Add that in. And IF that inductance and impedance is responsible for that wild oscillation and any consequent phase shift - then I would strongly recommend that they be retained for ALL applications. It's highly exploitable. Whatever is finally determined to cause that osciallation needs to be factored IN not OUT. Self-evidently it results in a waveform that PERFECTLY reinforces itself. And that means that in those wildly swinging oscillations - which persist and would probably persist as long as the gate voltage is negative - also relies on those properties of the shunt. If, however, the oscillation resulted in a 'cancelling out' that it all decayed into a sad little flat ringing trace - then indeed - there would be no value to that oscillation.
Quote from: cHeeseburger on March 16, 2011, 05:49:13 PMSo, when the wildly oscillating AC "battery voltage" is multiplied (sample by sample) within her oscilloscope math by the phase-skewed voltage across her inductive shunt, the results will be totally unrelated to the actual DC-equivalent average power.
Here cHeesburger's logic becomes hard to follow. That 'phase-skewed voltage' persists over time. And it seems that it would persist as long as a negative charge is applied at the gate. There is no question that it adds to the system. Indeed. If you also factored in the increase to the Ohmage of the shunt - then it would add even more to the system than is currently being shown.
Quote from: cHeeseburger on March 16, 2011, 05:49:13 PMMeasurements made on this deeply-flawed basis could quite easily show a negative (reflected) power being returned to the battery when such was not actually the case at all. Or they could easily show zero (or close to zero) power being drawn when, in reality, significant power was being drawn out of the battery.
Nothing is 'deeply flawed' here other than cHeesburger's conclusions. I think what we've shown - conclusively - is that it is possible to generate two opposing cycles of current that perfectly reinforce each other with a zero discharge of energy during that oscillation. What is also proved is that this results in a sustained dissipation of heat at the resistor element. Much desired.
Quote from: cHeeseburger on March 16, 2011, 05:49:13 PMI would suggest that a simple low-pass filter be applied on both the shunt voltage measurement and the battery voltage measurement in order to find the actual DC equivalent input power. This will eliminate the false readings associated with the phase shifts and inductive parasitics in the circuitry and reveal quickly the actual DC net power flow either out of or into the battery.
I would suggest that cHeesburger is determined to deny us the benefit from those circuit components including the wiring. I'm reasonably satisfied that if we, indeed, eliminated the inductance on the circuit - including the wiring - then we would, also, indeed, lose all that advantage.
Quote from: cHeeseburger on March 16, 2011, 05:49:13 PMThis has been suggested to Rosemary many times by many folks on several forums but, so far, she refuses to do it and has ignored all such advice. Adding fifty cents worth of R and C to form a simple first-order low-pass filter and then just measuring the results with a DMM is all that is needed.
While I persist in ignoring cHeesburger's advices I could do nothing to stop him from doing his own tests. Perhaps he should take the trouble - before commenting so freely. And I'm somewhat disinclined to follow his advices when they're evidentially aimed at negating the very advantages that the circuit requires.
Quote from: cHeeseburger on March 16, 2011, 05:49:13 PMIt's much easier than trying to change the batteries to smaller ones or run using a capacitor or DC power supply. It could be done in five minutes at almost no cost and would give results that are far more ACCURATE AND TRUSTWORTHY than doing math on 8-bit scope traces which are wildly swinging around with huge imposed AC voltages far beyond what would appear across any decent battery or a pure resistive shunt.
Here cHeeseburger is indulging in a standard of comment that really does NOT deserve and answer.
Quote from: cHeeseburger on March 16, 2011, 05:49:13 PMThis technique has been used for decades and is well-known to any engineer who has tried to make accurate DC-equivalent power measurements on circuits that have pulsed or high frequency AC current draw. Multiplying phase-skewed values derived across inductive shunts and batteries hooked up with long wires and no bypass capacitors has no chance of ever yielding accurate DC-equivalent power numbers.
From where I sit it seems that cHeesburger wants to retain the status quo and deny the rights to explore this waveform. I'm sure he's free to do so.
Quote from: cHeeseburger on March 16, 2011, 05:49:13 PMP.S. Hooking two or more MOSFETS directly in parallel is well known to cause parasitic oscillations that are, in fact, difficult to get rid of when they are unwanted. Rosemary is using a function generator and has liberally applied DC offset voltages to the pulse output and tweaked that offset to enhance the oscillations, so using a 555 timer circuit will probably not work the same way at all. Anyone desiring to replicate should forget all about the earlier Rosemary Ainslie COP 17 schematics and use the latest circuit shown in her blog report. Don't forget to use at least ten feet of wire to hook up the batteries! And NEVER add any bypass caps ANYWHERE! Oh...and use a long twisted pair of small-guage wires to run from the signal generator to the MOSFET gates. That extra inductance and impedance mismatch can get a solid oscillation going even with a single MOSFET.
I think that's about right. It seems that cHeeseburger has indeed found the recipe.
Rosemary
And with reference to this post.
I'll comment here because some of these points are good. Some not so good.
Quote from: cHeeseburger on March 16, 2011, 08:29:55 PM
I believe the evidence points to the idea that Rosemary has chosen option B a long time ago. To expect that any thinking person would accept her claims without even a statement from her regarding her measured input power seems just nuts to me.
Input and output are measured across the shunt. The input is that voltage above ground the output is that voltage below ground. It is the difference that we highlight. And in as much the there is more out than in - then one may conclude that there is a zero loss to the battery. This is evident in the scope traces and the spreadsheet analysis confirms the indications that are shown in the math trace. That much is reported.
Quote from: cHeeseburger on March 16, 2011, 08:29:55 PMWhat she and everyone else seems to have blindly overlooked is that the measurement of input power is plagued with the exact same complications of inductance-based phase shifts and power factor complexities that were deemed too difficult to overcome on the output side. There is no difference!
'
blindly overlooked'. Strong words here by cHeesburger. Golly. In point of fact these have NEVER been overlooked. But it intrigues me that he needs to claim this.
Quote from: cHeeseburger on March 16, 2011, 08:29:55 PMYet, thosands of forum posts and blogs and hundreds of thousands of words and arduous special arrangements to borrow fancy oscilloscopes and try to lern to use them and bitter heated arguments have since ensued all regarding the correct measurement of the inpuit power. To date, no numbers have emerged!
IF indeed, cHeesburger had been following all this then he has failed - rather sadly - in understanding the actual argument. To the best of my knowledge there have been no 'bitter arguments' about the correct measurments to apply. And no person on our team required any special training to get their heads around those DSO's. I wonder if cHeesburger is trying to put a slant on things - and to what end?
Quote from: cHeeseburger on March 16, 2011, 08:29:55 PMAll I am suggesting is that simple techniques that in no way alter the circuit operation, i.e. using a simple RC low-pass filter on the battery voltage and current shunt voltage will give the exact same advantage that using the thermal integratiion method of obtaining equivalent DC power provides in the output measurement. Even better, there is no need for a "control" or comparison test at the input side as must be done on the output side.
Here he is, emphatically, wrong. Any filters applied will most certainly block that required resonance.
Quote from: cHeeseburger on March 16, 2011, 08:29:55 PMThe only reason to use an oscilloscope in this whole exercise is to "tune and tweak" the circuit for whatever characteristics Rosemary thinks are best. Once that is done, the scope should be turned off and forgotten.
cHeesburger is clearly NOT aware of the fact that the value of those DSO's is in their bandwidth capabilities. Else the measurements would be ENTIRELY suspect.
Quote from: cHeeseburger on March 16, 2011, 08:29:55 PMMeasure the average DC-equivalent input voltage and current using a good DMM and the RC filter. Multiply. End of story!
I trust that cHeeseburger realises that there is nothing holding him back from applying his own tests here. Then I'm sure he's free to apply whatever measuring technique he chooses. Whether or not one relies on his methods of measurement would need to be determined by our experts. Thus far it is experts who have guided us in our measurement protocols.
Rosemary
Guys, may I remind you all. That oscillation - that thing that is always factored out of switching circuits - it's usable. The proof is in this. We can set the duty cycle that it switches once ever 2.7 minutes. Then for about three minutes we get a sustained oscillation. During that period there is no evident loss of heat from the element. There is also no measured loss of energy from the supply. On the contrary. The battery voltage is seen to climb. Interestingly it only climbs to its previous high. Then it stays there.
Yet. If we disconnect the circuit for a period of three minutes there's a dramatic cooling evident at the resistor. Why do the implications of this not grab you? There is no error in the measurements. Unless from here on we must ignore measurements.
That's what I was rather hoping you'd all consider. We've been throwing away an advantage in switching circuits at our cost. And if we persist in applying 'standard' age old tried and tested techniques then we will NEVER find out new things. More to the point. We are now doing so at our peril. It is a truth that this technology may yet confront any need to expand nuclear programs - at LEAST. Surely that's a good thing? This technology is scalable and it hardly needs modification to apply it to our household hot water requirements. That takes up a HUGE amount of energy. And there's no noise. Previous switches had noise and it was really problematic.
Rosemary
Rosemary,
I have got to give you a lot of credit. You are a very patient person. Most would of stopped posting by now. I haven't followed your posts or blogs but I do pop in once in a while to see whats going on. It seems like you are always being asked the same questions. In the other forum by hambugger and over here by cheeseburger and others. You must be doing a lot of cut and paste. :)
Keep up the good work and I wish you success in your circuit.
First of all , many thanks to nul-points and FatBird for their excellent replies to my questions . It is all much clearer now . This circuit is , in essence , a very simple circuit , but as allways the devil is in the detail . I feel that Rosemary has made some very valid points regarding measurements . The thing that convinces me of the reality of the phenomenon , is the 2.7 seconds of oscillation between pulses . We all have our own ideas on this , and I urge everyone to keep cool . You cant really argue with Rosemary when she says that everyone is free to choose their own power supply , including caps , and make their own measurements . Sadly , failing eyesight prevents me participating , but I follow all points of view with interest .At this stage the problem is that few people have test equipment of high enough quality to replicate this .I have just noticed something else . Cheeseburger says that Rosemary has applied "voltage offset" to the output of the function generator she is using .Does that mean moving the zero line so that the off puses become negative? If it does, then that is how the gate becomes negative
I would suggest that a simple low-pass filter be applied on both the shunt voltage measurement and the battery voltage measurement in order to find the actual DC equivalent input power. This will eliminate the false readings associated with the phase shifts and inductive parasitics in the circuitry and reveal quickly the actual DC net power flow either out of or into the battery.
“I would suggest that cHeesburger is determined to deny us the benefit from those circuit components including the wiring. I'm reasonably satisfied that if we, indeed, eliminated the inductance on the circuit - including the wiring - then we would, also, indeed, lose all that advantage.â€
All I am suggesting is that simple techniques that in no way alter the circuit operation, i.e. using a simple RC low-pass filter on the battery voltage and current shunt voltage will give the exact same advantage that using the thermal integratiion method of obtaining equivalent DC power provides in the output measurement. Even better, there is no need for a "control" or comparison test at the input side as must be done on the output side.
“Here he is, emphatically, wrong. Any filters applied will most certainly block that required resonance.â€
What she and everyone else seems to have blindly overlooked is that the measurement of input power is plagued with the exact same complications of inductance-based phase shifts and power factor complexities that were deemed too difficult to overcome on the output side. There is no difference!
“'blindly overlooked'. Strong words here by cHeesburger. Golly. In point of fact these have NEVER been overlooked. But it intrigues me that he needs to claim this.â€
Rosemary, you are right. The proper and simple and accurate measurement technique has never been overlooked. I apologize for implying any such shortcoming in your perceptive abilities.
What I should have said is PURPOSELY AND STUBBORNLY AVOIDED AT ALL COST.
Let me try a simple analogy. Your load resistor has a fairly big mass, thermally speaking. It obviously takes some time to heat up and cool down. I’m sure we would all agree that the instantaneous temperature does not follow the frequency of oscillation (1MHz +), heating up and cooling back down a million times per second.
A wideband high speed measurement of the heat signature is therefore not required. The load’s mass performs a very accurate averaging of the rapidly-oscillating high frequency energy being fed through the load.
You clearly agree with this, because you have always used the method of comparing the output heat to that produced (in the same load) when it is fed a steady and easily known and determined DC power. This is what is known as determining the DC equivalent power.
You have acknowledged that this is how the output heating power is measured and have indicated that you understand at least one very strong reason for doing it this way, as opposed to trying to use a wideband DSO to measure the voltage across the load and current through it. It is because the load is inductive and the driving wave is not a sinusoid, which vastly complicates the math due to an inability to use simple real numbers and Ohm’s Law or even simple complex numbers to get the power factor, phase shift and VAR (Volt Amperes Reactive) versus the true Watts of real forward power numbers correct.
Now…please read this carefully and understand me clearly, if you would.
What I am suggesting is that all of those same complications apply equally to the measurement of the real Watts of input power and for the same reasons.
I am not suggesting that you remove or reduce or eliminate any of the circuit inductances or that you add anything that will in any way effect or change the way the circuit operates or behaves or alter the waveforms and scope traces you have so diligently worked to accomplish. The load will receive/emit exactly what it presently receives/emits and the batteries will also receive/emit exactly what they presently do as well. No change to the MOSFET operation/oscillation will occur.
What I am proposing by adding a simple filter ONLY TO THE MEASUREMENT APPARATUS AND NOT TO THE CIRCUIT ITSELF yields the exact same EQUIVALENT DC REAL POWER measurement results as you already use to measure the output heating power. Instead of averaging via thermal mass, you average in an exactly analogous way by using a resistor and capacitor attached to a simple digital voltmeter.
This method, properly applied, has no effect on circuit performance and has no inherent error sources. If nothing else, Rosemary, it would behoove you to at least try doing this to compare the results versus what you arrive at using your DSO method. If this simple straightforward technique gives numbers that closely agree with your zero-battery-net-power or shows actual charging of your battery while heating the load, you will have made a gigantic leap forward toward mainstream acceptance and credibility.
cHeeseburger (extra fries, please)
Rose:
I have continued to follow your work and all of your efforts on this project. I would just like to echo MrMag's comments in saying that I, too, admire your tenacity as you continue with this.
If you are measuring correctly, or not, does not matter to me at this point. You have involved some learned folks that should know the correct way and, the proof will be in the pudding as they say. I feel bad for the abuse you have to take by sharing your efforts openly but, I also admire you for doing so.
As you have said so many times, if folks think you are doing it wrong, there is nothing standing in their way to do it the "right" way. Yet, no one does. Easier to cast stones I suppose.
In the end, we will know. Please continue with your work, and continue to share the results, whatever they may be.
Bill
Quote from: MrMag on March 17, 2011, 02:39:07 AM
Rosemary,
I have got to give you a lot of credit. You are a very patient person. Most would of stopped posting by now. I haven't followed your posts or blogs but I do pop in once in a while to see whats going on. It seems like you are always being asked the same questions. In the other forum by hambugger and over here by cheeseburger and others. You must be doing a lot of cut and paste. :)
Keep up the good work and I wish you success in your circuit.
There is only one question I've ever asked. What is the input power and output power? Rosemary has not answered the question. She has produced no numbers. Her reports regarding input power suggest that it is either always exactly zero ("perfect cancellation" or "perfect symmetry") or, at other times suggest that it is always less than zero, constituting a net charge to the battery while delivering real heating power to the load. Earlier, the input power was given as a positive number being 1/17 of the heating power measured at the load. Never the same answer twice and never any numbers.
I see this as a huge problem with her "science" and I also see why it is virtually impossible to arrive at solid numbers using the approach she has taken to measuring the input power, which is not workable nor capable of furnishing accurate results.
cHeeseburger (extra tomatos, please)
P.S. Why my kindly and helpful and very constructive suggestions and my clear statements of the reasoning behind them are viewed as negative, abusive, pesky, rude, intolerable and bothersome by Rosemary and apparently others here is a true mystery to me. Is it my breath? Hold the onions!
Quote from: Pirate88179 on March 17, 2011, 06:50:54 AM
Rose:
I have continued to follow your work and all of your efforts on this project. I would just like to echo MrMag's comments in saying that I, too, admire your tenacity as you continue with this.
If you are measuring correctly, or not, does not matter to me at this point. You have involved some learned folks that should know the correct way and, the proof will be in the pudding as they say. I feel bad for the abuse you have to take by sharing your efforts openly but, I also admire you for doing so.
As you have said so many times, if folks think you are doing it wrong, there is nothing standing in their way to do it the "right" way. Yet, no one does. Easier to cast stones I suppose.
In the end, we will know. Please continue with your work, and continue to share the results, whatever they may be.
Bill
So it doesn't matter if measurements are done correctly or not. Now that is some really great science, pardner! Why build anything if no decent measure of it's actual performance will be made? Is it just art for art's sake? A medium for chatroom conversation and "team spirit building"? A popularity contest? A debate club?
No...Rosemary is pretentious enough to suggest that she has found the answer to the global energy crisis. Good measurements with repeatable publishable quantified results should preceed any such suggestion.
cHeeseburger (make that a double, to go)
MrMag and Pirate
Thanks for the support. I really wouldn't have bothered to answer CB in such depth except that I hoped it would finally silence him. The problem is that egos and testosterone get in the way of science and - suddenly - it only matters that someone sound clever - not that they are. And now - to boot - it seems that we must improve our measuring instruments. What a load of doggy doo. In any event - it seems that the test object - the significance of the resonance - the whole catastrophe - is just way over his head. More's the pity.
But regarding the measurements. There has been no effort to factor in for the inductance. This may yet change the picture. But - preliminary overview shows that it makes no material difference - this because the resonance is so perfectly in antiphase. The battery and the heat on the load are always the beneficiaries. The aspect of the test that interests me is that the battery can discharge during the off period of the duty cycle. There's clearly an open path. And this simple fact is precisely the point where I am hoping that those little dipoles will be considered as the material of current flow. Certainly classicists will have a hard time of it arguing electron flow. And then the comforting fact that we can apply just about any heat - not by increasing the voltage as would normally be required - but by adjustments to the offset and to the frequency. That's good news - as our previous was somewhat restricted to dissipating values somewhat less than the full potential from the supply. It sort of closes the argument that this system is now more efficient rather than less.
But we've a way to go. All I was hoping to achieve is to get this to the academic forum. And with a little more effort it may yet get there.
Kindest as ever,
Rosemary
And btw Neptune. So nice to see your sustained interest. I'm sorry you won't be testing. But hopefully, soon, there will be no need for this. Certainly if it can get properly researched then we can all relax. We have an unfortunate but necessary reliance to get a proper academic over view and that also requires hands on involvement. The challenge is to lift this from esoteric fringe science to something that may be plausibly studied. Clearly I'm ever the optimist.
"The aspect of the test that interests me is that the battery can discharge during the off period of the duty cycle. There's clearly an open path. And this simple fact is precisely the point where I am hoping that those little dipoles will be considered as the material of current flow."
Let's see...the path...yes. Five big honking MOSFETS all wired in parallel, each having probably 1500pF or so of output capacitance between drain and source. Total of five in parallel, 7500pF or 7.5nF.
Rosemary, if you can do it, calculate the reactance of 7.5nF at a frequency of 1MHz. You will then know the measure and mechanism of "the first path".
Then remember that the drain-source body diode will conduct fully any time the inductive-capacitive resonance tries to drive the drain negative with regard to the source. Path number two. Non-linear but very robust.
These paths exist regardless of the gate voltage. Little dipoles may or may not provide yet a third path, but are not in any way required to fully explain that strong paths already exist and are well known and fully characterised.
cHeeseburger (double the onions and...do you have any garlic?)
Quote from: cHeeseburger on March 17, 2011, 07:30:53 AM
So it doesn't matter if measurements are done correctly or not. Now that is some really great science, pardner! Why build anything if no decent measure of it's actual performance will be made? Is it just art for art's sake? A medium for chatroom conversation and "team spirit building"? A popularity contest? A debate club?
No...Rosemary is pretentious enough to suggest that she has found the answer to the global energy crisis. Good measurements with repeatable publishable quantified results should preceed any such suggestion.
cHeeseburger (make that a double, to go)
How could you possibly get that from my post? Are you on drugs here? I said it does not matter to me IF the measurements are done correctly or not, the end result, as it will be, will stand on its own. rose does have some academics working with her and IF the measurements are NOT done to your satisfaction then, as she has said, do them yourself. OR would that be too much work? I realize it is a lot harder than just hitting keys on a keyboard.
My post meant that, even if I were measuring the input vs output incorrectly, the proof will be in the pudding when the others evaluate her device. How the heck you could twist that into what you posted is beyond me. I am still thinking some over medication was involved for sure.
What a waste of posting space that was...please spare us any more of your drivel.
Bill
PS According to the IP address as traced through a proxy, this is yet another one of our "friends" from OUR back again from banned land. I will take this up with Stefan. Some folks never learn.
Nice try Cowboy.
Quote from: cHeeseburger on March 17, 2011, 06:39:23 AM
What I am proposing by adding a simple filter ONLY TO THE MEASUREMENT APPARATUS AND NOT TO THE CIRCUIT ITSELF yields the exact same EQUIVALENT DC REAL POWER measurement results as you already use to measure the output heating power. Instead of averaging via thermal mass, you average in an exactly analogous way by using a resistor and capacitor attached to a simple digital voltmeter.
cHeeseburger (extra fries, please)
does this method you propose use standard probes on the measuring apparatus?
hold your pickle... ::)
Quote from: WilbyInebriated on March 17, 2011, 08:32:16 AM
hold your pickle... ::)
He would need tweezers and a magnifying glass to be able to do that, ha ha.
Bill
Quote from: WilbyInebriated on March 17, 2011, 08:32:16 AM
does this method you propose use standard probes on the measuring apparatus?
Yes, it would. But the beauty in this method, is that a scope is not required, a decent DMM is probably better to measure the resulting average Input voltage and current values in this case.
However, and don't jump on me for this yet Hum, but I think this method works only for Input power, not Output power. I have verified the Input measurement in SPICE, but not yet the Output power.
The reason this method works well for Input power, is because the input voltage is DC, and getting the average of the voltage and current is valid. I believe this is not valid for a varying output.
I will test and post back here with the results to verify this.
.99
Quote from: WilbyInebriated on March 17, 2011, 08:46:42 AM
i see. so would you or humbooger care to explain just exactly how it is that you can connect the measuring device (another circuit), much less the current shunt, to the original and not have it affected? preferably in the real world, with a bench experiment... thanks!
Use a simple RC filter, whereby the R value is substantially higher than the impedance of the node being measured. For example with a 0.25 Ohm CSR, placing a 10k or even 1k Ohm resistor at the MOSFET Source in series with a 10u so capacitor will allow for good isolation from the circuit so as not to affect it's operation, and provide a near pure DC voltage representing current, that can be accurately measured using a common DMM.
Use a high enough time constant (R*C) to substantially filter out the varying voltage at the measurement point. For eg, if your switching frequency is 50Hz (20ms period), use a tau of at least 50 times longer (1s). If we use a 10k resistor, then we need a capacitance of 100u. Obviously, the higher the frequency of operation, the smaller C value can be used. The DMM (set to DC Voltage) will provide additional averaging such that the final measurement will be very accurate.
See attached schema for RC filter on the CSR.
.99
Quote from: poynt99 on March 17, 2011, 10:05:07 AM
Use a simple RC filter, whereby the R value is substantially higher than the impedance of the node being measured. For example with a 0.25 Ohm CSR, placing a 10k or even 1k Ohm resistor at the MOSFET Source in series with a 10u so capacitor will allow for good isolation from the circuit so as not to affect it's operation, and provide a near pure DC voltage representing current, that can be accurately measured using a common DMM.
Use a high enough time constant (R*C) to substantially filter out the varying voltage at the measurement point. For eg, if your switching frequency is 50Hz (20ms period), use a tau of at least 50 times longer (1s). If we use a 10k resistor, then we need a capacitance of 100u. Obviously, the higher the frequency of operation, the smaller C value can be used. The DMM (set to DC Voltage) will provide additional averaging such that the final measurement will be very accurate.
See attached schema for RC filter on the CSR.
.99
is this gonna be like our sim conversation at energetic? ::) do i really have to play lawyer again... ::)
let me rephrase my question counselor. ;) please explain to the good people how it is that by "placing a 10k or even 1k Ohm resistor at the MOSFET Source in series with a 10u so capacitor will allow for good isolation from the circuit." ideally you could demonstrate this (tk's probe placement video comes to mind, where he shows the trace change) with a circuit similar to rose's circuit... ideally you could show there is no change. then we can discuss the inadequacy of 24 bit scopes... ;)
Hello Everyone,
I have been thinking about what has been discussed in this thread and trying to formulate a logical plan to move forward.
It has become obvious that due to the classical and non classical debate there is not going to be any resolution when it comes to measurements of the circuits components themselves, inputs, outputs, or indeed any hard values for measurements at all. So far we have only unsubstantiated conjecture.
At this point it is irresponsible of any of us to make any assumptions as to what is occurring in this circuit. If we had any hard data at all then maybe we could, but we do not...
So...
I am going to propose this:
How about Rosemary and her team sets up a test experiment where new batteries are load tested and recharged independently before the test begins. Three times each should suffice for gaining an accurate average of the batteries ability to store charge. I would prefer to see lead acid cells used and delivered dry so that the acid can be added to the water yourself to accurately control the specific gravity of the electrolyte. You would also be able to test each individual cell of the battery for bad cells.
The batteries are then connected to a large distribution block that will power many individual circuits. We are probably talking something like 100 circuits at least here, maybe more.
The circuit heating elements will all be submersed in a large tank of water at ambient pressure. A separate tank will have temperature controlled water to match the test tank temperature, and be controlled by a simple cork float switch. This would keep the test tank volume at the same level and allow water converted to steam to vent to atmosphere.
Obviously the circuitry for the temperature control of the additional supply tank will not be part of the experiment, it is just there to ensure that the water is the same temperature as the test tank.
So, leave this running for a long time, say a month, and then disconnect everything and perform a load test on all the batteries. This will tell us whether the charge holding capacity has changed during the experiment.
The temperature of the test tank water would have been accurately monitored throughout, as would the voltage across the battery bank.
By performing the experiment this way all of the energetic processes will be converted within the system and remove the need for any other measurements by people.
It will very quickly become apparent whether there has been any loss of energy from the supply, therefore proving or disproving Rosemary's claims that the battery charge remains stable without loss or gain. I think we would all agree that a battery can maintain its voltage at a stable level without actually maintaining its charge, so the net power (Watts available) would decrease. This is why Voltage measurements on a large battery are next to useless for measurement purposes, and are insufficient to prove anything on their own.
Questions:
1) Would the addition of a large distribution block affect the results sufficiently to disqualify the experiment ?
2) Would the addition of 100 circuits affect the ability of the “energetic mass†that Rosemary absolutely requires to deliver sufficient “current pressure†to the many circuits ?
3) Would you all agree that this would conclusively prove whether the Watts within the system are not consumed, and that the excess energy, if any, will be shown by temperature measurement of the water ?
I would appreciate your thoughts on this matter,
RM :)
i have a question. why is that science, with all it's fancy fancy equations and formulas, cannot measure exactly how much energy is in a battery? and let's not be facetious and suggest that load testing and then averaging is exact... ;)
Hi pirate, Willy and other
I am sad this thread has degenerated into some mudslinging for whatever reason.
I admire what Rosemary is doing for some time
However, I also support the many who has challenged (without the insults) the way the power in and out is calculated and measured.
This was a response to a claim made that there was no net drawdown on the battery, yet no data was given to support this claim.
Many suggestions of how best do this have come forward, some may be the right way to go and some perhaps the wrongway to go in how to measure.
If the issue was raised by just one person then it could be argued that it is not an issue. However it has been raised by many.
This does not distract from the efforth Rose has undertaken and I echo your sentiments expressed.
Mark
Quote from: WilbyInebriated on March 17, 2011, 11:10:57 AM
i have a question. why is that science, with all it's fancy fancy equations and formulas, cannot measure exactly how much energy is in a battery? and let's not be facetious and suggest that load testing and then averaging is exact... ;)
As part of my previous work as an automotive engineer you find yourself running a battery on a car virtually empty when trying to diagnose and if you don't do a jump-start, you often fined after 20 minutes or so that the battery has partially recovered and might well give you one more starting attempt.
Anyway the point I'm trying to make is not to trust batteries, dead ones empty ones or any other type, I think Bill will back me up on this ;)he has lots of experience with dead ones
Mark:
I agree with you. My personal thoughts are, and I may have been the first to suggest this, or not, but I have on other topic areas, is to use caps, or rather, supercaps. Rose does not want to got this route and I respect that. This is her deal and she needs to do what she sees fit.
I just like the caps because of what I learned on the earth battery experiments and seeing how the high spikes, that Bedini uses, are instantly converted to usable power in the supercaps. Also, to me, there is less question of power in/out with caps but, as I said, this is Rose's show, and she should be able to proceed however she wants to.
Bill
Hi,
I was not being facetious and suggesting that load testing was exact. What I was trying to do was formulate an approach that would indicate whether or not there was net drawdown on the battery bank as Mark so rightly pointed out. No assumptions or claims can be made at all until this issue is resolved!
As Rosemary's statements are a mass of contradictions, for example she states that the power supply mass is absolutely required for operation of the anomaly, and yet in the next breath states that she is absolutely indifferent to the power supply used. So... I have been trying to work within the restrictions set by Rosemary to come up with some answers.
Rosemary will not alter her circuit in any conventional way claiming that it will remove the anomaly if she does so. Ok, I get that.
So, I am forced to take an approach that works within the constraints Rosemary has dictated.
The issue of the potential difference of the power available to the circuit and the power consumed by the circuit in use is still outstanding, this is why I have suggested using many individual circuits to actually load the battery bank at a higher rate.
As for the load testing, no its not exact, but if it does show a large discrepancy between starting conditions, and ending conditions then questions will be asked why. If it does not then it may well prove Rosemary's claims of equal charge being returned to the battery.
For example it may indicate that current is actually being consumed by the circuit to produce heat, but will not show up with a single circuit, on a very large power supply.
Load testing is not a perfect answer, but it will tell us far more than a voltage measurement will, and is a step forward given the restrictions placed on possibilities by Rosemary herself.
RM :)
It is a shame that we have some "mud slinging" on this thread . The subject here is so important that we need to forget our differences . For some reason , I only discovered Rosemary fairly recently , and there is a vast amount of info to catch up on . so I may ask questions that have already been answered . First this business of voltage offset . As I understand it , this means a waveform of square pulses that toggle not between pos and zero but between pos and neg states . Correct [or insult !] me if I am wrong . I understand that the 555 circuit as shown is not normally capable of this . Question . Has this circuit been made to work ONLY when driven by a function generator with voltage offset , or have 555 versions worked .
Now a bit of a daft idea .At frequencies up to about 100 Hz it would be possible to replace the MOSFET by mechanical switching , using a motor , a cam and car ignition points .A suitable zener diode could be connected across the points . Possibly s a separate capacitor could be used to represent the internal capacitance of the Mosfet . If the device still works , it would be easier to nail down the effect .
Quote from: WilbyInebriated on March 17, 2011, 10:17:59 AM
is this gonna be like our sim conversation at energetic? ::) do i really have to play lawyer again... ::)
let me rephrase my question counselor. ;) please explain to the good people how it is that by "placing a 10k or even 1k Ohm resistor at the MOSFET Source in series with a 10u so capacitor will allow for good isolation from the circuit." ideally you could demonstrate this (tk's probe placement video comes to mind, where he shows the trace change) with a circuit similar to rose's circuit... ideally you could show there is no change. then we can discuss the inadequacy of 24 bit scopes... ;)
Method to determine
if the proposed alternative to measuring current has any significant effect on the wave forms and values:
Select a MEAN measurement in the scope for the CSR channel. This is equivalent to determining the average value using the RC/DVM method. Note the measurement in the scope.
Keep the scope probe attached to the CSR, and attach the RC filter and DVM as I outlined. Note the MEAN value the scope is measuring to see if it has changed. Note the CSR wave form to see if it has changed. Note the voltage reading on the DVM and compare with the scope measurement.
.99
PS. If you can find a 24-bit scope, I'd be quite happy to discuss it. ;)
@evolvingape
If Rosemary must use a battery the other simple way to go is to use the smallest capacity battery to meet the specs and since it is claimed to be closed loop let the device run over several days or weeks. A simple heat exchanger could be deviced to measure and extract the heat as it is generated. So if heat persists and the battery maintains its charge...strong evidence.
Just a thought anyway
mark
Hi guys. Golly - we're moving all over the place here. I keep trying to explain the point about batteries and - for some reason - keep missing you all. At the risk of stating the obvious, battery discharge/recharge is a chemical event. What it does is produce an electric current that is then used in whatever application required. The other way to produce current flow is through a generator which is used by our grid suppliers - and generators - and so on. Typically the grid supplies ac and the battery dc. If this question was purely about the recharge condition of batteries - then I'd have lost interest way back. I am only interested in that current flow and having a stab at determining the properties of that current flow. This because I believe we are dealing - not with electrons which are tangible particles with known mass and charge - but with an entirely different particle that is here proposed to make up a magnetic field.
Now. Why this is possibily significant - is because, IF this particle is the 'thing' that makes up the material of current - as we measure it and know it - then we are also grossly underusing it's potentials. It is proposed to have a bipolar charge. That way it can move it two directions - subject to a path through any given circuit. It is proposed to belong to the material 'from whence it came' and that it will get back there if circuit conditions allow. It is also proposed that in moving through the circuit and subject to it's returning to its source, then its potential differences are equalised and its charge perfectly conserved. It is also proposed that the heat that is dissipated at sundry components is as transitory as those voltage imbalances. Once those discrete packages get back to their source they combine with 'broken fields' of these same particles and all that heat then resolves itself in the rebinding of that material.
But I won't bore you with the thesis. I know that you guys are only interested in the applications. So again. Let me try and stress where this points. To my way of seeing it there are two entirely different sources of current flow. The first is from the battery and that - being a dc supply - moves exclusively in a clockwise direction. The second is from the material of the circuit components themselves - which becomes a second source of energy and this moves in an anticlockwise direction. But what they are both trying to do is to get back to their respective sources being either the battery or that circuit material. That oscillating or resonating condition is sustained precisely because, no sooner has the battery had a return of all it's voltage - discharged as current flow, than the circuit has extruded its own voltage. And no sooner has the circuit had a return of all that voltage discharged as current flow, than the battery has extruded its own. And so on. In effect the clockwise current flow is the trigger for the anticlockwise current flow. And the paths for both these flows is enabled on that circuit. They never settle.
So. In effect the first radical departure from mainstream is this proposal. There is a second energy supply source in that circuit material. The next point is this. I expected a greater benefit. I did not expect this wild oscillation. But what the thesis does claim is that the heat that is dissipated at the work station of a circuit, results - not from any transfer of energy as such - but from the transfer of a voltage imbalance into the circuit material itself. The proposal is that the current flow has a charge bias - being either positive or negative. The sum of those discrete orbits of binding fields in that circuit material is precisely balanced in an orbit. An orbit is made up of two moments. It first moves in one direction with a charge justification and then it moves in an opposite direction with an opposite justification. Therefore, if these binding fields are orbiting - then one half opposes the other half. So, if the current flow that is imposed through that material is say, positive - then it will extrude all those positive fields in its path. And if it is negative then it will extrude all those negative fields in its path. Essentially that orbit is broken and one half of the fields then move outside of the material and congregate again in a long string that orbits that material component which we then measure as voltage. It leaves behind the other half. And while the one extruded half can still congregate as a 'field' what is remaining - that other half - cannot. It then loses it's 'grip' so to speak on all those atoms that it was holding in a fixed pattern. And in a cascading sequence of breaks it then becomes as hot and slow and big as it was first fast and cold and small. It literally grows. It also then comes out of the field condition and can be seen and experienced in our own dimenstions. It is no longer orbiting at velocities that exceed light speed. We see that glow. Photons can now interact with that material. It is very much in our tangible dimensions.
The point is this. That imbalanced - that broken condition of those discrete packages that remain in the circuit material - it is a CONSEQUENCE of the current flow in the first instance. Energy has NOT been transferred to it from the supply. All that has been transferred is a voltage imbalance.
THAT is the point. Sustain that imbalance and, what is evident, is that this heat is also sustained. If you can get your minds around this - then I've finally succeeded. You see, there are many out there who actually do understand the thesis. It's no accident that wherever I post I am trailed and trolled by a stream of highly competent individuals who are most anxious to silence me and discredit this thinking. And the reason for this is that the thesis is showing us free energy and the tests are proving this. Just think about it. The lastest from our Poynty is that I'm an Idiot savant - for God's sake. And Humbugger's mandate is unquestionably to throw as much dirt in this trail as he possibly can. And under usual circumstances it's enough to flame these threads of mine and kill the subject. I hope, this time round - and after the last spate of efforts that we've managed - that this will survive these attacks. And guys. It would be a good point to try and grasp this thinking. Because we are not talking batteries. We're actually talking free and abundant energy and thanks to the 'team' we've found it - pretty conclusively - in that extraordinary oscillation. I think.
Rosemary
Hi Mark,
Yes I completely agree with you but there will be problems implementing this approach.
A quote from Reply #75 by Rosemary:
“What is valid is to test this on smaller batteries. Feel free - but then you also may need to reduce the size of the resistor to get that oscillation. I'm not sure. But it's possible. You'll need to scale it from all aspects.â€
So Rosemary is saying that it will be valid to test with smaller batteries but she herself will not be doing this. The circuit is also going to have to be scaled differently which will mean that components will change.
Full specifications of the circuit are still outstanding despite in Reply #1 harti stating that they would be forthcoming after the demonstration. I do not believe harti goes around telling untruths, so I am forced to believe that he was led to believe that full specifications would be provided.
Operating procedures for the tuning of the circuit are not available, and the only ones capable of performing said tuning is Rosemary and her team.
So yes, while your points about smaller batteries and also caps are perfectly reasonable, they are also going to be completely ignored by the originator of the technology and the claims based on said technology will only come from the circuit as it currently stands.
So in light of the difficulties I have changed my approach. I am now asking Rosemary to provide evidence and proof with the circuit unchanged, using a method that we can all agree would show some indication of whether the circuit is drawing power or not.
We do not need exact measurements, we only need to show a difference or not to provide strong evidence one way or another. Without performing these tests Rosemary has no basis whatsoever to claim that she has found a source of infinite energy.
As Rosemary has not published her thesis in a legible format, she is the only one that understands it. Please Rosemary, do not presume to know what are my interests. I would be most interested in a full and complete report of your thesis, with evidence and results to back your claims. So far we only have speculation on your part about what you think is happening!
She claims the thesis is showing us free energy (what thesis ? Please provide a link to where it is published) and the tests are proving this (what tests ? You have not provided any results or evidence at all, only conclusions).
RM :)
Am I right in thinking that a full technical report will be issued on the demo which occurred on March 12th ? If so , this will hopefully settle all arguments on testing protocols . Meanwhile , let us all keep cool and let not our differences blind us to what we have in common . Rosemary is a strong woman and does not need me or anyone else to defend her . She does things her way , and she owes us NOTHING .She has already given us the gift of the century . I do not pretend to understand her thesis , as what knowledge I have is based on classical theory . I do not doubt that someone will try caps as a power supply , and a lot of other ideas . I look forward to the official report . I believe that when the effect is confirmed and isolated , circuits will be possible without a pulse input , and will be self oscillating .
Quote from: neptune on March 17, 2011, 03:55:52 PM
Am I right in thinking that a full technical report will be issued on the demo which occurred on March 12th ? If so , this will hopefully settle all arguments on testing protocols . Meanwhile , let us all keep cool and let not our differences blind us to what we have in common . Rosemary is a strong woman and does not need me or anyone else to defend her . She does things her way , and she owes us NOTHING .She has already given us the gift of the century . I do not pretend to understand her thesis , as what knowledge I have is based on classical theory . I do not doubt that someone will try caps as a power supply , and a lot of other ideas . I look forward to the official report . I believe that when the effect is confirmed and isolated , circuits will be possible without a pulse input , and will be self oscillating .
Neptune, I'm afraid the only report there is the one on the blog. I presume you've read it. There won't be another but we may yet try and publish a paper - yet again.
Kindest regards,
Rosemary
here's the link - in case you missed it.
http://newlightondarkenergy.blogspot.com/2011/03/report.html
Hi Rosemary , I did not realise there was a report on your Blog . I will take a look . Thanks .
Here is a list of circuit test videos on YouTube, some are from members on this forum
http://www.youtube.com/results?search_type=videos&search_query=Rosemary+Ainslie+circuit&search_sort=video_date_uploaded&suggested_categories=28&uni=3 (http://www.youtube.com/results?search_type=videos&search_query=Rosemary+Ainslie+circuit&search_sort=video_date_uploaded&suggested_categories=28&uni=3)
Dear Rosemary [ I know you don't like @Rosemary] I have read the report on your blog .I have to say that I found it very informative .I was amazed the you could make the magic oscillation last for 2.7 MINUTES and not 2.7 seconds as I previously misread . One other thing .For that to happen , your function generator was running at6.172 millihertz .Hell . I could imitate that with 2 torch batteries and some jump leads and a stopwatch! Seriously , what I am saying is that even with my poor eyesight , I could build a mechanical pulse generator using a motor driven cam and some torch batteries And incorporate variable voltage offset.That way, it eliminates all the uncertainties of 555 timers . I also think , that almost any oscilloscope would do if its sole purpose is to look for the magic oscillation .I might well give it a go yet .
@evolvingape
Quote from: evolvingape on March 17, 2011, 11:52:59 AM
Hi,
I was not being facetious and suggesting that load testing was exact. What I was trying to do was formulate an approach that would indicate whether or not there was net drawdown on the battery bank as Mark so rightly pointed out. No assumptions or claims can be made at all until this issue is resolved!
i wasn't suggesting you were being facetious. i was attempting to nip in the bud a foreseen point of contention. thanks for the reply but you didn't answer my question.
@ poynt
Quote from: poynt99 on March 17, 2011, 02:31:45 PM
Method to determine if the proposed alternative to measuring current has any significant effect on the wave forms and values:
Select a MEAN measurement in the scope for the CSR channel. This is equivalent to determining the average value using the RC/DVM method. Note the measurement in the scope.
Keep the scope probe attached to the CSR, and attach the RC filter and DVM as I outlined. Note the MEAN value the scope is measuring to see if it has changed. Note the CSR wave form to see if it has changed. Note the voltage reading on the DVM and compare with the scope measurement.
.99
PS. If you can find a 24-bit scope, I'd be quite happy to discuss it. ;)
thanks poynt! and how can you be certain your scope has enough resolution to see a difference? an 8bit oscope has a crap ADC (only 256 'steps') and i've haven't even touched on the noise (from the 'front end' of the DSO) nor the fact that accuracy (most DSOs quote 3% to 5% DC accuracy) isn't even usually regarded as important for most oscilloscopes.
p.s. it was a jest poynt... that's why i winked at you. ;) a poynted one raising the issue of exactly how scopes "scope", their inherent inadequacies (ADC
converter) and how nice it would be to have something with a bit more resolution than 8, 12 or 16bit... ;) and please ask humbooger to 'buck up' a little bit and quit being so emotional. it was a simple question i asked of him, he didn't have go all sophomoric...
https://www.techni-tool.com/content/resources/articles/Agilent-Tips-LowCurrentMeasurements.pdf
@poynt99,
It would be interesting to see Rosemary's circuit modeled in PSpice. I can't see anyone around here better than you to do that. Would you be willing to sim it? That would answer a lot of questions.
Quote from: Omnibus on March 17, 2011, 10:30:42 PM
@poynt99,
It would be interesting to see Rosemary's circuit modeled in PSpice. I can't see anyone around here better than you to do that. Would you be willing to sim it? That would answer a lot of questions.
LOL.
Omnibus, I have simulated this thing to death, many many months ago! I've even tried simulating her latest, but that was before she revealed the important facts that they are using a negative offset in the Gate drive, and that they are paralleling 5 MOSFETs together.
I would have to set up a DC sweep of the offset in order to find the sweet spot where the thing bursts into self-oscillation. As I find time I will try this.
.99
PS. I just saw your other posts in your thread. I don't know what else I can offer other than what I already have.
Quote from: poynt99 on March 17, 2011, 09:39:53 PM
https://www.techni-tool.com/content/resources/articles/Agilent-Tips-LowCurrentMeasurements.pdf
and is this the type of probe being used?
@omnibus
I actually know someone who did replicate and earlier circuit with spice and built it. The circuit perfromed exactly as the spice simulation suggested...but not as claimed. This does not apply to the current experiment..but that spice is sure good.
Mark
My apologies Wilby, I thought it was a general question and not directed at me.
I do not know why science cannot measure exactly what energy is contained in a battery. It is obviously a flaw in the understanding. I am not disputing this.
Tesla's view was that all things have electrical content. I agree with this.
I am not disputing the fact that Rosemary's approach may have some merit, I think along similar non classical lines myself in the search for truth. I find the oscillation she has discovered very interesting, however I think it to be premature to make any wild claims about it before ruling out all possible alternate causes. Indeed it is bad science, and bad engineering to do so.
The problem I have currently is that every time hard questions are asked to attempt measurements in a classical understanding they are ignored. Why ? What will those measurements show ?
Often when Rosemary does not have an answer she will resort to her “thesisâ€, and change the subject entirely.
Am I to understand that this thesis is finished, complete and available for viewing somewhere ? Or is it the case that the thesis is what is being presented by Rosemary in this thread ?
The issues I have with presenting the thesis in “forum chat†are the fact that Rosemary often contradicts herself from paragraph to paragraph, and post to post, so how are we to trust what she has presented here as her thesis ?
The whole business with “parasitic oscillation†demonstrated that things are in a constant state of flux with her statements. How you can possibly discount something entirely, and state it false, while updating your blog to claim it was the sole purpose of the demonstration is beyond my understanding.
I would much prefer Rosemary to write a comprehensive thesis, laying everything out, taking all the measurements possible, posting her theoretical calculations of what she expects to see as opposed to what the measurements show, some hard numbers would be nice, some full specifications would be great along with detailed operating procedures. A proper record of Rosemary's position on this matter is required for credibility.
As it stands at the moment the infinite energy claims have been made, statements that the numbers stack when there are no numbers, accurate measurements have been taken when there is no proof of this. Selective measuring of certain variables and the complete exclusion of others.
So what are we to think ?
Rosemary's work will never be accepted by me while it is based purely on self assertion that it is correct.
No claims to overunity can be made until it has been proven that more energy is coming out than is going in, whatever the cause, classical or non classical. This has not been demonstrated by the report at all.
I hope that the demonstration video when it surfaces shows us indisputable evidence that the oscillation is creating additional energy from an alternate source. Time will tell.
RM :)
Quote from: markdansie on March 17, 2011, 11:23:27 PM
@omnibus
I actually know someone who did replicate and earlier circuit with spice and built it. The circuit perfromed exactly as the spice simulation suggested...but not as claimed. This does not apply to the current experiment..but that spice is sure good.
Mark
is this data available for you to present?
Quote from: poynt99 on March 17, 2011, 11:17:30 PM
LOL.
Omnibus, I have simulated this thing to death, many many months ago! I've even tried simulating her latest, but that was before she revealed the important facts that they are using a negative offset in the Gate drive, and that they are paralleling 5 MOSFETs together.
I would have to set up a DC sweep of the offset in order to find the sweet spot where the thing bursts into self-oscillation. As I find time I will try this.
.99
PS. I just saw your other posts in your thread. I don't know what else I can offer other than what I already have.
Could you possibly share the PSpice files? It would be interesting to see what others will conclude. PSpice seems to offer a way to get pretty conclusive results.
As for the other results, you may see that I've included a Zener diode which cuts off half of the current within a period. This way the integral of current over time won't be zero as when the full wave is integrated and thus Pin should be voltage offset dependent.
Kapanadze's, Bedini and so forth should also be modeled to see conclusively what we're looking at. Otherwise it will go on for years and because the people here overwhelmingly are underfunded, the racket will continue indefinitely.
Quote from: neptune on March 17, 2011, 05:35:00 PM
Dear Rosemary [ I know you don't like @Rosemary] I have read the report on your blog .I have to say that I found it very informative .I was amazed the you could make the magic oscillation last for 2.7 MINUTES and not 2.7 seconds as I previously misread . One other thing .For that to happen , your function generator was running at6.172 millihertz .Hell . I could imitate that with 2 torch batteries and some jump leads and a stopwatch! Seriously , what I am saying is that even with my poor eyesight , I could build a mechanical pulse generator using a motor driven cam and some torch batteries And incorporate variable voltage offset.That way, it eliminates all the uncertainties of 555 timers . I also think , that almost any oscilloscope would do if its sole purpose is to look for the magic oscillation .I might well give it a go yet .
Great stuff Neptune. Every bit helps. Just note that there is a whole lot of iron on that resistor and it, unquestionably, adds to those gains. We'll publish photos and videos on Monday. Whatever else you use - try and keep a threaded rod number of sorts. Also. Each MOSFET has its own heat sink. I'm not sure if this is required or not. Otherwise it's all standard.
BTW. I share you problem with bad eyesight. I know something about the difficulties that result from this. Fortunately I see very clearly when I'm about an inch away from what I'm trying to see. ;D That's short sighted with a vengeance.
Kindest regards,
Rosie
Guys - the video should be up by Monday.
It is mentioned - all over the place that we don't give the Pout Pin numbers that you guys prefer. There's a reason for this. The wattage returned to the battery is that HUGE that it's almost an embarrassment. We're still trying to reconcile this. What the team needs is a mathematician. If there are any out there that are interested - then PLEASE - let me know. Somehow - in full operation mode - that power is exponentially increased. It is not entirely resolved by factoring in inductance and impedance. But that does help some.
Rosemary
I should add this. We have very high temperatures when we're in that 'booster' mode - and I suspect that we're then getting some kind of wattage reconciliation. But the heat is that extreme and it rises that fast that we've not even managed to do a data dump. Everything then becomes critical and we barely get the time to check that the voltage levels are still compatible with the DSO's. Then, indeed - we're possibly getting something that correlates with our measurements. But then too, we're talking really high wattage values. Well in excess of the 44 watt tolerance that we know we can test - safely. The urgency then is to disconnect. Fast. It's really quick and really hot.
another edit
Quote from: markdansie on March 17, 2011, 11:23:27 PM
@omnibus
I actually know someone who did replicate and earlier circuit with spice and built it. The circuit perfromed exactly as the spice simulation suggested...but not as claimed. This does not apply to the current experiment..but that spice is sure good.
Mark
Can you post the PSpice files of that simulation? I'll be waiting for @poyn99's simulation of the new schematic too. All these claims have to come to an end so that we can move to something more productive, if all turn out negative.
@Omnibus
Unfortunately I do not own the data but will see if I can get permission to send it privately.
@Rosemary
I know of a maths guru who is familiar with your work. He with a friend built one of your experiments sometime ago and know what you are trying to achieve. I can put you in direct contact with them if you like.
My email is markdansie@bigpond.com
Kind Regards
Quote from: WilbyInebriated on March 17, 2011, 11:19:49 PM
and is this the type of probe being used?
No. It was simply to make a comment on the limited vertical res of oscilloscopes, and how some folks attempt to work around that limitation. In this case, for small currents.
.99
Hi Rosemary , your eyesight sounds no better than mine . I have only one eye that works , and last week while mending a puncture in my bike , I managed to Glue it shut! All sorted now . There was a a couple of things you said in your last reply that I did not understand . You said "there is a whole lot of iron on that resistor ." I take it you mean the load resistor , but I thought it was nickle chromium wire on a glass or ceramic core . Are you now saying it has an iron core? Also , not sure what you meant by "try to keep a threaded rod of sorts " Please tell me if and when you have time . Looking forward to the video on Monday , or whenever .
Just a small point from the demo report on your blog .At the lowest driver frequency , you talk about the gate being Negative for 2.7 minutes . If we assume a low duty cycle of , say ,10% on , that means the actual switching frequency is one cycle every2.97 minutes .I know that you said that the effect is not frequency dependent but , boy , is that slow!
Quote from: neptune on March 18, 2011, 11:59:45 AM
Hi Rosemary , your eyesight sounds no better than mine . I have only one eye that works , and last week while mending a puncture in my bike , I managed to Glue it shut! All sorted now . There was a a couple of things you said in your last reply that I did not understand . You said "there is a whole lot of iron on that resistor ." I take it you mean the load resistor , but I thought it was nickle chromium wire on a glass or ceramic core . Are you now saying it has an iron core? Also , not sure what you meant by "try to keep a threaded rod of sorts " Please tell me if and when you have time . Looking forward to the video on Monday , or whenever .
Just a small point from the demo report on your blog .At the lowest driver frequency , you talk about the gate being Negative for 2.7 minutes . If we assume a low duty cycle of , say ,10% on , that means the actual switching frequency is one cycle every2.97 minutes .I know that you said that the effect is not frequency dependent but , boy , is that slow!
Hi Neptune. We have a standard immersion heater type element. I'll try and get a photo of this from my early shots. The wire is threaded inside the rod.
Regarding the frequency. We have some variation when we go into 'heavy duty mode' with the frequency. But that zero discharge number from the batteries - that is as steady as a rock at just about any and every frequency. We took it to its slowest possible to test this. And yes - it oscillates without any evident variation for 3 minutes. I agree. It's wierd.
Kindest
Rosemary
I don't get why this hasn't simply been continuously looped as proof positive of it's validity if there is so much supposedly going back to the batteries
Hi Rosemary , and thanks for the reply and the picture . Would you believe I had actually seen that picture before and forgotten about it ! I think they call it "having a senior moment. " @happyfunball . By feeding power back to the battery , is it not therefore looped already ?
Quote from: neptune on March 18, 2011, 04:16:51 PM
@happyfunball . By feeding power back to the battery , is it not therefore looped already ?
Then why does it not run continuously?
Quote from: happyfunball on March 11, 2011, 12:53:22 AM
Every single one of these inventions to date have produced absolutely nothing publicly. Zero, nada. They're always coming to market 'very soon' and never heard of again. Every single one of them.... None of them powering anything in the real world as far as I know. Now we have a 'cold fusion' power plant supposedly being built. Don't hold your breath. Gets tiring after a while. The only benefit I have seen in this quest is some interesting research revolving around resonance (Joule Ringer) which seem to have real world applications, although I've yet to see it being used practically by anyone. What happened to Bedini's 'ferris wheel?' Looked impressive, what is it powering? Anything, anywhere?
Happy
happyfunball. Another gross misnomer. LOL Your posts read like the prophets of doom. I've just trailed through a page of them. Your denial of OU is somewhat brutal. They're about as inspirational as as a tall glass of tepid tap water. And you're wrong of course. Measurements are given all over the place. It's just when the stack up to contradict what you clearly require - then they're ignored - or considered fallacious.
Just to fill you in here I'll say this again. When BP (SA) evaluated these results - some decade ago - they insisted that it would ONLY be proved on batteries. I was involved in a series of the most boring tests that I have ever been involved with. All the more arduous as I am - absolutely not - an experimentalist. I won't here go into the protocols. But it required close testing of controls against the experiment and run concurrently. The timing of those batteries was determined like this. When either one of those supply banks depeleted their PD from 24 v's to 20 volts or when each battery depeleted from 12 to 10 - then the tests were terminated. That constituted the 'test period'. What was evidenced is that the controls were entirely 'flat' when the test had barely lost a fraction of a volt. On the strength of these results PB (SA) allowed us to use their names as accreditors of that early test. Those early tests are on record as showing a COP>17. In effect we proved that the test batteries outlasted its watt hour rating against the control.
Now. When it came to giving a published report on those definitive tests - the PUBLISHER refused to allow ANY REFERENCE TO THE CONTROL. The publication was a technical journal. The editor was advised by an electrical engineering academic. They determined - regardless of my protests - that any reference to battery duration was entirely IRRELEVANT to the argument. Therefore was I not allowed to reference batteries. I ASSURE YOU - that as often as you guys state that the battery needs to be tested to it's full duration - just as often will that evidence be ignored. Batteries vary - one from another. Some batteries retain their charge and then collapse in moments - to nothing. Others distribute their charge more gradually. Others require small currents to match their ratings. Others don't. The electrolytes vary - one from another. So. If I was to test one then - for conclusive results - I'd need to test them all.
Then. We have hooked up as many as 7 of those very large batteries in one single test - apparently discharging nothing. Now. The artefact matters. When this experiment finally gets to our academies, then equivalent and nonequivalent capacities will need to be tested. In these tests we only used that same bank. And we could measure absolutely zero loss over a 5 month period. Exactly how long would it be required to run those tests? Would it take 2 years to prove it? 10? 6 months? What? What exactly would satisfy you? And how then does one run a control? Must we SHOW that under normal operating conditions a battery will discharge? I would have thought that that much could be relied on. And even then. I am ready to put money on it that while the most of you engineers require it - our learneds will, to a man, insist that the battery duration is irrelevant. I wonder if I can state this more plainly. They're right. The minute you start evaluating the battery performance - then you are trying to resolve a result in line with specific commodity with a market supply that has varieties that are probably counted in their thousands if not their hundreds of thousands. That's an awful lot of testing.
What is intersting is this. We have an energy returned to the supply that is far greater than the energy delivered from that supply. Now. Here's the thing. If, as is widely assumed by mainstream - that energy is lost to a battery when it discharges current flow - then - by the same token one would expect the energy to be increased in line with a recharge cycle. In point of fact the batteries voltages varied under test conditions. The stronger the current discharge the quicker the decline. But OF INTEREST - is that immediately thereafter it systematically climbs - within minutes - to it's previous high. Not higher. Perhaps there are those subsequent tests that may take it higher. In previous tests we have certainly found a climb to a higher 'start condition'. But in these tests we did not. It never exceeded its 'kick off' voltage level.
I would modestly propose therefore, that there is a fixed amount of energy that is available from that potential difference - and that no new material - electrons or whatever classical assumption requires - has been introduced to the system. That's interesting. That implies that this may be a closed system. It also implies a whole lot of other things. But for now - just consider that. That is, if you are not 'happily' out to throw more of that tepid tap water on this research.
Rosemary
And Happy - Guys, all,
It is a complete waste of time testing those small wattage values as this does not show depletion on that large stack of batteries. It may make sense to test those higher wattages. But here there's a problem. There is clear evidence that the system is trying to output more energy than is determined by the setting at the gate. It has OFTEN defaulted that the gate setting seems to slip higher and - in moments - we're in a crisis. I have - in the past - set fire to sundry components. Therefore to test this to duration would take time. Whole days and nights of it. And someone would need to be there to monitor that accidental 'rise' in output which - most assuredly - would be hazardous. There simply was not the personnel available on this kind of test basis. It was simply a 'no go' criteria for testing.
And I keep saying this. Feel free to do your own tests. We've made a complete disclosure of the components required. I may be giving some small demonstrations to experts as I've got the artefact with me. But, otherwise, I am most certainly giving experiments a rest for now. I've been at it for a year and a bit - AGAIN. And, just to remind you, I really have no interest in experiment. I am interested only in where these results point. I just wish there were others who would share that interest. It's where these tests are pointing that is actually of far greater interst. On the face of it - and in terms of the measurements applied - all of which conform to classical protocols - the evidence is that there is a second energy supply source on our circuits. Isn't that the actual reach of OU research? Aren't we all looking for this energy? So. Surely this is a good thing?
Rosemary
Dear Rosemary,
I am an EE student from Brazil and I am following your last experiments. Thank you for your hard work and openess.
In answer to your last post, I would say yes, what I am seeing here is definitely a good thing. And that is people challenging boundaries.
I have also seen here good suggestions to enhance the experiment, to shed more light into what´s happening. With all respect, in my view the experiment is VERY important, it´s what is tangible for me. And I am very interested in the results.
Technically speaking now, if you allow me, I think these suggestions were good and I see no reason not to try them (experiment): much lower AH batteries, many parallel circuits, low pass filtering before DVM as a DC average measurement.
I think an important issue that has been pointed, is that you are mesuring voltage across the current sensing resistor, and considering it pure R, when in reality that element is RL.
With all respect, these suggestions can do no harm to our understanding of what´s happening, quite the contrary in my opinion.
Thank you again and god bless,
Alexandre
(Removed the suggestion about bypass capacitors, because it could make the circuit more stable, which is not desirable? And, could it be that the HF going through the lead-acid batteries is required for COP>1? In any case, I´m not satisfied and that is the reason for my posting, I hope it is constructive.)
Dear Rosemary,
I would like to add this:
I really want this effect to be real extra energy, and I do hope that you succeed in all of this!
God bless :)
Alexandre
Quote from: chrisC on March 19, 2011, 12:39:31 PM
This is good overview reading for starters:
http://emedicine.medscape.com/article/292991-overview
It will put everything in perspective.
cheers
chrisC
Hello ChrisC. If I am delusional I share that delusion with more than 86 others related to the witness or involvement of previous tests and to more than 30 who have been witness to or involved in these latest tests. I also share that delusion with those at the demonstration. And the most remarkable of all is that our video camera and our oscilloscopes are equally delusional. Clearly this is delusion on a remarkable scale. Unless, of course, all of us - including the camera and those DSO's - are somehow infected with a kind of contagious delusion. I believe that is widely assumed to be the explanation for that magical Indian Rope Trick. But our particular delusion trumps that. They've never managed to film that trick in operation. We have.
There is, of course, another kind of delusion. That's when a certain kind of pathology kicks in and refuses to evaluate the evidence to hand. That's usually associated with a kind of bigotry and closed mindedness that has absolutely nothing whatsovever to do with scientific research and considerably less with the truth. It's a Medieval throwback that still, unfortunately, has some genetic links through to those descendants even in our own times. It's where evolution has not so much moved forward but, in fact - devolved. Unfortunately, one can cure most delusions. But this particular state is entirely incurable because those poor afflicted are not aware of their afflication. More's the pity. What they need is some reasonable access to fair mindedness, an effective intelligence quotient and at least some rudimentary grasp of logic. But it's denied them - on just about every level. So. It's probably always out of reach.
Rosemary
edited spelling
Thanks for your suggestions alexandre. Your English is remarkably good.
We have already been obliged to return the Tektronix DSO and we're to return the LeCroy in the near future. I cannot therefore do any more tests. All we will be able to do from here onwards is to put up the occasional demonstration for experts - as required. But there's nothing to stop anyone else from doing this or any variation as required.
Kind regards,
Rosemary
Quote from: chrisC on March 19, 2011, 01:36:38 PM
I tip my hat off to you for your tenacity in your 'research' but from what I've read so far, most 'inventors' want to believe what they think they have found that no one else have found so far. I wished it was true but the reality is often misguided knowledge coupled with inaccurate measurements. That said, I do wish you well and maybe you really have discovered something worth pursuing.
I've gone to some considerable lengths to assure you all that THERE IS NOTHING NEW in what we're showing. What we're doing is showing you an aspect of something really well known and yet its signficance has been entirely overlooked. How often do I need to say this. It's all really well known stuff.
Rosemary
Thank you Rosemary, I have been reading and writing english for a long time.
Hopefully there will be replications and similar experiments seeking these COP>1 results. We need validation. This to me is a very worthwhile pursuit, I plan to engage in as well.
Best,
Alex
Quote from: alexandre on March 19, 2011, 01:55:10 PM
Thank you Rosemary, I have been reading and writing english for a long time.
Hopefully there will be replications and similar experiments pursuing these COP>1 results. So far I am not aware of easily repeatable, proven experimental results of COP>1. This to me is a very worthwhile pursuit, I hope to engage as well.
Best,
Alex
How come? You've probably missed these easily repeatable and proven experimental results for Pout/Pin>1 (COP is not a scientific term): http://actascientiae.org/v/comments.php?DiscussionID=9&page=1#Item_4 . These are the only results categorically demonstrating OU in electric circuits that I'm aware of.
Thanks Omnibus, I am looking at it.
Best,
Alex
Quote from: Omnibus on March 19, 2011, 02:01:47 PM
(COP is not a scientific term): http://actascientiae.org/v/comments.php?DiscussionID=9&page=1#Item_4 . These are the only results categorically demonstrating OU in electric circuits that I'm aware of.
What a load of nonsense. Here's wiki's definition of COP.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Coefficient_of_performance
And from where I stand it's ENTIRELY appropriate to our references. Not sure how more scientific one can get. And there's absolutely NO definition of Pin/Pout. It's just a voguish reference to power used on some forums. And DO NOT state that we have not shown OU Omnibus - unless you are first prepared to argue where there are measurement errors. It seems that you will stoop to endless depths to try and bluster some kind of pretended authority.
Rosemary
She is taking actual measurements on the circuit isn't she. That means a lot more then a simulation. Just because no one cares about your claims you try to put others down. And you think you are an open minded person? Grow up.
@Omnibus .You are falling into the old trap of thinking that just because an effect cant be simulated that it does not exist . In the words of the Amazing Randi ,absence of evidence is not evidence of absence . If we had to choose between you and Rosemary on this thread , I know where my vote would go . If you disagree with Rosemary , why not just leave her alone .
@Omni,
We know. Everyone who disagrees with you is incompetent. Have you ever thought that maybe it's just you.
@Burger
Why have you been following for 10 years if you don't think there is anything to it. You should find something better to do with your time.
@rosemary
I've read the postings on your blog with great interest. Could you please provide higher-resolution versions of your scope shots?
That is, higher resolution versions of the images found in this article:
http://newlightondarkenergy.blogspot.com/2011/03/report.html (http://newlightondarkenergy.blogspot.com/2011/03/report.html)
I am interested in replication.
All the best,
Feynman
Mr. Mag excellent point "why follow something for 10years if you believe there is nothing to it ?"
Let us answer that question with some reasonable answers:
Confined to a wheel chair with limited movement. While life may suck indeed why do you not check out what Stephen Hawking has been able to do or watch the Documentary "Murderball" for inspiration in something you can really focus your efforts on instead of wasting your time on something you do not believe in.
Use forums as stress relief from the brutal mind bashing of daily life activities and work. AKA Troll Why not use appropriate website like start your own blog or annoyances.org or something on that note why come here?
Educated and wish to share what I was taught to help make the world smarter. Why not start a website and give out free information in the form of lessons like justin guitar does and accept donations to help pay for your schooling.
Cause in the back of my mind lurking I truly believe it may provide a possible solution though I don't say that for fear of carrying a common label such as "crackpot". Why worry about a superficial thing like a label if anything that would be a push to prove the many wrong.
Because I am not really interested in the so called impossible overunity but instead am interested in real working alternative energy progress, even so why would I read overunity claims .
Any point that one could make would be moot in my eyes you have to have some childish belief in this type of thing to follow it for so many years or a belief in the possibility of this to follow it for 10 years you must be at least a hopeful of some sort.
Quote from: Omnibus on March 19, 2011, 02:17:35 PM
No, there's no clear cut evidence you've shown anything unusual. One way to demonstrate it is to show a PSpice simulation proving it. @poyn99 tells me he has seen no OU in your schematic in a PSpice sim but I'm still open minded. Also, try not to foist on the public here Wikipedia definitions. Show a paper from a peer-reviewed physics or chemistry journal where COP is used at all.
pspice is not proof of anything... ::) for the love of zeus omni, you blather about science all the time yet have no idea what constitutes a proof. one person simulating a circuit
is NOT proof ::)
Quote from: markdansie on March 16, 2011, 01:36:00 PM
@evolvinggape
"Erm... no, the replacement of Batteries with Caps is not irrelevant at all. Batteries have a stored potential, Caps have an applied potential. Caps would very quickly show whether your circuit is running down or not and consuming power. 6 car Batteries would hide this extremely well even over lengthy testing periods."
So well put. This has been the failing of many experiments. I have even seen others even fool themselves when using a power supply. That's why many people I know prefer to use caps.
Mark
Yes, but sometimes these things just only work when using lead acid or NiMh batteries
as is the case with pulsed battery boosters like Bedini or Newman or Joule Thief style circuits.
Caps just don´t work here cause they don´t have the right electrons-ions in them...
Regards, Stefan.
O dear
for the first time ever I have been out under the moderators control.
Well I guess thats the way it has to go
Bye everyone
Kind Regards
'Mark
One thing I always admired about this forum was even when under fire from the zealots (remember Mylow punch up) free speech and the right to allow reason to have a voice was supported. Other forums (especially Sterling's) relied on heavy censorship.
And now we have by far the majority of contributors challenging methodologies used by Rosie and next thing before we know it censorship. There is no room for censorship in scientific debate.
I have tried to use some subtle humor, but was never abusive which is more than I can say for Rosie. Anyone who questions anything gets a spray.
I respect and value all opinions but may not always agree with them.
It is highly unlikely this will get through...the new world order is here already. LOL
Well in the scheme of things WTF.
I guess my real concern is "who else is being sensored?"
Kind Regards
Mark
Okay, I just read the whole thread now and looked deeper into the
new Rosemary circuit.
As I did see already the picture of her setup about a month ago
I also still have some issues with it.
The issues I see are missing notes:
1. Rosemary,
was the ciurcuit also run without connecting the scope
and just connecting the function generator ?
I earlier pointed out that ground loop
currents of the scopes and the function generator can add up
and extract some power via the grounding of the different devices.
As the circuit goes into selfrunning oscillation at around 1.5 Mhz
due to the parasitric LC components of the circuits, it could
be that it also extracts power via the groundloop currents, if these
exist there simular to the Kapanadze devices.
So please disconnect the scopes and also disconnect the ground
connector from your function generator and see, if you still
have this high 40 Watts heat output in the load resistor.
2. The circuit just oscillates when it has a negative bias at the gates,
so it would be easy just to use a battery with a voltge divider pot to
control the necessary voltage for it.
Then you would not need anymore the function generator and can see,
if it will also oscillate with the right negative bias voltage at the gates
and have this high 40 Watts heat output at the load heating resistor.
3. Rosemary, please post a PDF File or
at least higher Res screen shots of the scope shots,
otherwise we can not analyze the waveforms.
4. A simulation is just wasted time as it would not include
anomalous effects, so just forget it.
5. Battery operated could be the only way it could work,
cause battery chemistry behaves totally different than normal power
supplies as is also seen in Bedini devices, where the OU energy seems
to come inside the batteries as the ions just move so slow...
6. Was the scope set to DC or AC in the input as you scoped
the voltage on the batteries ?
This is pretty important.
7. Was the scope set to DC or AC in the input as you scoped
the voltage on the gates ?
This circuit is simular to a Newman coil circuit running just at higher frequencies
and at lower inductances.
The MOSFETs with their included zener diodes can just
feed the BackEMF spikes back to the battery.
Now and the difference between 6 and 40 Watts heat should be easily measureable just by using
heated water calorimetrically.
Regards, Stefan.
P.S: I cleaned this thread up and deleted some offtopic messages and flame war messages...
Please stay ontopic. Thanks.
Here is the picture of the setup that she already posted in a small size.
Regards, Stefan.
P.S: What kind of function generator was used ?
This was not specified in the report.
Thanks.
@stefan
I think Mark's criticisms in this thread were valid , so if some of his posts were deleted while you cleaned up the flame war , I think they should be restored.
My 2c anyway.
I left the valid ones in there.
Regards, Stefan.
Quote from: Feynman on March 19, 2011, 11:49:55 PM
Show a paper from a peer-reviewed physics or chemistry journal where COP is used at all.
-Omnibus
Quote
Performance of Cogeneration System Incorporating Gas Engine Driven Heat Pump
Challenges of Power Engineering and Environment
2007, 2, 61-63, DOI: 10.1007/978-3-540-76694-0_10
Abstract
Cogeneration systems have a large potential for energy saving, especially when they simultaneously produce heat, cold and power as useful energy flows. Various cogeneration systems for combined heat, cold and power production are designed mainly incorporating absorption heat pumps. But compression heat pumps always have higher coefficient of performance than that of the absorption heat pumps. Gas engine-driven heat pump is the compression heat pump driven by gas engine. Cogeneration system associated with gas engine-driven heat pump will have higher efficiency. Detail thermodynamic analyses of such cogeneration system are processed. For a specific building, result of the energy consumption shows that the primary energy ratio of such system is 1.49, which is higher than that of the conventional separated production system.
http://www.springerlink.com/content/m8442q14646q3077/
Please stay ontopic.
This has nothing to do with this thread.
Thanks.
Quote from: Feynman on March 19, 2011, 11:57:05 PM
@stefan
I think Mark's criticisms in this thread were valid , so if some of his posts were deleted while you cleaned up the flame war , I think they should be restored.
My 2c anyway.
@Stefan
I don't think MarkD was ever a troublemaker. He just spoke the honest truth and has always been a gentleman, polite in many ways. Please consider to reinstate him. Thank you.
ChrisC
There are now some people on moderation and
I decide, if their postings go through or are deleted.
This is due to the facts that now more and more paid
"twisters" are coming onto this forum,
who want to suppress free energy
as there are now viable solutions.
I did not delete all their postings, just the ones
being rude, offtopic or twisting the known facts.
Regards, Stefan.
Guys - it seems that we're being moderated - and none too soon. Thank you. It is no accident that this technology of ours has been flamed from the get go. The worst of it is that - until this last thread - I've been obliged to deal with it more or less alone. There is not one of you who seriously considered that the results were valid. And why should you? The denial was absolute. Or the allegations against my good name were wild and comprehensive. The one that gets me the most is Poynt's last statement that I'm some sort of Idiot Savant.
Anyway - clearly that's all changing. Thank you God. And, possibly more to the point - thank you Steve.
I took time out last night to read PESwiki. There's a thing in there where some guys from NASA are prepared to replicate motors that claim OU results. I sent them the following email.
Dear Michael,
It's not a motor - but we'd be glad of some replication of the attached test - by Ken and/or Mike. Let me know if you need more information.
Regards
From the team
Rosemary Ainslie
I attached our pdf and look forward to some reply. I'll also post this challenge on my blog lest it be overlooked.
Meanwhile I'll get back to those posts here that still need answers.
Kindest and many, many thanks to those who spoke out in support. Much needed.
Rosie
Sorry for my outburst earlier Rose. Just felt the need. And just got done watching Death Wish II. ;]
Do you have a link from peswiki? =]
Hope things go better for you here now. ;]
Mags
Quote from: hartiberlin on March 19, 2011, 11:19:10 PM
The issues I see are missing notes:
1. Rosemary
was the ciurcuit also run without connecting the scope and just connecting the function generator?
I earlier pointed out that ground loop currents of the scopes and the function generator can add up and extract some power via the grounding of the different devices.
As the circuit goes into selfrunning oscillation at around 1.5 Mhz due to the parasitric LC components of the circuits, it could be that it also extracts power via the groundloop currents, if these exist there simular to the Kapanadze devices.
So please disconnect the scopes and also disconnect the ground connector from your function generator and see, if you still have this high 40 Watts heat output in the load resistor.
Only one such test. It was set at the zero discharge - low wattage dissipation number. I started the test at 11.30 am and came back that night - or early morning rather - at 1.30. The same level of heat was still measured over the resistor - but no data logger - so can't tell you what happened in the interim. You must please understand this Steven. That gate setting is 'brittle'. It has a tendancy to 'slip' higher - and I'm forever in a panic that all will go up in flames. So. With any unsupervised testing I'm rather untenably anxious. We disconnected the scopes only because it won't tolerate those high voltages when and if it defaults into heavy duty mode. So the short answer is - NO - we have not tested higher wattages without the scope. Nor dare we. That gate voltage is a really critical reference at high wattages. And yes we've tested this at lower wattages.
Of interest is that over that 14 hour test or thereby - there was a measurable 0.01 volt drop. Not inconsiderable considering the HUGE capacities of those batteries. But not that atypical either. Because the DMM used as a reference - does not show the same voltages that the scope reads - and when we linked the scope it showed an increase. Frankly I dont think those battery voltages are relevant during the testing. They climb and fall continuously. It's only relevant at the end of the tests when the test apparatus is disconnected. Then they show their 'kick off' levels. This has never varied.
I was categorically assured by our advisors that there was NO problem related to grounding. Not sure of the argument but will ask them to elaborate. What I do know is that the DSO's are two pinned and therefore - it's not an issue. The functions generator - three pinned. BTW you asked for the make. It's an ISOTECH GFG - 8216a - 50 Ohms at the output. Our plug outputs are all at 220 volts AC. In any event. I'll ask about the grounding issue - on Monday and get back here. I should have gone into this more thoroughly before.
Quote from: hartiberlin on March 19, 2011, 11:19:10 PM2. The circuit just oscillates when it has a negative bias at the gates, so it would be easy just to use a battery with a voltge divider pot to control the necessary voltage for it. Then you would not need anymore the function generator and can see, if it will also oscillate with the right negative bias voltage at the gates and have this high 40 Watts heat output at the load heating resistor.
Indeed. There is also another variation of the circuit which is theoretically evident. I'll try and get a sketch of this posted here. There are many ways of skinning this cat. Neptune's already mentioned this. And the more that are put on offer here in this forum - the better. Think Open Source guys. There's all kinds of competing interests. And I think we need make everything as public as is possible.
Quote from: hartiberlin on March 19, 2011, 11:19:10 PM3.Rosemary, please post a PDF File or at least higher Res screen shots of the scope shots,otherwise we cannot analyze the waveforms.
Indeed. Never realised this was a problem. When I've finished here I'll give it a go. If I can't there are those on the team who can.
Quote from: hartiberlin on March 19, 2011, 11:19:10 PM4. A simulation is just wasted time as it would not include anomalous effects, so just forget it.
At last. Someone speaking sense. Donny did his own replication with a faithful inclusion of all components and he included the measured inductances - even on the wires. There is nothing in classical protocols that can manage these results so WHY does anyone assume it can be simulated? Has anyone picked up yet that there's more inductance on our wire than on the resistor element? That's a lot of wire. But clearly it adds to the effect.
Quote from: hartiberlin on March 19, 2011, 11:19:10 PM5. Battery operated could be the only way it could work, cause battery chemistry behaves totally different than normal power supplies as is also seen in Bedini devices, where the OU energy seems
to come inside the batteries as the ions just move so slow...
I entirely agree but possibly for different reasons.
Quote from: hartiberlin on March 19, 2011, 11:19:10 PM6. Was the scope set to DC or AC in the input as you scoped the voltage on the batteries ?
This is pretty important.
Of course it's important. And yes. Across the shunt and batteries then the scope was set at DC ALWAYS. Golly. It seems that you guys have absolutely no confidence in our expertise. Mine you're well advised to doubt. But that's where it should end.
Quote from: hartiberlin on March 19, 2011, 11:19:10 PM
This circuit is similar to a Newman coil circuit running just at higher frequencies and at lower inductances. The MOSFETs with their included zener diodes can just feed the BackEMF spikes back to the battery.
That has been the intention from our very earliest tests. This has never varied. I don't know about the Newman coil but if that's what it does then there's got to be an advantage.
Quote from: hartiberlin on March 19, 2011, 11:19:10 PMNow and the difference between 6 and 40 Watts heat should be easily measureable just by using
heated water calorimetrically.
It can also be measured in air. The advantage to using water is that it can give the total output more reliably. But we didn't need this to be too accurate. We were - evidently - discharging nothing from the batteries. What we did do - unfortunately - was buckle that plastic - and it is IMPOSSIBLE to even touch the resistor at 100 degrees, let alone the 200 degrees and upwards that we've measured. As have some of the team learned to their cost. LOL
Thanks again,
Regards,
Rosemary
It is clear that Stefan has the right and the might to heavily moderate this forum and I respect that. Whether I think his judgements are fair or not is not important and I appreciate that he left intact seven of my fifteen posts. I assume that was because they were on-subject, without insult and quoted in other posts anyway. Thank you Stefan for leaving at least some of my comments and suggestions.
Apparently, at least Mark Dansie and I are on "heavy moderation" at this time and Stefan has suggested that someone (I assume he means me) is a paid detractor sent by big oil or the MIB to destroy Rosemary's progress. That is simply not true, I can assure you. However, each of us has a right to hold and express our opinion; especially Stefan, as it is his blood sweat and finances that have built this forum.
That said, I will not be posting here again because I do not feel that my comments are welcome, despite their often acute and timely relevance. As my final post here, I would ask and hope that Stefan have the sense of fairness and good sportsmanship to clear this for posting.
For anyone who is interested, I have tonight published a very revealing set of simulations under the Rosemary Ainslie thread at OUR forum. I have discovered a couple of things that may be of interest even to those of you who put no faith in simulations.
First, the Ainslie circuit with five MOSFETs models quite easily and shows exactly the same waveforms and performance that Rosemary shows in her lengthy series of 'scope shots on her blogs when all of the various wiring inductances are included. This indicates strongly that all circuit behaviors she has pointed out and shown are entirely explainable using only classical circuit models.
Second, I have shown that one single input step-function pulse of 1 microsecond duration will set the circuit into continuous oscillation. Simply setting a tuned DC bias at the gate may or may not set the circuit into oscillation, but a single sharp transition past the threshold definitely does when the gate is subsequently held at zero or negative DC.
There are no ground currents involved. The circuit oscillates continuously at between 1 and 1.4 MHz, depending on specific MOSFET types and inductance values in the range consistent with the wire lengths and load inductances as stated by Rosemary.
I think these facts and the ability in the simulation to probe inside the RL lumped components (the shunt, the load and the battery stack) to look at the waveforms as they exist across just the battery, just the resitive parts of the load and just the resistive part of the shunt to see the true current and voltages there are useful to anyone planning to replicate and or simulate the circuit for further study.
I will be doing some more sims to include actual measurements of the load heating power and the battery input power in the near future. If these tests show anything like or close to overunity, I will proceed to an actual hardware replication to verify the results. This work will be shown at OUR exclusively unless Stefan invites me to also show it here.
Thank you for your consideration of these sincere efforts to gain a fuller understanding of this circuit and its performance. So far, the model tracks and agrees very well with all of what Rosemary has reported based on her waveform analysis.
Of final and very significant interest is the fact that the waveforms representing the shunt voltage change dramatically when measured to include or exclude the omnipresent inductance of the physical shunt.
Yes, as Rose has reported. it appears that the current waveform has nearly identical areas above and below zero when the shunt inductance is allowed in the measurement and that the apparent current levels are many times higher than those measured across the purely resistive portion of the shunt impedance.
However, when we look only across the true resistive portion of the shunt (leaving the inductance in the circuit so that operation is unaffected), it becomes clear that the real area under the current waveform is quite a bit larger above zero (coming out of the battery) than the current being returned.
cHeeseburger
Guys a quick word here. I challenge anyone to do a simulation where the phase angles are at precisely 180 degrees. If they are not precise then, as day follows night - they'll ring and cancel out at zero. At 180 degrees they'll reinforce each other.
What intrigues me is this. I've been called delinquent - ignorant - presumptuous - pretentious - deluded - self-serving - deceptive - optimistic - fanciful - manipulative. Name it. It's there. In fact I've also been called an IDIOT SAVANT. Poynty? I have a really functional intelligence quotient. Surely that much is evident? And right now Hamburger is throwing a hissy fit with MileHigh as his praise singer. So what? What if I am all of those things? What has it got to do with the issue at hand? We are only showing results. And those results are hugely promising. But they unquestionably need research. We're all, on our team - ONLY anxious that this get researched. If any out there need to take the credit - FEEL FREE. Just DON'T try and patent it. I'll contest that to my dying breath and with my last cent.
Kindest as ever,
Rosemary
The possibility that the heating element is being powered exclusively by the battery needs to be excluded. Measuring the input energy via the four scope traces will establish some degree of confidence in this, so I look forward to a higher resolution of the scope traces to calculate AUC.
Another point:
Quote
When this is applied to each sample from a spreadsheet analysis across the 500 000 to 1 million samples supplied by the digital storage oscilloscopes, then the product of this and the battery voltage represents the instantaneous wattage. The sum of these values, divided by the number of samples, represents the average wattage delivered over the entire sample range.
-Section 3.2, report on the tests for the demo held today
Quote...This is confirmed by detailed analysis of data downloads to spreadsheets...
-Section 4.6, report on the tests for the demo held today
These spreadsheets are important. In the interest of replication and characterization of what you are observing, it would be helpful if all the relavent source data (including raw spreadsheet data) were to be published. The process of 'peer review' in an open-source community manner requires full disclosure, including source spreadsheets of observations.
Quote
At these slowest switching speeds, at 6.172 mHz, and during that burst oscillation mode period where the frequency is measured at close to 1.5 MHz, the battery supply source is seen to recharge.
-Section 4.4
The claim of the battery recharging needs to have the support of experimental observations, results of repeated trials, raw data etc. Spreadsheets, experimental notes, and/or Video would help.
I remember you have mentioned you don't want to bother with battery tests and load tests etc. I understand this can be time-consuming , but this part is critical. The batteries are still connected. They are a possible source of the power to the heating element. They must be excluded as the power source in order to confirm an anomaly.
The voltage data of the battery and the temperature of the heating element over repeated experimental trials that forms the basis in claim 4.4 need to be published if this effect is to be analyzed and/or replicated. This include not just a single scope trace, but multiple experimental trials and results (starting voltage, voltage as a function of time, and ending voltage for all anomalous experimental trials) as compared to the behaviour of the heating element..
For example, as mentioned previously, someone pointed out that there is a chart for the 'control' results, but there is no such chart for the 'experimental/anomalous' results (besides scope traces which are too low a resolution). A chart measuring input voltage, input current, ambient air temp, and temp at load needs to be published for 'anomalous' operation.
Further photographs and/or video of the setup would be helpful.
I believe overunity exists, is possible, and there are working configurations (for example , HHO can power a generator in closed-loop operation).
I would be pleased if this circuit is overunity, but we need more information to proceed. In the absense of self-running operation (closed loop) there is a higher standard of proof, and we must meet the requirements for open-sourcing of all data in order to have a viable , replicable free-energy system.
This open-sourcing of all available experimental data (including raw data , spreadsheets, photographs, video, and lab notes) should apply to all potential methods and results. I look forward to the open-sourcing of more experimental details.
Best Wishes,
Feynman
Feynman - I'm trying to get those scope resolutions posted. It takes me forever. Bear with me. And then, indeed, I'll attend to your every comment. It's just so nice to deal with ISSUES related to the test. I assure you you'll have my undivided attention and where possible, co-operation.
Thanks for your inputs. Just so nice to deal with this level of criticism. I'll get back here during the day. But right now I'm plodding through the files to get the right pictures so that you can reference them. I'm absolutely not quite the quickest on the block. I think I'm going to have to bug some of the team to sort this out for me. But I'll first try it myself.
Are you in SA? Can you please email me. I'll see what we can do to download those spreadsheets. They're HUGE. I know I can't sent them by email. I've tried. There must be some alternative. My email address is ainslie@mweb.co.za
Thanks Feynman. LOVE THE NAME. He's the first guy who learned how to explain particle interactions diagrammatically. What a genius.
Kindest regards
Rosemary
Quote from: Rosemary Ainslie on March 20, 2011, 12:55:15 AM
I took time out last night to read PESwiki. There's a thing in there where some guys from NASA are prepared to replicate motors that claim OU results. I sent them the following email.
Dear Michael,
It's not a motor - but we'd be glad of some replication of the attached test - by Ken and/or Mike. Let me know if you need more information.
Regards
From the team
Rosemary Ainslie
Hi Rosie
The only place I can think where he got the motor idea is TK's video.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4x0wQJrc9To (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4x0wQJrc9To)
Congratulations it's been a week since the demonstration and you have virtually 10,000 readers on your thread,that's a lot of people looking every day ;D
looking forward to the video on Monday.
All the very best.
cat
Quote from: markdansie on March 16, 2011, 01:36:00 PM
@evolvinggape
"Erm... no, the replacement of Batteries with Caps is not irrelevant at all. Batteries have a stored potential, Caps have an applied potential. Caps would very quickly show whether your circuit is running down or not and consuming power. 6 car Batteries would hide this extremely well even over lengthy testing periods."
So well put. This has been the failing of many experiments. I have even seen others even fool themselves when using a power supply. That's why many people I know prefer to use caps.
Mark
Quote from: hartiberlin on March 19, 2011, 09:58:51 PM
Yes, but sometimes these things just only work when using lead acid or NiMh batteries
as is the case with pulsed battery boosters like Bedini or Newman or Joule Thief style circuits.
Caps just don´t work here cause they don´t have the right electrons-ions in them...
Regards, Stefan.
Hi Stefan,
A simple substitution of Caps for Batteries will conclusively show whether the anomaly is reliant on the chemical properties of the Battery Cells. We cannot know this until it has been evaluated, we can only assume that Caps will not work. I believe this would be an important simple test to confirm the anomaly is present only in chemical cells.
RM :)
Its great we are talking technology again instead of flame wars .I apologise for any small part I may have played in this , I usually pride myself on not rising to the bait .And thanks Rosemary for acknowledging that I was the first to suggest biasing the gate with a battery . I know that I walk among giants on here ,so its good to know I can make a small contribution .
On a more serious note . Given the bias battery , the whole circuit is mega simple . Maybe we should now look at it as a simple radio frequency oscillator [with special effects] .An oscillator has been defined as an amplifier that feeds its own input .To work , an oscillator needs two things . An amplifying device [the mosfet] and a feedback path .We need to fully understand this feedback path/mechanism in order to make the oscillation controllable and reliable . As Rose suggests , the wiring may play a [huge] part in this . Since most RF oscillators are not overunity ,we need to identify what is different here . I think it may be the use of a power mosfet operating at higher voltages than would normally be used in an oscillator .Also looking at the photo of the latest apparatus in Hartiberlins post ,there appears to be only ONE mosfet . Rosemary , can you please confirm this ? A final thought .When the circuit oscillates at 1.5 Mhz you would hear it on a medium wave AM radio .Also , If I was building a RF oscillator for 1.5 Mhz , the coil would have probably 100 turns on a ferrite rod . MUCH more inducatance than Rosemarys heater .As the circuit stands , I would expect it to oscillate at about 100Mhz plus or minus 50% .
Sorry all - especially Feynman. Those waveform downloads defeated me. One of the team is sorting it out. Hopefully I'll be able to post it across later tonight.
Neptune and Magluvin - there's nothing to apologise for. Personally I'm delighted to see some kind of resistance. I'm intrigued that this technology has been hounded at all. And it seems that the latest affront is that I DARE to suggest any revision to the status quo. Hamburger has gone on record as having coached Bill Gates in their formative years. That was when his nascent genius was rampant. Golly. It seems one may not, under any circumstances, confront classical theory unless there's some evidence of this brilliance. And therein lies the problem. I have none. That's the truth. Very much your Mrs average. So Neptune - if you're walking with Giants then I'm absolutely not in that party. I'm only walking a few steps behind you.
It's a wonder that our quantum physicists ever survived their own attack in those early days. It's some kind of vicarious comfort to know that even Heisenberg was laughed off the stage. And also a comfort to know that he and Bohr had a hard time of it promoting quantum physics in the early days. LOL. Not that I'm in the same class. My own proposals are WAY more revisionary. :o
What really raises the smile is that Poynty has assured me that any reference to being an IDIOT SAVANT - has nothing to do with me. In fact it appears that I'm rather presumptuous in assuming that my IQ could even be classed as IDIOT. Golly. I think the next step down is MORON - if I remember my phychology 1 lectures correctly. It seems that I'm hopelessly dysfunctional as well as delusional. What can I say? And when I see how hopeless I am in finding my way around a computer - then I'm actually inclined to agree.
Anyway - onward and upward. It's all in the public domain. Not sure that the readership is quite as high as Cat's count - but it's robust. Which means the news is spreading. And that's all we care about - at this end of Africa. Many thanks for the good wishes Cat. I'm enjoying a rare sense of freedom from attack - but I'm still braced. It's nowhere near finished yet.
Kindest regards,
Rosie
;D
Way to go Rose.
Bill
Guys - Here it is. Thanks to Evan. Not sure of the order of that upload. I'll comment when I see if they've got up OK. I've added some that aren't in the report.
OK 1st 2nd 3rd and 4th. All showing zero discharge from the battery and wattage dissipated at plus/minus 6 watts. Did a whole lot to show that it's not frequency dependent.
5th and 6th - runaway temps - not less than 44 watts.
Channel 1 - shunt
channel 2 - battery
channel 3 - gate
channel 4 - drain
Math trace usually shown on D.
Just noticed that the math trace on those heavy duty numbers - are shown on B - I think. Just keep in mind that the 'red' is calculated as the instantaneous product of the voltages across the shunt and the battery.
EDITED.
Another edit. Apparently the video will be ready tomorrow. I'll attend to Feynman's questions later tonight - else tomorrow after lunch.
Thanks guys.
Just another question
can you describe the methodology in detail of calculating the heat generated. If I understand correct you use air rather than a fluid
Kind Regards
Mark
Hey Rose
Just something I had discovered a while back and wanted to know if you think on the same lines.
We hear a lot of talk on BEMF or Counter EMF.
Well what I have seen is, if you apply current to an inductor then release the current, you can capture a continued current from the inductor before it goes bemf. I call it FEMF. =]
In a lot of literature, it is said that the field collapse is what creates or generates bemf.
But from my experiments, I find that the collapse, from an induced field, produces current in the same direction as the current that induced the field initially. Only when the field collapses and then goes reverse, NS to SN, by bouncing off of the coils self capacitance, is a reversed voltage produced.
So I see the inductor as a flywheel (opposition to current change) of sorts. Add the self capacitance, and it becomes an off balance flywheel, or a tight springed pendulum.
Take for example a relay where a diode is used across the coil to prevent any self induced voltages from escaping from the coil into other circuitry, as said to eliminate"bemf"
The direction the diode is in, where it doesnt conduct input to the coil, when the current is released, the diode then conducts current that comes from the coil, in the same direction through the coil as the original current sent to the coil from the source. Flywheel. =]
Just wanted your opinion on this, as I think there are many that have a misconception as to the hows and whys of BEMF.
Thanks for your time. :-*
Mags
@ Magluvin. I think you could be right . Look at a diagram of a bipolarNPN transistor with a relay coil connected between its collector and the positive rail . There is only one way round you can connect the diode across the relay coil , and that is with its arrow pointing towards the pos rail . If you connected it the other way it would short out the relay coil preventing it operating . So as you say the "FEMF" from the coil when the transistor switches off , must be in the same direction as the current flow when the transistor is switched on . So in my opinion you are correct .
A fact I have just learned .In the type of mosfet in this cicuit , as long as the gate is biased positive , conventional current can flow in either direction through the drain-source chanel . So when the circuit oscillates , current can flow from the load resitor through the mosfet and back to the load resistor in alternate directions . I had sort of assumed that the path through the mosfet was a one way path .We learn a little each day.
Thanks Neptune ;]
That is a very interesting observation on the fets.
It seems as though many good things are coming out lately. I wonder if Japans situation is helping more to come out, before its all too late.
The bemf thing was a shock to my system 25 yrs after electronics school.
Mags
Quote from: evolvingape on March 20, 2011, 10:13:31 AM
Hi Stefan,
A simple substitution of Caps for Batteries will conclusively show whether the anomaly is reliant on the chemical properties of the Battery Cells. We cannot know this until it has been evaluated, we can only assume that Caps will not work. I believe this would be an important simple test to confirm the anomaly is present only in chemical cells.
RM :)
yes, but I think also the batteries will discharge after some while.
But the important fact is, that only maybe 6 Watts or less are drawn from the battery,
but 40 Watts of heat are produced at the load resistor and due to the backEMF pulses the battery´s
ions are too slow to respond so it holds much longer and gets more capacity
as the backEMF pulses activate deeper lead layers and generate more
battery plate surface inside the battery.
Hitting some NiMh AA batteries with BackEMF pulses I was able to almost
tripple the capacity of my NiMH cells this way.
The same is true for the Bedini charger-energizers...
Regards, Stefan.
Hey Stefan
that is very interesting on the nimh batteries. ;]
I have 3 electric bikes, 1 is a tidalforce m750 which uses 30 D nimh cells in the front wheel hub.
They are ready for change. Do you think I can revive them this way? Or even better yet, get more than 20 mpc miles per charge after treatment?
Sorry to be off topic but this seems to be very important to anyone using these batteries, as they are $18 each, for the good ones. =]
Thanks for the info
Mags
Quote from: Magluvin on March 20, 2011, 07:17:29 PM
Hey Stefan
that is very interesting on the nimh batteries. ;]
I have 3 electric bikes, 1 is a tidalforce m750 which uses 30 D nimh cells in the front wheel hub.
They are ready for change. Do you think I can revive them this way? Or even better yet, get more than 20 mpc miles per charge after treatment?
Sorry to be off topic but this seems to be very important to anyone using these batteries, as they are $18 each, for the good ones. =]
Thanks for the info
Mags
Sure !
Just pulse them via a Joule Thief or use a transformer
coil with a relay for the make-break of the current.
The BackEMF pulses will revive them perfectly and also
put a great charge into them.
But only do this with Lead Acid and NiMH.
This will not work with Lithium batteries
as these are built different and
can NOT be charged like this.
But with NiMH batteries normal dc current chargers are a waste,
cause they always make the batteries after a while unusable.
Using BackEMF charging is a great way to always keep NiMH batteries
fresh and get them more capacity.
Regards, Stefan.
P.S: Yes you will get more than 20 Miles per charge,
if you charge them up with good BackEMF pulses.
YOu only have to watch the batteries, that they don´t get too hot
during charging, otherwise they dry out and this is the only way you can destroy them
this way.
So use BackEMF pulse charging this way, that they don´t get too hot to
hold in your hand, mildly warm is okay, but not too hot.
So reduce your pulse frequency, if they do get too hot or use a smaller coil
which stores less energy or use a different on/off setting ( PWM ratio for the input current
into the coil).
Regards, Stefan.
Thank you Stefan. =]
I have to take the hub apart to do this as there is extensive circuitry in both wheels. I cant even fully drain them either because of this, as nimh do have a memory thing like nicad, just not as bad.
Very good, will try and report as to the outcome. ;]
Mags happy
Magluvin your are welcome.
Yes, take the NiMH batteries out and try to recharge them
with a bigger joule thief style BackEMF charger.
Instead of the LED you can connect your NiMH batteries.
The Voltage Spikes without the batteries should be at least 20 Volts Higher
than when the batteries are connected.
If you connect all NiMH in series to the output, that means, if you have for instance a 36 Volts
NiMH pack you should at least hit them with 60 to 100 Volts positive voltage spikes,
so this gets effective.
Please keep attention to the temperature of the battery pack
and only charge them this way, if you are near them and not let them
charge unattended.
Regards, Stefan.
Okay, back to the topic.
Thanks a lot Rose for posting the higher res scopeshots.
By looking again at the setup at the picture from:
http://www.overunity.com/index.php?topic=10407.msg278553#msg278553
I can now see, why we see now also the ringing at the battery line.
As this scope head, that measures the battery voltage is put directly at the experimentation board
and not directly at the batteries, we have too much inductance of the connection cable
to have a stable battery voltage and this way we also see the oscillation frequency superimposed
on the battery voltage.
The last scope shot is pretty interesting.
WHen the ground line has not changed to the other scopeshots before, then we see here
a rising of the battery voltage inside these pulses due to almost purely negative current pulses
just flowing back to the battery.
ALso what is NOT good is, that all 3 ground lines from the scope heads
are connected to different screws there on the experimentation board.
For better measurements you need to hook them all into one point ONLY !
Also it should be exactly reported how you measured this 6 Watts and 40 Watts heat
from the heater element.
Only electrically by multiplication of Voltage x amperes or
also calorimetrically ? Just measuring the surface temperature in air with
an laser-pointer temperature measurement meter or how did you measure this ?
Regards, Stefan.
P.S. For not having any measurement artifacts from the
scope and function generator grounds, it would be
wise to run a test, where you disconnect all the scope heads
and also the function generator and try to get it to run
via a small battery powered negative bias voltage.
Then you should be able to see again, if you would
get the same heating results.
I had run some different experiments once,
where I had an scope head connected to a cap
and I wondered, why the cap charged up.
This came somehow from a ground current loop and
some rectifier effect inside the scope.
So be carefull if you use grounded scopes.
Never trust these measurements.
Only the real heat at the heater element measured calorimetrically
can be trusted.
Also would be interesting to see, what will happen,
if you use shorter and thicker wires to your batteries.
Will the oscillation effect then disapear and will
the negative currents flowing back to the battery be different ?
Regards, Stefan.
Thanks ;]
One problem is charging them this way when the hub is assembled.
The circuitry involved in the front wheel separates the pack into 3 sectors so the bikes braking recharge (regen) can just work individual sectors, 12v, I believe because the regen is more effective this way, as it switches between sectors while regen due to not enough being generated to do all at the same time. Regen may get ya an extra mile from a full charge, if there are many stops and goes, of which reduces the 20 mpc due to many acceleration periods from stops.
But if I were to just charge this way, say with a secondary pack, would it fully charge fast? Perhaps a temp sense circuit could be instilled to the circuit for heat control, as they have I believe 4 in the wheel already for regular charging.
These bikes are sweet, and they were made in the beginning for troops in Afghanistan. Folding frame, dual batt packs, and 30mph on M750X models. They stopped making them some years ago, but a new company restarted production, but not sure if the same for sure.
Ill keep it short here. Ill pm you for more info, and thanks for the great info.
Mags
Hi Feynman, I've got an hour before I need to go out. I'll see how much of this I can cover.
Quote from: Feynman on March 20, 2011, 04:05:00 AM
The possibility that the heating element is being powered exclusively by the battery needs to be excluded. Measuring the input energy via the four scope traces will establish some degree of confidence in this, so I look forward to a higher resolution of the scope traces to calculate AUC.
I've given some. There are many more that I'd love to show. I'm not sure that scopeshots are conclusive. But they help.
Quote from: Feynman on March 20, 2011, 04:05:00 AMThese spreadsheets are important. In the interest of replication and characterization of what you are observing, it would be helpful if all the relavent source data (including raw spreadsheet data) were to be published. The process of 'peer review' in an open-source community manner requires full disclosure, including source spreadsheets of observations.
This much is tricky. I know there's a way of downloading those dumps on the internet. But I'm not sure how. Whatever's required - I'll need to ask someone to do this for me. I'll see what I can do. Meanwhile - nor can I email them. The files are just way too big. Again. There must be a way around this. Just let me know.
Quote from: Feynman on March 20, 2011, 04:05:00 AMThe claim of the battery recharging needs to have the support of experimental observations, results of repeated trials, raw data etc. Spreadsheets, experimental notes, and/or Video would help.
It is clearly evident during the test operation that the batteries either wobble around a fixed value - or they drop (when we're doing a very high current discharge) and then they steadily climb. This could be video'd but right now the experiment is not even set up. I have everything at home. I could attend to this. But not for a while yet, for many reasons.
Quote from: Feynman on March 20, 2011, 04:05:00 AMI remember you have mentioned you don't want to bother with battery tests and load tests etc. I understand this can be time-consuming , but this part is critical. The batteries are still connected. They are a possible source of the power to the heating element. They must be excluded as the power source in order to confirm an anomaly.
Indeed. We are only going by the measurements and have done no analysis of the charge condition of those batteries.
Quote from: Feynman on March 20, 2011, 04:05:00 AMThe voltage data of the battery and the temperature of the heating element over repeated experimental trials that forms the basis in claim 4.4 need to be published if this effect is to be analyzed and/or replicated. This includes not just a single scope trace, but multiple experimental trials and results (starting voltage, voltage as a function of time, and ending voltage for all anomalous experimental trials) as compared to the behaviour of the heating element.
Indeed. We have enough experimental evidence to fill a tome. That was not the object of the report nor the demo. Both were only to highlight anomalies to encourage academic research.
Quote from: Feynman on March 20, 2011, 04:05:00 AMFor example, as mentioned previously, someone pointed out that there is a chart for the 'control' results, but there is no such chart for the 'experimental/anomalous' results (besides scope traces which are too low a resolution). A chart measuring input voltage, input current, ambient air temp, and temp at load needs to be published for 'anomalous' operation.
Not sure of your point here. The control chart was published. Our results were determined against ambient room temperature and that control. All were referenced accordingly. If you specifically require a record of the room temperature and the measured temperature on the resistor - then I'll be glad to add this.
Quote from: Feynman on March 20, 2011, 04:05:00 AMFurther photographs and/or video of the setup would be helpful.
Definitely en route. Hopefully tonight - if my own limited abilities allow this. Else not later than tomorrow. Today is a public holiday and some of the team can't access the internet except through work.
I think that covers the questions. Feynman, on a personal note - I'm very well aware of your exceptional experimental abilities. This is all the more evident as MileHigh seems to need to denigrade them. There could be no greater endorsement. And we all know his partialities. He like the most of OUR.com are frantic to disprove this. If you were to set up your own apparatus - then that would be a very good thing. But if you choose not to then I can fully understand that as well. The claim is outrageous. If it's proved on a replication then you - like me - will be confronting mainstream interests and thinking. It's not a happy place to be. Personally I would suggest that this tedious process of debugging the evidence is probably a better way to go. And I am satisfied that your skills here are more than adequate. So. Ask me what aspects of the tests you need to look at and I'll try and present the evidence. I don't think I need to extrapolate more evidence. But if that's required will do so. Just also know that my time is now more heavily constrained. I have much to do at this end to ensure that these results are better known.
Kindest regards,
Rosemary
@Magluvin .Re BEMF and forward EMF .The more I think about what you said , the more I am convinced you are right .An inductor has the attitude that what was good enough for father is good enough for me . Unlike President Obama , it does not like change .If you try to pass current into it , it resists it as long as it can , causing a slow rise time . Likewise if you try to stop passing current through it , it will try to maintain that current as long as it can by creating a voltage to keep pushing current in the same old direction .
How did you discover this for yourself? Was it on an oscilloscope ? What I cannot understand is this . Look at the scope shots of Rosemary , and replicators . Look at the point where the pulse ends , and the "magic" oscillation starts . What we see is a big , fat NEGATIVE spike .[OK I lied about the fat bit } Surely we should expect to see a POSITVE spike here ? We need more opinions here from people who went to college less than 50 years ago , unlike me >
hey Neptune
It does fool ya huh? lol Well, in this case, the inductor has no choice but to go bemf when 1 leg is disconnected, either one. But set up some diodes to capture from the coil to a cap, diode in a direction as we intend to get femf, and you will believe 100%. And it also works in the falstad.com circuit sim.
But when 1 leg is disconnected as in Roses circuit, the collapse has only its own very tiny capacitance to reference, and will bemf back through the fets diode. If the coil were to be fully disconnected at both ends as to not allow the energy to leave the coil, it will oscillate at very high freq considering the inductance o the coil and its very tiny capacitance. Most likely for a very short time, but many oscillations.
have to get to work, been up all night with my orbon and its looking gooood. ;[
Hope that makes sense, and I think that everyone should realize these things, because I believe not too many know of this.
I havnt heard from Rose on this yet. :-* But maybe she is checking it out first also before commenting. ;)
I didnt bring this up to down her or anyone, I was just cuirous if she knew this because it may make a difference in her experiments if this element is clearly understood. hopefully for the better. ;D
I think Rose is good people. =] Her Gollys get me to crack a smile. =]
Mags
one more ting. yes ting. =]
ya might tink, yes tink, that if you disconnect the leg on the side that current is flowing to, that we would get a spark from the continued current flow, but we do, just not in that direction, it sucks in from the disconnect after the self capacitance bounce. Now when we diode capture the colapse does not get a chance to bounce and is just forwarded to the receiving cap via flywheel effect. But when the receiving cap gets full, back to bemf we go, cuz the receiving cap wont accept it any longer. So the cap needs to be loaded or forwarded somewhere to avoid this situation.
I had gone over this some months ago on the Energy Amplification thread but not everyone reads that. i should thread it. ;]
ok Im tired and have to get to work. Be back later.
Mags
Quote from: hartiberlin on March 20, 2011, 07:03:24 PM
yes, but I think also the batteries will discharge after some while.
But the important fact is, that only maybe 6 Watts or less are drawn from the battery,
but 40 Watts of heat are produced at the load resistor and due to the backEMF pulses the batteries
ions are too slow to respond so it holds much longer and gets more capacity
as the backEMF pulses activate deeper lead layers and generate more
battery plate surface inside the battery.
Hitting some NiMh AA batteries with BackEMF pulses I was able to almost
tripple the capacity of my NiMH cells this way.
The same is true for the Bedini charger-energizers...
Regards, Stefan.
Hi Stefan,
Yes I understand your point. My previous experience with these types of cells was with industrial cleaning machines and the batteries were always failing within 6 months, often less, depending on how they were used.
Some of the most important information was gleaned from the operator themselves, details on charging cycles, run times, and usage etc. This was often no easy task as the operators rarely spoke decent English!
So the ability of the battery to both store and deliver its energy is highly dependant on how it is used.
In Rosemary's experiments the batteries have a very low load over a relatively short time. When we combine this with the BEMF pulsing, the batteries are effectively being desulfated and regenerated during use. Now this is an interesting application in itself. Normally the desulfation and regeneration are achieved during recharging, when the battery cannot be used.
So with this in mind, it is reasonable to expect with the low load and regeneration occurring that the batteries are going to perform at the same level for very long lengths of time, certainly longer than Rosemary has ever tested for. This would in effect maintain the battery Voltage at the same value as before the tests, for the duration of the tests. But I still see no evidence that more energy is being returned to the battery than is being consumed.
Here are some sites that are selling the PWM regen technology and provide some basic information on it:
http://www.batterylife.co.nz/about-batteries.cfm
http://www.batterylife.co.nz/macbat-battery-regeneration-benefits.cfm
http://www.duoregen.com/
http://www.batteryforlife.com/
http://www.batterylifeplus.com/DUO-REGEN/index.html
There are many more out there if you do some Scroogle searching, and all work in a similar pulsed method, with or without chemical additives to assist the process.
We also need to clarify the issue of how the heat is being measured at the load resistor. Rosemary has already stated her team needs a mathematician, which leads me to believe she does not trust her own math, in which case, neither do I, especially in the absence of raw data to double check the calculations.
Your point about the ringing being caused by separate grounding points is also relevant and needs double checking by retesting and result comparison.
So at this point I must conclude that there are interesting effects occurring in this circuit that require further investigation, but in light of the issues raised so far, the conclusions are invalid. It would be beneficial to move forward by redesigning the experiment completely from the ground up to address the noted problems and perform all the tests again via the scientific method.
I would expect different results to the ones previously achieved, however since Rosemary has already made her claims based on the conclusions drawn from analysis of previous results I expect she will be reluctant to redesign the experiment and do it again, properly.
Time will tell.
RM :)
Hi Neptune and Mac - I was hoping to avoid answering you guys because I have no idea what FEMF is. But don't let that stop you. It's never a bad thing to ask a few questions. I still depend on those inductive laws for the explanation. But I'm in a really small minority.
Kindest regards,
Rosie
Quote from: hartiberlin on March 20, 2011, 07:49:51 PM
By looking again at the setup at the picture from:
http://www.overunity.com/index.php?topic=10407.msg278553#msg278553
I can now see, why we see now also the ringing at the battery line. As this scope head, that measures the battery voltage is put directly at the experimentation board and not directly at the batteries, we have too much inductance of the connection cable to have a stable battery voltage and this way we also see the oscillation frequency superimposed on the battery voltage.
If it's superimposed then it's also responsible for a hefty current flow. We see the same voltage at the drain which means that it's going through the battery - in one or other direction - at each cycle.
Quote from: hartiberlin on March 20, 2011, 07:49:51 PMThe last scope shot is pretty interesting. WHen the ground line has not changed to the other scopeshots before, then we see here a rising of the battery voltage inside these pulses due to almost purely negative current pulses just flowing back to the battery.
Exactly my point.
Quote from: hartiberlin on March 20, 2011, 07:49:51 PMALso what is NOT good is, that all 3 ground lines from the scope heads are connected to different screws there on the experimentation board. For better measurements you need to hook them all into one point ONLY !
LOL. You're the only one who noticed. We address this in the video with full visual reference. We ran a copper plate at the base of those plugs. It was the only way we could get all those scope probes at consistent ground reference.
Quote from: hartiberlin on March 20, 2011, 07:49:51 PMAlso it should be exactly reported how you measured this 6 Watts and 40 Watts heat from the heater element. Only electrically by multiplication of Voltage x amperes or also calorimetrically ? Just measuring the surface temperature in air with an laser-pointer temperature measurement meter or how did you measure this ?
Fully explained in the report. I'll post that link again.
Regards,
Rosemary
http://newlightondarkenergy.blogspot.com/2011/03/report.html
Hi Rosemary , I am not surprised that you do not know what FEMF is because it is an expression made up by myself and Magluvin ! It stands for Forward Electromotive Force as opposed to Back EMF . Basically we are arguing that BEMF initially moved forwards ! see posts184 and185 when you get time . It might just be one of the keys to this phenomenon .
Quote from: neptune on March 21, 2011, 11:18:31 AM
Hi Rosemary , I am not surprised that you do not know what FEMF is because it is an expression made up by myself and Magluvin ! It stands for Forward Electromotive Force as opposed to Back EMF . Basically we are arguing that BEMF initially moved forwards ! see posts184 and185 when you get time . It might just be one of the keys to this phenomenon .
Hi Neptune. I did read your posts. Just couldn't get my head around it. I'm a plodder Neptune. It takes me forever to understand how other people see things. But I'll give it another go.
Meanwhile - I think we've got nothing more than inductive laws doing what inductive laws do best. Here are some of my own questions.
* How is it that the circuit does not 'SWITCH OFF' when that gate bridge is opened?
* If capacitance is also residual charge and this is being somehow delivered by the MOSFETs - then is it reasonable to expect that this capacitance can result in an excess of 60 amps flowing in either direction?
* If this 'spurious' oscillation (as it's termed by Hamburger et al) is, in fact, that well known - then why is it also not more widely applied? It's clearly rather exploitable.
That's a start - anyway.
Kindest regards,
Rosie
:)
Harti - this is for you - to show you the voltage at the drain.
Kindest regards,
Rosie
Channel 1 - shunt
Channel 2 - battery
Channel 3 - gate
Channel 4 - drain
Quote from: evolvingape on March 21, 2011, 10:31:56 AM
So the ability of the battery to both store and deliver its energy is highly dependant on how it is used.
In Rosemary's experiments the batteries have a very low load over a relatively short time. When we combine this with the BEMF pulsing, the batteries are effectively being desulfated and regenerated during use. Now this is an interesting application in itself. Normally the desulfation and regeneration are achieved during recharging, when the battery cannot be used.
So with this in mind, it is reasonable to expect with the low load and regeneration occurring that the batteries are going to perform at the same level for very long lengths of time, certainly longer than Rosemary has ever tested for. This would in effect maintain the battery Voltage at the same value as before the tests, for the duration of the tests. But I still see no evidence that more energy is being returned to the battery than is being consumed.
Battery capacity is as exact as "best before" statements.
Depending on how you charge them - you get a charging efficiency of 60% and more.
Depending on how you discharge them you get a broad efficiency range.
An oscilloscope - even a good one - can measure lots of things. If it comes to measure energy - things get complicated.
Last month I build a data logger which is driven by a CR2032 3V Lithium cell. The controller needs 600nA for operation - with a 10uA spike for a fraction of a millisecond.
I downloaded the datasheets from all CR2032 mfgrs.
Somehow they guarantee certain nominal energy for some permanent dc discharge.
My scope gives me a figure of the the integrated energy spike consumed -
But there is no nominal energy rated for that purpose.......
Hi Rosemary , you asked 3 questions , not specifically of me , but these would be my attempts at answers
1 I assume you mean why is there a path for conventional current between drain and source when the gate is at zero or negative voltage with respect to ground . I am not sure .A couple of things that may or may not be relevant , When fet is switched ON there is a TWO WAY path between drain and source . also do not forget the zener diode .
2 Short answer is no . there must be another energy source .
3 Because to most people , designing circuits is just a job . Grandad said that parasitic oscillations are a nuisance to be AVOIDED at all costs ,and power was cheap back then .If Grandad did not do it , it cant be done .Or so we are told.
5 hope for some other answers.
Hi Rose and Neptune
I found this femf as I logically called it when trying to describe it while working with Teslas Igniter for gas engines pat.
He used a large inductance inductor to pump a high voltage into a cap for discharge into a low ohm primary of a hv step up transformer.
When testing in the falstad sim, after making many value changes in the circuit, when the sim was slowed down in time, I noticed that the large inductor just wanted to keep on keepin on, pushing current forward. At first I was in disbelief, but then I had to try real world tests of this, what I now call a flywheel effect, and it exists.
An easy circuit example would be to build a circuit consisting of...
battery or supply (works either way)
diode
inductor
capacitor
switch
with the switch open, connect all in series from the neg of the battery to the pos, any order is fine but the diode needs to be in a direction that it will conduct when the switch is closed, cathode or say arrow pointing to batt neg.
Now close the switch then open. The cap should be loaded with a voltage about 2 times the batt voltage. Yup. ;] Other configs where more current can flow through the coil will produce high voltages just like bemf does, and Ill describe that elsewhere.
imagine just charging a cap from just the batt. Bat is 12v, cap will be 12v also. But add the diode and inductor and when the switch is closed, you might think that the cap would stop taking charge once it is equal to the batt voltage, but it doesnt. The inductor wants to keep on flywheeling current into the cap beyond equality of the battery voltage. Thus law of inductance is maintained, "opposition to changes in current flow" Flyyyy wheel inertia as tesla put it ;]
But how have most of us missed that? I cannot be the only one that knows this. Tesla knew it, as this was his use of the large inductance in his igniter pat.
All these years I knew that field collapse created bemf, or better said reverse emf. Reverse of what was going through the inductor when energized. not true. Only if one leg of the inductor is disconnected causing a discontinuation of current flow from source through the inductor, then when the inductor tries to keep going forward during field collapse, but it has no where to go, or take current from, depending which side of the inductor is disconnected. But it does see the capacitance instilled within the inductor and bounces off of that and current reverses once the field completely collapses and the field goes opposite polarity of what was originally induced by input.
Now I know better. Ive used diodes on relay coils in car audio systems to get rid of the loud pops in the speakers when the relays( used for many things in car audio) were de energized and bemf(bout 90v) interfered with the audio signal in the system.
But never took a real gander as to what really caused bemf, I just wanted the pops to stop, as prescribed in tech school. ;]
ok Ill put this somewhere else. ;] Back to regular programming =]
Mags laws ;]
Hi again Mags. I think I'm getting there. Thanks to your patience in explaining it again. Ok. Assume that the diode is placed directly on the negative terminal. The switch is closed. Current conducts clockwise through the circuit. The switch then opens. The current can now conduct anticlockwise because the diode is biased to allow that 'negative' flow. In effect the diode ensures that both paths of current can be allowed.
That would explain how the cap gets a double dose. Now put that diode - still biased that the arrow points to the neg of the battery. But put the diode on the drain before the MOSFET/s. It still allows a return path of that current.
As I see it - provided only that one accepts the concept of clockwise and anticlockwise current flow - then that diode will allow passage from any current that results from a negative spike or negative voltage. Am I missing something? Does classical allow for these two directional flows? Frankly I'm not sure if this is mainstream thinking or not. In any event - my own concepts rather depend on it.
Let me know. I'm now really interested.
Kindest regards, and thanks for getting me to look at this.
Rosie
:)
Guys - I've just read through Hamburger's long awaited debunk courtesy a simulated number. He's his own best critic. Here's a sample. 'I love to pierce it incisively until they are naked, if not bleeding.' Golly. From where I sit I'm still unscathed and fully dressed. He needs to revisit some of his claims. One proposal is that the MOSFET is fully turned on at some stages to allow for the - as he puts it - stellar - or was that solar? - increase in output. This would mean that our little embedded Zener would have to take the full value of 60 amps, during the 'off' time and the transistor itself - something marginally less than 60 amps, during the 'on' time. Pretty robust for something that's rated at plus/minus 6 amps.
But that aside - of interest is this obsessive need to disprove this. I think that what he finds most objectionable is that I am a self-confessed clutz who has no right to advance anything at all. He's right of course. But it's precisely because I am THAT mediocre that I have every confidence that this technology and these concepts can, eventually, be understood. I rather rely on this fact. Here's the thinking. If I can get my head around them - then anyone can. It clearly does not require brilliance. Just a little bit of common sense. And I'm the FIRST to admit that we've shown nothing new. It seems that the simulators do exactly what we show. The difference again is only in this. Humbugger dare not show the actual values applied to the sundry components. He tells us that he tweaks them. And, self- evidently, he tweaks them to favour under unity. Which is hardly surprising given that he seems to base his sense of self-worth - on an effective argument to deny all. And he DARE not show the phase relationships between the shunt and the batteries - this because they'll cancel out and dribble to death in no time at all. He then shows what he calls 'rosiewatts' and - far from being rosy - they're rather sick. And they seem to cost way, way too much. One thing that springs to mind is that he justifies increasing the measured inductance at the shunt from 110nH to 110 nH x 4. By rights this should divided - as that's the TOTAL that is measured. And so it goes. An adjustment here - a oversight there - a variation everywhere. What's new.
I'm only writing all this in the forlorn hopes that he'll one day try and do an actual pure simulation. That would be interesting.
Kindest regards,
Rosemary
And Stefan - with apologies for consecutive posts and for referencing my own work. I wonder if I could impose on you to read the attached link. I absolutely refute that electrons are responsible for current flow. I may well be proved wrong. But I'm not sure that this has ever actually been proved at all.
Kindest regards,
Rosemary
http://newlightondarkenergy.blogspot.com/2010/11/more-on-inconvenient-truths.html
Which was followed by something considerably less critical
http://newlightondarkenergy.blogspot.com/2010/11/belated-tribute-to-our-scientists.html
Quote from: evolvingape on March 21, 2011, 06:51:56 PM
Exactly what was post #197 supposed to accomplish ?
There is no place for such talk in honest scientific discussion.
I am now going to do what my instinct has been telling me to do for a while now, devote my time to more worthy pursuits, and honest exploration of the possibilities.
Goodbye Rosemary, it has not at all been a pleasure.
Evolvingape - are you proposing that I may not challenge counterclaims? The more so when they're based on simulations? If Humbugger wants to simulate this setup then that simulation should exactly reflect the components and the results should then be shown. We're looking at something that has been tweaked to death to satisfy an agenda. Which is a shame. Because our own efforts at simulating this is shown in the report. I would love to see an actual simulation which triggers a continuing oscillation. We could not get this. If it's there then show it. I can't even see what angle the waveforms are - one to another. They're all referenced separately.
Rosemary
And I might add that my right to defend it is because he advises us all that he's finally disproved this. And that advice is here - on this forum. If he has disproved it then he needs to give us that evidence.
Quote from: Rosemary Ainslie on March 20, 2011, 03:45:31 AM
Guys a quick word here. I challenge anyone to do a simulation where the phase angles are at precisely 180 degrees. If they are not precise then, as day follows night - they'll ring and cancel out at zero. At 180 degrees they'll reinforce each other.
Kindest as ever,
Rosemary
Is this getting close Rose?
As soon as I entered the load resistance and inductance values on Donovan's schematic, my previous simulation burst into oscillation, when previously, it was not so evident. The 180º phase is there, but the wave shape is not "tuned" exactly.
I am sure that with some adjustments to the component values, or adding in a few more "parasitic" wiring inductances as Humbugger used, I may be able to do better, if this isn't already close enough that is. ;)
.99
Poynty - everything is falling off the page. But from what I see , all is correct except that the shunt voltage should default to zero.
Well done. And what a pleasure to see it. Now. How do you factor in that zero default? Can your system do this?
Also - when the system goes into higher wattages - can you do the same there? Or is that what you're showing? Because at higher wattage outputs there's some serious spiking.
Well done Poynty.
Regards,
Rosemary
Not sure what you mean by "default to zero".
What part specifically is not correct yet?
.99
Check out our shunt waveforms. During the 'on' time - there's zero voltage across the shunts - zero
discharge from the battery. It only STARTS oscillating when the negative trigger kicks in. Mags has
an explanation for this.
Regards,
Rosemary
If you look closely, you can see that Vshunt is ringing down to zero.
I didn't say it was perfect. :P
OK, I see what you mean now....zero volts. I'll play with it and see what I can do.
.99
Quote from: Rosemary Ainslie on March 21, 2011, 06:00:18 PM
Guys - I've just read through Hamburger's long awaited debunk courtesy a simulated number. He's his own best critic. Here's a sample. 'I love to pierce it incisively until they are naked, if not bleeding.' Golly. From where I sit I'm still unscathed and fully dressed. He needs to revisit some of his claims. One proposal is that the MOSFET is fully turned on at some stages to allow for the - as he puts it - stellar - or was that solar? - increase in output. This would mean that our little embedded Zener would have to take the full value of 60 amps, during the 'off' time and the transistor itself - something marginally less than 60 amps, during the 'on' time. Pretty robust for something that's rated at plus/minus 6 amps.
But that aside - of interest is this obsessive need to disprove this. I think that what he finds most objectionable is that I am a self-confessed clutz who has no right to advance anything at all. He's right of course. But it's precisely because I am THAT mediocre that I have every confidence that this technology and these concepts can, eventually, be understood. I rather rely on this fact. Here's the thinking. If I can get my head around them - then anyone can. It clearly does not require brilliance. Just a little bit of common sense. And I'm the FIRST to admit that we've shown nothing new. It seems that the simulators do exactly what we show. The difference again is only in this. Humbugger dare not show the actual values applied to the sundry components. He tells us that he tweaks them. And, self- evidently, he tweaks them to favour under unity. Which is hardly surprising given that he seems to base his sense of self-worth - on an effective argument to deny all. And he DARE not show the phase relationships between the shunt and the batteries - this because they'll cancel out and dribble to death in no time at all. He then shows what he calls 'rosiewatts' and - far from being rosy - they're rather sick. And they seem to cost way, way too much. One thing that springs to mind is that he justifies increasing the measured inductance at the shunt from 110nH to 110 nH x 4. By rights this should divided - as that's the TOTAL that is measured. And so it goes. An adjustment here - a oversight there - a variation everywhere. What's new.
I'm only writing all this in the forlorn hopes that he'll one day try and do an actual pure simulation. That would be interesting.
Kindest regards,
Rosemary
I also had a look at his simulations.
His shunt voltages never looked like the voltages Rosemary showed here on her scopeshots.
So he might have tuned his simulation for underunity.
Especially this scopeshots:
http://www.overunity.com/index.php?action=dlattach;topic=10407.0;attach=51615
shows, that the orange colored input current at the shunt is almost everytime
negative.
Humbuger did not have this in his sim.
Rose, please post more zommed in scopehots of this scopeshot, by just showing
3 or 4 wavecycles and not the full burst please.
Thanks.
As I said, if we have a new effect here it can no be simulated by simulation software just
based on standard theory.
Maybe the nichrome wire in the heater element or the spiral shape
of the heater element also plays a role here. This could not be seen in any simulation
software...
Regards, Stefan.
Hi Poynt,
please try again your simulation with this setup please
and show burst waveforms (many cycles) and 3 to 4 cycles
on one scopeshot.
Many thanks.
Hey Rose
Here is the circuit we last talked about that proves my point of the inductor being a flywheel of the electronics world.
In this test, we close the switch until the cap is full and current stops flowing. Then you can leave it closed or open it, at this point the cap is charged and now we can reason my theory by comparing the cap voltage vs source.
When we hold the switch down, current will flow clockwise and represents electron flow, negative to positive.
We know that if this circuit, without the inductor and diode, if we close the switch, the cap would charge to the level of the source and equal the source when all settles.
But with the inductor and diode in as shown, close the switch and we have our clockwise flow till the cap is full. when you measure the cap, it will be approximately 2 times the source. The reason for the diode is to stop the higher voltage stored in the cap from reversing, from its great height achieved, and trying to equal out with the source.
Now if the diode was eliminated, the circuit would oscillate till it dies.
Now if you understand that, you can get the feel for how higher voltages can be had with inductors. ;]
This is not a reflection of your circuit or where we get the very high voltages from inductors can produce in circuits, it just femf 101. ;]
Just to get the feel of the flyweeling( an object set in motion tends to stay in motion ) effect I speak of, and Teslas term inertia of inductors of all sorts, wires, capacitor plates, inductance everywhere, oh my! ;]
This gives us the basis for femf and shows continued forward motion of current that is strong enough to pull more from the battery and drive it into the cap beyond what the source would normally instill into the cap without the inductors actions described.
In your circuit, you are making and breaking the flow of current delivered through the circuit due to source potential drive, emf.
Bemf, or reverse emf happens because of the break. The inductor is winding down during collapse, still wanting to push current forward. But now it has no place to get fresh electrons due to broken circuit. And all the inductor can see, electrically, other than its inertial self is its self capacitance, which is usually very small and it becomes a self contained oscillator. And the first time it reverses current flow, it will now have the mosfet diode as a way to go past the break(transistor off) and current flows in the circuit in the reverse direction, Bemf. =]
Thats what me finds. =]
Now just the fact that we now know how bemf is really produced, and it is NOT produced while the field initially is collapsing, but only after the field goes reversal during the cycle of oscillation, there is a small time period there where something is happening that we never knew about nor heard of and we just assume what they told us that when the field is collapsing, current is reverse during this time, but its not.
Why would this be an issue, as to not teach us this as I have described. What is there to hide? I dont know anyone that knew these things that I present other than the ones I have told. Im sure some already knew, just not most. Im not the only one to discover this I canst believe. yes canst. ;]
So if its twisted info, there must be a sweet reason for it, sweet for us. Just what is it? ;]
I see you have had some flack today. But you handled it very well. ;]
Thats how you win, keep cool and they will just burn themselves up.
I looked over at our and those guys are on a mission. I joined there but I find it not my style soon after. I like it here.
Hope this makes it clearer for you. Its good to know EXACTLY what we are working with. ;]
Night. I have been up since yesterday and Im going to drop. zzzz
Magzzzz
Here, LO frikin L, I have found a perfect example of where I smell a problem with all this. I was about to get to sleep and I was thinking, I wonder if anyone else is trying to explain this the wrong way somewhere.
I went to yahoo and searched, field collapse bemf, and looky, perfecto examplo. =]
Read this guys post and some of the reactions to it. Is this what everyone thinks? test your friends, see if im right at least most of the time, if not all.
Some may think whats the big deal. well it is if we dont have an accurate knowledge of a device we are dealing with in a design. Or maybe there are benefits not known yet.
http://www.overunity.com/index.php?topic=9875.msg261143#msg261143
Now from the description that I have given, which way would you follow? That forward emf that happens during collapse, is a very short period of time, as its working against a small capacitance when circuit is broken, and when the field collapses past neutral phase, it is now reversing poles and the field is on the rise, not collapse when the reverse emf is being produced. So things happen sooo fast, the femf bounce off of the self capacitance may not be visible, to the naked scope. ;] Only seeing the spike.
One more example then me collapse. A good one.
If we have 2 coils face to face and we drive one with a sine wave and the other we watch on a scope, as the driver coil field rises, the voltage in the receiver rises. But as the driver field starts collapsing during ac cycle, does the output coils voltage just instantly go reverse while collapse is happening? Nope, nice comparable sine wave.
Lol Im so tired, I almost started doubting all this at certain times while writing tonight, delusional lol , and the I bounce back and know this is truth.
There is a great compression during the bounce and thats why we get very high voltages with breaks in the circuit. my demo circuit, where the inductor only gets as much energy through it as the capacitor will allow through the circuit in one direction. So the inductor is limited as compared to direct drive current as when your circuit is on, thus only 2 times the input voltage.
Is I Is? Or Is I Isnts? ;]
Funny aint it?
Night
Mags
Quote from: hartiberlin on March 22, 2011, 12:00:30 AM
Rose, please post more zommed in scopehots of this scopeshot, by just showing 3 or 4 wavecycles and not the full burst please. Thanks.
As I said, if we have a new effect here it can no be simulated by simulation software just based on standard theory.
Maybe the nichrome wire in the heater element or the spiral shape of the heater element also plays a role here. This could not be seen in any simulation soft
I don't have another one of this Steve. But I'll check what else I've got that approximates this. I've got a library of samples to choose from. I'll get back here this pm.
Re the nichrome - the shape - the whole bit - it all needs to be thoroughly explored. Of interest is that it holds the same - in fact, IMPROVED benefits, with a very large reduction to the inductance. Seems that this is not required at the levels that I anticipated. But there's way more material now that there's that casing involved.
Kind regards,
Rosemary
BTW - Mags - your posts are tricky - and I need to get my head around them. I'll give it a go later today. Thanks for all that input. LOL. I see it kept you awake. Join the club. Insomniacs incorporated.
Guys, finally the video. Apologies for the delays.
Kindest as ever,
Rosie
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fyOmoGluMCc (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fyOmoGluMCc)
Rose:
Great video. Very well done.
Bill
Quote from: Pirate88179 on March 22, 2011, 08:58:20 AM
Rose:
Great video. Very well done.
Bill
Thanks Bill. I'll pass your comments on. It had nothing to do with me. The team rallied with this. I agree. It looks good.
Kindest as ever,
Rosie
Nice video. Apologies if this has been answered already but why was it necessary to use such 'beefy' batteries, those things are huge!
Quote from: Sprocket on March 22, 2011, 10:02:28 AM
Nice video. Apologies if this has been answered already but why was it necessary to use such 'beefy' batteries, those things are huge!
Indeed. They were donated Sprocket. We were very glad of the donation. But they are huge. Surprisingly there's no wattage rating detailed. Rather remiss. We've still have to get that established.
Rosemary
Quote from: Rosemary Ainslie on March 22, 2011, 10:32:11 AM
Indeed. They were donated Sprocket. We were very glad of the donation. But they are huge. Surprisingly there's no wattage rating detailed. Rather remiss. We've still have to get that established.
Rosemary
It would have been nice to see the same charging-effect with much smaller batteries. I had a stab at this when you were posting on EF but couldn't find anything out of the ordinary. I managed to blow a few mosfets but still have a few unused ones still, might have another go. I also have loads of Nokia 3.6v NiMH cell-phone batteries, 20-30 of these in series would match your setup, volts-wise anyway. The 5-in-parallel thing is interesting - does this enhance the effect a lot, 5-fold perhaps?
Quote from: Sprocket on March 22, 2011, 12:25:57 PM
It would have been nice to see the same charging-effect with much smaller batteries. I had a stab at this when you were posting on EF but couldn't find anything out of the ordinary. I managed to blow a few mosfets but still have a few unused ones still, might have another go. I also have loads of Nokia 3.6v NiMH cell-phone batteries, 20-30 of these in series would match your setup, volts-wise anyway. The 5-in-parallel thing is interesting - does this enhance the effect a lot, 5-fold perhaps?
Hi again Sprocket. It would be good to see your results here. Everyone's interested in exploring which batteries and what exactly they contribute. The difference with this and previous tests is only in that negative triggered oscillation. That's the parasitic oscillation that's normally thrown away. What we see is that this allows for a hefty current flow and my own take is that - in parallel - they can manage the current potential that one MOSFET by itself - just doesn't. But there are other things that are strange. I'll try and get around to this later on tonight.
Not sure why your previous didn't work. That early test is actually very easily replicated. But it probably needs the help of a high level scope - just to tease out the right tuning. Not the easiest. And one needs to know what to look for. Again. For me this side of the exercise is relatively easy. I have never been hampered by conventional expectations. LOL. I think there may be some advantages to not having a classical training. Perhaps. Anyway. Good luck with your efforts. I'm sure we'd all like to hear what happens - good or bad. It's all likely to add to the general pool of knowledge. Never a bad thing.
Kindest regards,
Rosemary
I found this video to be clear and informative . Vital info is here for the taking .As I long suspected , the input signal on the mosfet gate toggles between about 5 volts positive and 4 volts negative . This is not a wave form you are going to get with the published 555 timer circuit as it stands . There are people reading here who could overcome this problem of voltage offset . Of course on the video it is overcome using a function generator to do the job . Rosemary , a sudden thought . If it is the Zener diodes that form the path for oscillation , why not just add additional zeners across the drain and source terminals of the fets , in parallel with the internal diodes , and see if the effect is enhanced ? Choose the diodes to have a breakdown voltage just higher than the highest battery voltage .
Quote from: neptune on March 22, 2011, 03:07:38 PM
I found this video to be clear and informative . Vital info is here for the taking .As I long suspected , the input signal on the mosfet gate toggles between about 5 volts positive and 4 volts negative . This is not a wave form you are going to get with the published 555 timer circuit as it stands . There are people reading here who could overcome this problem of voltage offset . Of course on the video it is overcome using a function generator to do the job . Rosemary , a sudden thought . If it is the Zener diodes that form the path for oscillation , why not just add additional zeners across the drain and source terminals of the fets , in parallel with the internal diodes , and see if the effect is enhanced ? Choose the diodes to have a breakdown voltage just higher than the highest battery voltage .
Hello Neptune. We've used diodes across the switch - often. It works. But I've never seen anything work like this does. If we need more current drawn then it's possibly for that 'booster' mode. Then - I'm quite simply more anxious to hold back the potential than otherwise. It's already spiking at values that are almost too big for our DSO's.
Kindest regards
Rosemary
Hi Rosemary . Could you please clarify two points from the video . Is the heating element in the canister immersed in water , or just air . Also , the 5 mosfets are mounted on separate heatsinks . Are these heatsinks electrically isolated /insulated from each other? From the experimenters point of view , does the higher efficiency of the present element justify its additional complexity and expense when compared to a simple wire wound element on a ceramic core?
Rosemary,
At 8:40 into the video, while your colleague is demonstrating 190C on the load with a 50VDC battery voltage, there is a good closeup of the LeCroy which shows that there is +243mV (about 1 Ampere on a 0.25 Ohm shunt) flowing out of the battery.
Could you please explain to everyone why the scope math that is showing us the product of the +243 mV trace and the +50.3 VDC battery voltage is telling us that the product is -5.43 VV? How does the scope get a negative small number by multiplying two positive numbers? By my figuring (even without using a calculator) 1A x 50VDC = 50 Watts. All positive numbers flowing out of the battery.
Please clear this up. It's rather confusing. Thank you.
cHeeseburger
Hi Magluvin
thank's very much for your reply 208 and included schematic
i did a small test of your idea and hope this is not too much off topic here ;)
perhaps you should open a specific thread for this specific idea ?
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XrwgEb5ac_w
And of course my BRAVO to Rosemary and her team for sharing :)
good luck at all
laurent
Good question Cheesiebugger,
it probably comes from the Minus 70 Volts offset in the channel 2
which is not substracted.
So channel 2 had about -20 Volts x 245 mV= about - 5 VV...
So the multiplication settings of the scope was not set right at this time.
But much more interesting is this attached scopeshot,
where you can see that the mean current at the shunt is really negative.
Not only from the numbers that show Minus 25 MilliVolts
but also from the display of the yellow burst showing more amplitude
below the ground line.
The ground line is the left yellow line at the number 1.
So in this condition is really seems to charge the batteries.
Depends probably all on the working points it is running on.
So the first shown test seems to recharge the batteries but the
second one seems to discharge them at the higher temperature...
Regards, Stefan.
P.S. Well done video Rosemary !
Thanks a lot.
Clears up many questions.
So you agree that he second test shows 44W of heat costing 50W of battery drain, right? And thank you for clearing my post. It is an honor to be allowed to post here once in a while. I'll not abuse the privilege,
Regarding the first test, then, we all agree that it would have been nice if Rosemary had given us a shot or two showing the actual waveform of the oscillation, rather than exclusively showing low-sweep-speed shots of the 100Hz duty cycle where no one can see the cycle by cycle shape of the actual oscillations.
SInce we know that the actual power into or out of the battery depends on the areas under the curves above and below zero and not on the peak voltage excursions there, and we acknowledge never having been showed those areas at any time, how can we conclude anything realistic about the first test based on only those peak excursions and the math trace which we agree was faulty and in error on the second test?
What if the cyclic oscillation waveform looks like this picture?
Sincerely,
Cheesebreath
Then the yellow burst would probably have looked different,
but I agree, that we need better zoomed in waveforms,
showing only 3 or 4 cycles and not this burst only.
Quote from: hartiberlin on March 22, 2011, 12:25:24 AM
Hi Poynt,
please try again your simulation with this setup please
and show burst waveforms (many cycles) and 3 to 4 cycles
on one scopeshot.
Many thanks.
Here you go Stefan. Notice the difference across the shunt, with and without the 110nH series inductance...
.99
Harti,
Regarding your question related to the 'default' mean average voltage to positive during the 'high' wattage dissipation on the load - here's the reference in the report under RESULTS
3.2 Second test
The mean average and cycle mean average voltage across Rshunt indicates that some current has been discharged by the battery to the source rail. However, instantaneous wattage analysis applied to the voltage measured across the battery and Rshunt indicate, here too, that the battery supply source has had more energy returned to recharge it than was first applied to the circuit. When this is applied to each sample from a spreadsheet analysis across the 500 000 to 1 million samples supplied by the digital storage oscilloscopes, then the product of this and the battery voltage represents the instantaneous wattage. The sum of these values, divided by the number of samples, represents the average wattage delivered over the entire sample range. This results in a negative value indicating that more energy is still being returned to the battery than was delivered. This is in line with the math function of the DSOs where it, too, indicates an increase of wattage back to the battery supply over the amount of wattage initially delivered from that supply.
More wattage returned to the battery than was delivered
Wattage dissipated at RL1= 44 watts
Switching results in the generation of extreme spiking at the transitional phases of the switch.
The following is the video @ 6.33 minutes highlights the neg mean over the shunt - compared to 7.03 minutes that highlights the default to positive - notwithstanding the continued negative mean average. This is in the annotations at the start of the video. In the report this was listed under 'anomalies' PRECISELY as it's required to get an expert evaluation here.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fyOmoGluMCc
There was an extensive debate held at OUR.com related to the correct wattage measurements. The consensus was that wattage is correctly computed as the instantaneous product of vi over time. If you look closely at the antiphase condition of the voltages across the shunt and the battery you will see that when the battery voltage is trending high - then the voltage across the shunt is trending low. And conversely when the battery voltage is trending low - then the voltage across the shunt is trending high. In effect, the returning current flow from the circuit 'trumps' the discharge from the battery that there is a zero loss to the battery - and, according to the math - results in a gain. THAT IS THE SIGNIFICANCE OF THE ANTIPHASE CONDITION OF THOSE VOLTAGES. I have referenced this in this thread - extensively - and on the blog. I have, in fact, been trying to draw your attention to this from the get go. This is one of the many aspects of this 'evidence' that requires research and expert analysis. This is also PRECISELY why we included two tests - to highlight this very point. If the measurement of instantaneous wattage is a correct reflection of the energy delivered by the supply then here there is an inevitable net gain to the supply. Interestingly - the voltage measured across the battery - defaults to less than its 12 volt each 'start' voltage and then, within minutes, recovers to its previous value.
While I appreciate that this is now being used as a 'last ditch' effect by Humbugger as he reaches deep into that barrel in his efforts to refute the claim - it is, in point of fact, the ENTIRE theme of that demonstration. That, and the fact that there is a negative mean average over the resistor at all. Good heavens. We could not have been more transparent in our evidence if we had recorded the demo in 3D.
There is NO simple explanation here guys. There are challenges to conventional protocols, conventional predictions - conventional assumptions - ALL OVER THE PLACE.
Regards,
Rosemary
Quote from: poynt99 on March 22, 2011, 09:32:38 PM
Here you go Stefan. Notice the difference across the shunt, with and without the 110nH series inductance...
.99
Poynty - I can no longer see your waveforms and i would LOVE to see them. There are others of us who also cannot open those files. WOULD YOU PLEASE POST A PICTURE and just size it that it fits this thread.
Kindest regards,
Rosie
ADDED
This is copied over from your forum - written by you Poynty Point.
'Indeed, I am having difficulty figuring out why her shunt trace is at zero. Mine is showing about 1.5V or so, and hey, 0.25/11 x 72 = about 1.6V. It would seem what I'm showing is about right.'I think what you meant is 0.25/11 x 72 = about 1.6 watts, NOT VOLTS. In which case can you then explain the temperature over the load which, typically, is at 6 watts or greater at 72 volts applied.
Quote from: cHeeseburger on March 22, 2011, 04:49:20 PM
Rosemary,
At 8:40 into the video, while your colleague is demonstrating 190C on the load with a 50VDC battery voltage, there is a good closeup of the LeCroy which shows that there is +243mV (about 1 Ampere on a 0.25 Ohm shunt) flowing out of the battery.
Could you please explain to everyone why the scope math that is showing us the product of the +243 mV trace and the +50.3 VDC battery voltage is telling us that the product is -5.43 VV? How does the scope get a negative small number by multiplying two positive numbers? By my figuring (even without using a calculator) 1A x 50VDC = 50 Watts. All positive numbers flowing out of the battery.
Please clear this up. It's rather confusing. Thank you.
cHeeseburger
I trust that my previous post has now addressed this Humbugger. It is the result of the phase shifts that the advantage goes to the charge condition of the battery. Just bear in mind that the negative product of the voltages done by the math trace on both the LeCroy and the Tektronix is born out in the spreadsheet analysis. AGAIN. We have asked for EXPERT opinion on this as we are applying conventional power measurement protocols - based as they are - on wattage analysis.
Rosemary
Guys - I feel I'm trying to walk in a bath of treacle. I thought that these facts had already been understood. Harti. You keep asking for 4 traces. Please look at the frequency of that 'burst oscillation mode'. That occurs at a rate that is determined - not by the switch - but by some resonating condition that is imposed on the circuit as a result of inductance. Then. Please note that the oscillation is self sustaining whether it is dissipating high or low energy on the load. We ARE, indeed, showing you four or six cycles. We then zoom into that oscillation. There is no other way that this can be represented.
Kindest,
Rosemary
And Poynty - I actually do not care WHAT the inductance is on that shunt. I only care that there is an antiphase condition that is born out in that those oscillations can be sustained. Clearly they are re-inforcing each other that they continue certainly for as long as 3 minutes and, possibly, indefinitely. You can factor in whatever value you like. When it comes to an analysis of power then that ANTIPHASE CONDITION OF THOSE WAVEFORMS RESULTS IN A GAIN. They clearly persist. And yet there is a sustained temperature measured at the load.
In short - if one can allow that reversing current flow - WITHOUT blocking their paths - that they can move through the circuit in both directions - then they simply do not appear to 'ring' down to zero as is conventionally expected. It really does not matter what values precede this event. At that moment - in burst oscillation mode - you will be left with a net gain to the battery. And at higher wattages, and as has been pointed out by Neptune - the theoretical implications are that we should simply apply more MOSFETs.
Rosemary
Quote from: Rosemary Ainslie on March 22, 2011, 11:29:15 PM
I trust that my previous post has now addressed this Humbugger. It is the result of the phase shifts that the advantage goes to the charge condition of the battery. Just bear in mind that the negative product of the voltages done by the math trace on both the LeCroy and the Tektronix is born out in the spreadsheet analysis. AGAIN. We have asked for EXPERT opinion on this as we are applying conventional power measurement protocols - based as they are - on wattage analysis.
Rosemary
Since you are directly addressing me, Rosemary, I'll do you the honor of a direct reply. The anti-phase relationship between the drain voltage and drain current is a normal expected fact of life in all MOSFET circuits that have the load between the drain and the power supply. As the current rises, the drain voltage falls and vice-versa. It explains and indicates and proves absolutely nothing and need not be analyzed by experts at all. It's how all MOSFETs work. It's just inherent. Junction transistors and tubes do the same thing. It's basic basic.
I pointed out and Stefan and others seem to agree with me that the higher-power setup indeed shows a draw of net 50W (50V x 1A) out of the battery while producing 40-some Watts of heat. The negative reported number of the math trace is obviously in error, as one cannot obtain a negative result by multiplying two positive numbers. It's that simple. Stefan even gave one plausible theory as to how the error occurred.
You must also be aware, I hope, that the VV math trace and resulting number it generates is not the power in Watts. The scope is not a sentient being and is unaware that one of the traces represents the current, so it cannot know that it is calculating power. That's why it is labelled VV, or VxV and not Watts. Also, the scope does not know the value of the shunt resistance, so it could not possibly give a result in Watts.
So the claim that the higher power second test shows a net charge into the battery is just not true, based on the +243mV mean current shunt measurement your scope clearly shows. The negative scope math number (-5.43 VV) is unfortunately wrong and an error, as pointed out clearly by myself and acknowledged also by Stefan and others.
Kindest Regards,
Bryan
Quote from: neptune on March 22, 2011, 04:02:05 PM
Hi Rosemary . Could you please clarify two points from the video . Is the heating element in the canister immersed in water , or just air . Also , the 5 mosfets are mounted on separate heatsinks . Are these heatsinks electrically isolated /insulated from each other? From the experimenters point of view , does the higher efficiency of the present element justify its additional complexity and expense when compared to a simple wire wound element on a ceramic core?
Apologies Neptune. I missed this. The canister is just air. The FETs are all insulated from their heatsinks. There is a DEFINITE improvement in using this resistor element. I think it's the added resistance and material from the casing - is my take. But I'm absolutely NOT certain what's required Neptune. This is where we need research.
Quote from: woopy on March 22, 2011, 07:20:19 PM
Hi Magluvin
thank's very much for your reply 208 and included schematic
i did a small test of your idea and hope this is not too much off topic here ;)
perhaps you should open a specific thread for this specific idea ?
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XrwgEb5ac_w
And of course my BRAVO to Rosemary and her team for sharing :)
good luck at all
laurent
Laurent - glad you like the video. May I return the compliment. That's a REALLY interesting result on your video. It seems that there's way, way more energy available than from the supply. Indeed that's where our own results point.
Many thanks for highlighting this. I hope you'll keep these results here if you do continue experimenting on this. Or at least post over your results. I think it's very much on topic as it seems to indicate that we've been ignoring the potential energy from the mass of circuit material. That's been a big complaint of mine for some time. LOL.
Very well done and another very clear video. And Mags seems to be on the right road here - so, well done Mags.
Kindest regards,
Rosemary
Quote from: cHeeseburger on March 22, 2011, 08:53:10 PM
So you agree that he second test shows 44W of heat costing 50W of battery drain, right? And thank you for clearing my post. It is an honor to be allowed to post here once in a while. I'll not abuse the privilege,
I'm intrigued with this comment. WHERE did Harti say that 44W of heat costs 50 Watts of battery drain? I missed this entirely. Or are you SPINNING here Cheesebreath? I recall Harti mentioning that there MAY be a loss here - nothing definitive. And that there is NO LOSS is born out in the instantaneous wattage analysis as indicated by the math trace. Really Humbugger, Cheesburger, Cheesebreath, whoever it is that I'm addressing, you spin with great aplomb. But it would be pleasant change if you could simply stick to the facts.
Quote from: cHeeseburger link=topic=10407.msg278911#msg278911
date=1300841590Regarding the first test, then, we all agree that it would have been nice if Rosemary had given us a shot or two showing the actual waveform of the oscillation, rather than exclusively showing low-sweep-speed shots of the 100Hz duty cycle where no one can see the cycle by cycle shape of the actual oscillations.
The scope - unfortunately - can only show each cycle as they actually occur. Between each cycle is a resonating or oscillating condition that the circuit generates. There is NO OTHER WAY THAT THESE OR ANY OSCILLOSCOPES CAN SHOW THIS. Are you entirely missing the point here Humbugger? If you look at Poynty's CORRECT simulation - you'll see he has the same problem. We are showing the waveform EXACTLY as it is. Good heavens. And you claim some kind of expertise to comment? Then you'll need to get your head around this as clearly you have no idea what we're referring to.
Quote from: cHeeseburger on March 22, 2011, 08:53:10 PMSInce we know that the actual power into or out of the battery depends on the areas under the curves above and below zero and not on the peak voltage excursions there, and we acknowledge never having been showed those areas at any time, how can we conclude anything realistic about the first test based on only those peak excursions and the math trace which we agree was faulty and in error on the second test?
Which makes these comments equally spurious.
Quote from: cHeeseburger on March 22, 2011, 08:53:10 PMWhat if the cyclic oscillation waveform looks like this picture?
Cheesebreath
It would only be relevant if it did. It doesn't. You really need to learn to read our scope values Cheesebreath. We can only show what the scope shows. That's a given.
Golly. ::)
Rosemary
Steve, it seems that I'm only selectively notified - per email - when posters comment on this thread. Is this intended? Or is it some malfunction in your system? I've been given notice of exactly 1 posting. And to my surprise I find a whole lot of them.
I'll make enquiries at this end - but would be glad if you could see if there's some kind of glitch in your system.
Kindest regards,
Rosemary
hey Rose and Woopy
Woopy Great show! =]
Remember Woopy, it is not bemf here, the diode prevents that. =] Cant happen.
In your first test of the circuit with the switch open, Imagine this....
Battery is 5v.
No voltage across inductor
No voltage across the capacitor
The diode is just a one way street and nobody on it ;]
When we close the switch, the first reactive component is the capacitor. It sees the potential available and wants to be equal with the voltage that is presented and current flows in the circuit.
The inductor builds a field as current flows.
Think of this, as the circuit goes from no charge on the cap to full charge, The current in a normal circuit will decrease as the cap reaches battery level, even just trickling in the last bit to the cap.
Well here we have that same deal, and the inductor is involved in that deal now and as the cap grows in charge, current slows and it will have less influence on the inductor over time till cap is full.
So what we are seeing is, the inductors magnetic field climb and peak, then the peak begins to collapse as the caps voltage increases, the potential difference available to affect the inductor becomes less and less, so naturally the field declines till the cap is full and the circuit has no more current flowing because the cap is now charged and current stops. NOPE
When we kicked the inductor into motion, the flywheel starts rolling.
When the cap is reaches battery voltage 5v, the inductor is not done spinning, the field is STILL collapsing, forward current Still flows and forces another 4 to 5 volts into the cap.
When the field collapses to nada, our work is done.
Think, collapse is suppose to cause bemf, then why do we not have that here? Instead we got the Merry go round spinning on the amount of energy it took to charge that cap to battery voltage in series circuit. But what do we see? The merry go round is still spinning and forces more current into the cap, thus more voltage til the inductors field collapses to no field at all.
No bemf here. Diode wont allow it and your vid just proved what Im saying is truth. ;]
In the vid, I noticed you tapped the battery then released then connected. That little tap cost a vit of inertial value due to now the cap got a small charge before the full connect. It was not your intention, just a mistake. Now the cap wont have as much continuous pull through the charge from beginning to end because it wasnt empty. But you did great. The voltage should mostly always be around just less than 2 times batt.
The comment on your vid says different cap size will do wonders, nope.
The cap is the amount of enegry that drives the circuit. So a big cap, big long currents, etc.
Your test proves Im correct, your inductor wasnt the same, your cap wasnt the same, but bam just about 2 times the voltage.
Im so haaaPPY IM SO HAAAppy!
Okee The second setup with the shorting of the cap. That IS the Tesla Igniter pat. way of getting that inductor really spinning because now it is not a declining current in the circuit due to cap charging, you are going all the way baby, kids are flying off this merry go round, and current is moving forward. Now when you release the short, that flywheel pumps that cap way beyond battery voltage.
Thin is, it isnt free. it is pulling current from the battery to charge the cap, that is how much influence the energy stored in the inductor had.
This is all just to show that when an inductors "field" builds n n N N and on the other pole s s S S when the current is slowed down or stopped, the field collapses N N n n and S S s s and is still pushing forward current, to what ever it is connected to it and will accept it, as seen in woopys vid. ;] No reverse emf here. Diode doesnt allow it.
If the inductor is actually disconnected from the circuit by a switch or a transistor that acts as a switch, the field collapse NNnn and SSss trys to force current forward but cant, no where to go. So the inductors self capacitance gets charged really hard, compressing electrons from its tail end to the forward end, and the field is finally zero. Now this compressed charge is very strong and relaxes its spring in the opposite direction(bemf) and the inductors poles s s S S and n n N N, and thus we have a high voltage potential in the opposite direction, and some flywheel effect in the other direction to go along with it. ;]
Thanks Woopy This was my precharge circuit when I was doing the sims a while back.
Field collapse isnt the cause of bemf, the bounce of the FEMF during the collapse and it bouncing off of the internal capacitance, that what causes bemf. But most people I know think that reverse voltage is produced during collapse and thats not the truth. ;]
Mags
Quote from: Rosemary Ainslie on March 23, 2011, 01:09:44 AM
I'm intrigued with this comment. WHERE did Harti say that 44W of heat costs 50 Watts of battery drain? I missed this entirely. Or are you SPINNING here Cheesebreath? I recall Harti mentioning that there MAY be a loss here - nothing definitive. And that there is NO LOSS is born out in the instantaneous wattage analysis as indicated by the math trace. Really Humbugger, Cheesburger, Cheesebreath, whoever it is that I'm addressing, you spin with great aplomb. But it would be pleasant change if you could simply stick to the facts.
The scope - unfortunately - can only show each cycle as they actually occur. Between each cycle is a resonating or oscillating condition that the circuit generates. There is NO OTHER WAY THAT THESE OR ANY OSCILLOSCOPES CAN SHOW THIS. Are you entirely missing the point here Humbugger? If you look at Poynty's CORRECT simulation - you'll see he has the same problem. We are showing the waveform EXACTLY as it is. Good heavens. And you claim some kind of expertise to comment? Then you'll need to get your head around this as clearly you have no idea what we're referring to.
Which makes these comments equally spurious.
It would only be relevant if it did. It doesn't. You really need to learn to read our scope values Cheesebreath. We can only show what the scope shows. That's a given.
Golly. ::)
Rosemary
Again, Rosemary, since you are addressing me directly, I will try to answer your questions and address your comments.
Where did I get the 50W and 44W numbers and did Stefan agree with them...
The numbers all came directly from you, Rosemary. 44W is what you said the power in the load was, as estimated by the heat signature. 50W was derived by plain old arithmetic based on your scope's reported mean voltage on the shunt of +243mV (that's just about exactly 1A on a 0.25 Ohm shunt) and the same scope's reported battery voltage mean of +50.3 VDC. Multiply these and you get about +50W flowing OUT of the battery.
Everyone accepted those two basic bits of scope data as good numbers and Stefan agreed that the -5.43 VV your scope got by supposedly multiplying those two positive numbers was obviously wrong. He attributed the error to your use of offsets to position the scope traces and then not accounting for the offset during the math.
Regarding your scope traces and everyone's constant request that you show the waveform of the oscillation itself, just a few cycles of it, rather than always showing just the burst envelopes at a slow sweep speed...
I am getting the idea from your statements above that you may be misunderstanding the requests. The burst envelope is that 100Hz 50% duty cycle stuff you always show on the scopes. Everyone probably by now accepts that the circuit will oscillate forever once it is started. Therefore, the bursts are not of much further interest. We all see and believe that the circuit oscillates at 1.5MHz when the gate is low and stops oscillating when the gate is high.
What people want to see is the actual waveshape of the 1.5MHz oscillation itself. Just a few cycles of it expanded out to cover the whole screen. Now this is easy to capture if you know how to work the triggering, the trigger delay, the zoom, etcetra. And it will show us all some things we want to see that you have never allowed us to see before, like the its actual shape and the relative time and area above and below zero. No big deal, but I guess it's too late to do it now that the scopes are gone.
The only thing that makes this at all tricky to capture is that the 1.5MHz oscillations take a while to settle to a regular cyclic pattern after the burst begins, so it's hard to try to capture the very first bunch. They won't all look the same until the jolt that got them started has faded and the regular repeating identical oscillation cycles steadily continue.
This is where knowing how to use the triggering and zoom features is essential. Believe me, these scopes can capture and display any part of any waveform you want to look at. You just have to know how to use all the scope's powerful triggering and horizontal timebase features.
By the way, the only material and significant diffrence between my sim and Poynt's is that he uses a repeating pulse generator like you do to stimulate the start and stop of the oscillations. I purposely used a single-shot pulse to demonstrate that the oscillations will continue forever once started, something you have speculated on but not tried yet, I guess. My oscillations turn on and off too when I use a repeating pulse generator, but I thought this had been thoroughly demonstrated already and wanted to add some new findings to the knowledge base.
If I left anything unanswered please feel free to persist in your inquiries.
Kindest Regards,
Bryan
Now, if we understand that, imagine keeping the flywheel going buy Kickin it in intervals to keep it going with the shorting the cap technique.
That was teslas way of keeping the discharge cap full in the igniter pat.
Femf. Or maybe a correct term FCCFEMF
Field Collapse Continued Forward Electro Motive Force.
Night
Mags
Mags - the fact is that there is considerably more charge in the cap than in the battery. And this, a small battery - has not lost its potential difference as a result of that charge. That should be the focus. I'm not sure that it can be argued that the negative current can't flow through the diode. But nor am I sure that it's that relevant. What is pertinent is that there is far more energy in the cap than has been delivered by the supply. And that's what your config proves. I don't think one need go much further than this to disprove certain claims outlined in thermodynamic laws. It's HUGE. Hugely signficant. JUST THERE.
What intrigues me is that - on our circuit - we have, unquestionably, no discharge of energy from the battery during the 'on' time of the duty cycle. I can't explain this. In order for that really strong oscillation to take place at all one would expect that there's some transference of potential difference which would show on that shunt. The only PD that's evident is when it triggers on the negative setting of the gate. To me that may be explained by your forward EMF. But I'm still working on this. It may, also, simply be a 'skewed' result due to the inductance on that shunt - as Poynty claims. But you see the problem then is this. If one factors in the full effect of the inductance - then one also would need to add to the Ohmage or the resistance on the shunt. This only increases the benefit. And this is because the actual advantage has nothing to do with the resistance. It's to do with that extraordinary antiphase condition of those voltages. In point of fact, IF power is based on wattage - VI DT - then - subject to any evidence of this oscillation - we're left with an oversupply back to the battery. That's the sum that needs to be evaluated. Either the fundamental measurements applied to power are WRONG - or we have something that flies in the face of. There are no other explanations. Bear in mind that the oscillation is not an erroneous indication resulting from a skewed voltage analysis. If it were then it would never move through the battery and back to be measured at the drain. It does move back and it is measurable there.
What is intriguing is that this parasitic oscillation - as its termed - seems to be a preferred condition of current flow. Let's face it. On the atomic level we know that everything moves to a state of rest - certainly in a gravitational field. Here we've got a current that simply cannot come to rest? So. What are we looking at? An electromagnetic interaction on the particle level? If so - then it seems that there's an equivalence in that electric and magnetic interchange that is self-sustaining. And it's probably always been there. Just over-looked or done away with as a nuisance. In point of fact, it seems to want to spin - as you put it. No evident requirement to get to that rest state.
But again. I'm not entirely sure that the diode stops a negative flow. But nor am I sure that its relevant.
Kindest regards,
Rosie
Here is an idea based on this knowledge
Imagine the circuit and we connect the switch. We wait till the cap just reaches 5v (batt voltage) we cut the switch off. We have a diode inserted so that we use the fly wheel effect to charge the cap beyond batt voltage without the batt in the circuit to pull from. We now , with the diode, pull from the other side of the cap instead.
If this works, and the cap receives more voltage than the battery, that extra voltage is free.
We cut the battery from the circuit at 5v on the cap. That 5v on the cap is equal to an amount of energy, the same amount every time.
And that is all the energy that was taken from the batt.
But if that cap ends up with more than 5v as described above, even 5.01v, that cap will be holding more energy than what was taken from the battery, period, no debater can beat this.
Oh but where is the energy coming from? The merry go round my friends, the merry go round. ;] oooo scary. lol
mags
Quote from: Magluvin on March 23, 2011, 03:12:42 AM
Here is an idea based on this knowledge
Imagine the circuit and we connect the switch. We wait till the cap just reaches 5v (batt voltage) we cut the switch off. We have a diode inserted so that we use the fly wheel effect to charge the cap beyond batt voltage without the batt in the circuit to pull from. We now , with the diode, pull from the other side of the cap instead.
If this works, and the cap receives more voltage than the battery, that extra voltage is free.
We cut the battery from the circuit at 5v on the cap. That 5v on the cap is equal to an amount of energy, the same amount every time.
And that is all the energy that was taken from the batt.
But if that cap ends up with more than 5v as described above, even 5.01v, that cap will be holding more energy than what was taken from the battery, period, no debater can beat this.
Oh but where is the energy coming from? The merry go round my friends, the merry go round. ;] oooo scary. lol
mags
Here I entirely agree with you. Maybe Woopy can do this test for us? It'll be interesting.
:D
Rosie.
(Go to sleep Mags - or you'll suffer in the morning. I know that feeling only too well. LOL)
Quote from: Rosemary Ainslie on March 23, 2011, 03:01:38 AM
But again. I'm not entirely sure that the diode stops a negative flow. But nor am I sure that its relevant.
Kindest regards,
Rosie
hey Rose
Well in my circuit, the diode never gets hit with bemf because the inductor was never disconnected from forward flow during the circuit cycle. So the inductor had somewhere to put the charge it was flywheeling, no matter if it was pulling from the battery to charge the cap beyond battery voltage. It had enough energy stored to do so. ;]
But, if we cut the inductor, at the end current is flowing out, clockwise, that flywheel pumps that self capacitance so hard, like a 1000 mile an hour train wreck on a spring, the we get bemf. And why is it so short? Well we are still disconnected, no where to get charge from at the disconnect, then ""SPARK"" ;] Got some across the gap. Had to, the pressure was high. ;] The spike can last only as long as the spark, or for as much as the mass of coil will give up in oscillation if no current can be had across the disconnect.. ;]
Ok Insomniacs anonymous, over and out. ;D
Mags
Quote from: Magluvin on March 23, 2011, 03:34:41 AM
hey Rose
Well in my circuit, the diode never gets hit with bemf because the inductor was never disconnected from forward flow during the circuit cycle. So the inductor had somewhere to put the charge it was flywheeling, no matter if it was pulling from the battery to charge the cap beyond battery voltage. It had enough energy stored to do so. ;]
But, if we cut the inductor, at the end current is flowing out, clockwise, that flywheel pumps that self capacitance so hard, like a 1000 mile an hour train wreck on a spring, the we get bemf. And why is it so short? Well we are still disconnected, no where to get charge from at the disconnect, then ""SPARK"" ;] Got some across the gap. Had to, the pressure was high. ;] The spike can last only as long as the spark, or for as much as the mass of coil will give up in oscillation if no current can be had across the disconnect.. ;]
I get it Mags. I think it's right. I just need to run it past some of the team.
Quote from: Magluvin on March 23, 2011, 03:34:41 AM
Ok Insomniacs anonymous, over and out. ;D
;D
Guys - It strikes me that I'm getting snarled in defense of protocols that I had thought, by now, were entirely addressed. This is yet another technique employed by Humbugger et al, to cast aspersions on those test results. Any and all diversions are being used to take attention from the actual significance of these tests and leave me arguing the correctness of measurements. And when I do so, then it's too late. The damage is done. And there's generalised impression cast over everything that I know not whereof I speak.
What I may or may not know has no bearing on the report, the demonstration or any claims made. They are advanced by the 'team' and I'm reasonably satisifed that they are considerably more qualified than Humbugger or Poynty, or MileHigh or any of the others that clamour to deny these claims. Just know that it was no accident that I left the demonstration to them. It was intended to remind you all that - while I am not qualified - those that are supporting this evidence most certainly are. Feel free to discount what I report. But you'd need strong argument to deny what they, collectively, endorse.
Meanwhile I'm braced for the inevitable 'attack' on my competence. I'll address these as they arise.
Rosemary.
Quote from: Rosemary Ainslie on March 22, 2011, 11:13:07 PM
Poynty - I can no longer see your waveforms and i would LOVE to see them. There are others of us who also cannot open those files. WOULD YOU PLEASE POST A PICTURE and just size it that it fits this thread.
Kindest regards,
Rosie
ADDED
This is copied over from your forum - written by you Poynty Point.
'Indeed, I am having difficulty figuring out why her shunt trace is at zero. Mine is showing about 1.5V or so, and hey, 0.25/11 x 72 = about 1.6V. It would seem what I'm showing is about right.'
I think what you meant is 0.25/11 x 72 = about 1.6 watts, NOT VOLTS. In which case can you then explain the temperature over the load which, typically, is at 6 watts or greater at 72 volts applied.
Perhaps someone can unzip the files and resize them. It's a shame that Stefan does not fix the problem so that this is not necessary. I offered him a solution already, as this works fine at OUR.
Regarding the calculation, no I meant
Voltage. I am calculating the
approximate voltage that should be across the shunt when the FET is ON, and under ideal conditions, those being that the ON resistance of the FET is much much smaller than your CSR of 0.25 Ohms. It is a simple voltage divider between the load resistance (11 Ohms) and the CSR resistance (0.25 Ohms) if we do not include the inductances.
So, 0.25/11 Ohms, times 60 Volts ~
1.36V. [I used 72 volts last time assuming you had 6 batteries.]
.99
Quote from: poynt99 on March 23, 2011, 08:33:36 AM
Perhaps someone can unzip the files and resize them. It's a shame that Stefan does not fix the problem so that this is not necessary. I offered him a solution already, as this works fine at OUR.
Regarding the calculation, no I meant Voltage. I am calculating the approximate voltage that should be across the shunt when the FET is ON, and under ideal conditions, those being that the ON resistance of the FET is much much smaller than your CSR of 0.25 Ohms. It is a simple voltage divider between the load resistance (11 Ohms) and the CSR resistance (0.25 Ohms) if we do not include the inductances.
So, 0.25/11 Ohms, times 60 Volts ~ 1.36V. [I used 72 volts last time assuming you had 6 batteries.]
.99
Poynt - we all know that you can do that resize. Is there a reason you won't? Are you keeping this hidden for a reason? Have you not managed to show that waveform afterall? Come on Poynty. How about it? It's a lame claim if there's no evidence. And right now it's hidden from view.
Still don't understand your sum. Where does the 11 Ohm's come from?
Rosemary
Quote from: Rosemary Ainslie on March 23, 2011, 08:41:04 AM
Still don't understand your sum. Where does the 11 Ohm's come from?
Rosemary
What is the resistance value of your load resistor then?
.99
Quote from: poynt99 on March 23, 2011, 08:42:55 AM
What is the resistance value of your load resistor then?
.99
11 Ohms is close. But why are you dividing the shunt value by the ohms value of the resistor?
Are you saying that there's a 1.3 volt across the FET? Still don't get it Poynty. The FET voltge is much higher than this during the 'on' period. added
Hey Rose and Woopy
At lunch so Ill make it short. And sweet. ;]
Here is a circuit with 2 mods.
1 a resistor is added to simulate resistance in the inductor.
2 added the diode across the batt/switch for purposes as described last night. ;] =]
I ran it on the sim and it works! ;D
But in the real world the circuit will need more additional circuitry to compare when the cap reaches 5v to cut the switch.
What I did to enable myself to cut the switch manually was slowed down the sim so that I could come very very close to cutting a 5v, and yep that diode allows current in the forward direction to keep flowing into the cap and I was getting over 6v into the cap.
It varied as I could not hit the switch to get a perfect 5v cutoff.
This should be a cop>1. =]
Woopy I will look at ways to enable you to automate the cutoff in your setup to do the test tonight. ;]
Today im not even tired, on 2hours sleep, Im all uppity! =] I wonder why? ;]
Mags
Hi Rosemary, Poynt 99 does not seem to be about at the moment , so can I offer my opinion on what he is saying ? The Fet is acting as a closed switch , and its resistance is assumed to be negligible . So we just have 2 resistors connected in series across a 60 volt battery , We have the load resistor , 11 ohms . And we have the shunt , at one quarter ohm . Imagine instead that the load resister is 10 ohms .and the shunt is one ohm . Now , if we measure the voltages across each resister in turn , we find the the voltage across the load is ten times the voltage across the shunt .That is how he arrives at his voltage figure , being the voltage across the shunt .So going back to the original values , the load will have 44 times the voltage across it than the voltage across the shunt . There will be approx 58.6 volts across the load and about 1.3 volts across the shunt . 58.6 plus 1.3 = 59.9 volts . Near enough for me , and I failed my maths exams .@Poynt99 feel free to tell me if I am wrong .
Quote from: neptune on March 23, 2011, 01:26:15 PM
Hi Rosemary, Poynt 99 does not seem to be about at the moment , so can I offer my opinion on what he is saying ? The Fet is acting as a closed switch , and its resistance is assumed to be negligible . So we just have 2 resistors connected in series across a 60 volt battery , We have the load resistor , 11 ohms . And we have the shunt , at one quarter ohm . Imagine instead that the load resister is 10 ohms .and the shunt is one ohm . Now , if we measure the voltages across each resister in turn , we find the the voltage across the load is ten times the voltage across the shunt .That is how he arrives at his voltage figure , being the voltage across the shunt .So going back to the original values , the load will have 44 times the voltage across it than the voltage across the shunt . There will be approx 58.6 volts across the load and about 1.3 volts across the shunt . 58.6 plus 1.3 = 59.9 volts . Near enough for me , and I failed my maths exams .@Poynt99 feel free to tell me if I am wrong .
Ok. Thanks Neptune. I'm still not sure why one doesn't take the actual voltage reading. But it's close - so. I get it. A kind of check?
Now I'd be very glad if Poynty could print those pictures. I've finally opened them - but would be glad to get them up here - in case anyone, like me, struggles. Can you oblige us Neptune? Someone?
Kindest regards,
Rosie
Hi Mag and Rose
i made a quick test with a MO high voltage cap with 0.95 micro F, so it discharge fast enough to see what is going on here.
The battery is at about 4.6 volt and goes to a BAT 43 schotky diode (very few lost in voltage) than to the 220mH inductance(primary of MOT) ant than to the cap and back to the negative.
I enclose a scope shot .
when i close the circuit the voltage jump to 7.6 volts than the cap descharge down to 4.6 volt (that is the battery voltage, and stay at this value until i open the circuit and the cap goes on descharging.
The best result i got today is a 1.7 time the voltage supplied. In this pix it is 7.7 volts(the freewheeled voltage ) / 4.6 volt (the supplied voltage) = 1.67
Not bad at all.
And in this config (but with a much stronger diode a BYV26D ) , by shorting the cap i can get really high voltage (MORE than 400 volts) impressive.
Now how to use this effect ?
Will test your new circuit ASAP, any idea for the resistor value?
good luck at all
Laurent
Last time - I promise
posted feb 19 in shorting coil thread -
********************
Hi All,
How pertinent is this guys video now ? (1 and 2)
http://www.youtube.com/user/NRGFromTheVacuum#p/u/10/2cUS03yNl40
Looks like it's been under our noses all this time and we couldn't see the forest for the trees.
Kindest Regards, Penno
________________________________________________________
Penno, (Garry)
Quote from: woopy on March 23, 2011, 02:05:51 PM
Will test your new circuit ASAP,
Laurent
hi Laurent
nice testing - but you may want to reconsider Mags idea of a diode across the battery/switch - as shown, it's forward biased and if the switch gets closed for too long, then the 'magic smoke' is likely to to get released from either the new diode or the battery! :)
interesting to see that shorting the capacitor has such a strong effect - especially when the current fashion seems to be 'shorting coils'!!!
cordialement
sandy
http://docsfreelunch.blogspot.com/
Hi Rosemary .Sorry I lack the necessary computer skills to print Poynt99s pictures. Come on you computer geniuses .
BIG YES reverse the diode sorry redrew circuit for pix and made mistake. Now it will work. mags
Quote from: Magluvin on March 23, 2011, 03:02:32 PM
BIG YES reverse the diode sorry redrew circuit for pix and made mistake. Now it will work. mags
interesting!
remove the first diode (because the 2nd one now allows current to continue thro' the RLC) and supply the circuit from a charged cap rather than a battery (it's just another type of voltage source)...
...and you get the switched-charge circuit i was investigating back in '08:
http://www.overunity.com/index.php?topic=4419.msg130409#msg130409 (http://www.overunity.com/index.php?topic=4419.msg130409#msg130409)was it OU? ...only if the text-books are correct in stating that the dissipated/stored energy ratio in charging a cap is always 50:50
unfortunately, my experimental results showed that this ratio could vary quite significantly - so at least i was able to prove that the text-books are wrong in making this 50:50 energy allocation claim
but there is definitely a charge anomaly which occurs - can get around 25-30% more charge-separation in the circuit after switching current into a cap than was in the circuit at the start
looking forward to see where this 'cap-shorting' effect leads us to
good luck all
np
PS ...just realised also that the Q2 (N-MOSFET), L1, R1 half of the circuit is essentially the same as Rosemary's circuit
(powered by the voltage which gets stored on C2, rather than a battery, of course!)
http://docsfreelunch.blogspot.com/ (http://docsfreelunch.blogspot.com/)
Quote from: cHeeseburger on March 23, 2011, 02:43:54 AM
This is where knowing how to use the triggering and zoom features is essential. Believe me, these scopes can capture and display any part of any waveform you want to look at. You just have to know how to use all the scope's powerful triggering and horizontal timebase features.
Yes.
that is right.
These new digital scope are so powerful of features you really need to study all their
features.
As all the teacher always say: RTFM.
Read the Fxcking manual ! ;) lol...
Takes a bit of time and testing to get used to it.
Rose, we really need 3 or 4 cycles on the scopeshot from both tests,
so we can really see the exact voltage on the shunt.
As test 1 shows overunity already with the burst envelope and also
with the mean value display, I am not sure what test 2 will
show, when you zoom into the burst to show the single waveforms...
P.S: Best thing would be to just put a variable DC power supply
to the gate of the MOSFETs and have the MOSFETs oscillate all the time,
then you don´t need a complicated triggering for the scope...
So Rose, please try this, as it is very easy.
just instead of the function generator just get a power supply
and feed in a negative DC voltage to the Gates.
Regards, Stefan.
Here is the circuit simulatiom diagram from
poynt and his simulated scopeshots.
He should also post the SIMULATION file, otherwise
someone could say it is just faked...
I replaced the circuit on the previous page with the correct diode polarity.
I was doing it at lunch and the circuit looked funky from trying different diode positions that worked, so I redrew to make it cleaner and messed up on that diode.
mags
poynt did not "measure" the green voltage directly at the battery,
what I drew up to do earlier in response to his last postings,
so the battery voltage this way measured is pretty much useless.
We just want to see, if the direct battery voltage rises during the negative current spike.
It also depends all, in what working point the circuit is running,
so the gate voltage is missing...
If the gate voltage is set wrong, it could be underunity.
So poynt, please post the simulation file, so we can check it,
what values you did choose.
Many thanks.
Regards, Stefan.
Quote from: hartiberlin on March 23, 2011, 04:48:45 PM
Yes.
that is right.
These new digital scope are so powerful of features you really need to study all their
features.
As all the teacher always say: RTFM.
Read the Fxcking manual ! ;) lol...
Takes a bit of time and testing to get used to it.
Rose, we really need 3 or 4 cycles on the scopeshot from both tests,
so we can really see the exact voltage on the shunt.
As test 1 shows overunity already with the burst envelope and also
with the mean value display, I am not sure what test 2 will
show, when you zoom into the burst to show the single waveforms...
P.S: Best thing would be to just put a variable DC power supply
to the gate of the MOSFETs and have the MOSFETs oscillate all the time,
then you don´t need a complicated triggering for the scope...
So Rose, please try this, as it is very easy.
just instead of the function generator just get a power supply
and feed in a negative DC voltage to the Gates.
Regards, Stefan.
Stefan and all:
If I understand it correctly, I think that Rosemary's benefactors and sponsors who provided the oscilloscopes have required her to return them now, and I think she has said (she can certainly correct me if this is wrong) that there will be no more bench experiments or new data captures upcoming from her team at any time soon. So it seems we have all the test data we will likely get from Rosemary for the forseeable future.
Bryan
Hey Penno
Ive seen all this guys vids. I was impressed also.
I have looked at this one and a few others again and again. This one, now that I look at it with details in mind, I dont like the way he thinks he is getting 3 different wires to connect, all together, and then all 3 be disconnected, 3 all at the same time, by hand. Consider the time frame which he gives for switch closure in the drawing, 1 us even 10 would be a magical feat of enormous proportions when done by hand. 3 connections made and broken all in less than 1 microseconds.
I think that, being that he would have to do the connect/disconnect a couple times to show the charge made, is because of the issue I claim above. I believe he is getting high voltage into the cap. I think he had a charge instilled into the cap via the charged inductor, but a switch and diode would have done well also.
But we dont know the value of the cap. We dont know how much power was drawn from the batt, all we know is what we can see and hear with missing details that might confirm things. That cap is huge, but maybe a .5uf at some tremendous voltage rating.
He did a vid showing a small cap the size of 15 quarters stacked, and producing multiple full charges into a much larger looking cap by just tapping the connections from the small cap to the large, but most of the small caps charge remained.
Well hmmm, That lil cap could be 10000uf, and that BIG cap could be .5uf . That would explain it ehh? ;] Trix
If the caps were the same, I would still be drooling and tapping caps to this day looking for the effect, if I didnt ever figure that it was a trick.
He has one vid that still impresses me, but I havnt found a glitch yet
But yeah, to an untrained eye, those vids shock and impress.
And Im not claiming he was trixxin anyone for sure, he just may not have understood some things and didnt recognize issues I see. Dunno. Wasnt there. ;] Just my opinion. Educated opinion. =]
Mags
hey penn0
lol im tired lately. I have to rest before I post any more.
When I linked to the vid, I had ff to see which one it was and forgot he had shown the value of the cap. Wasnt tinking properly for a couple days. Gota get some sleep tonight.
I referenced other of his vids also but now I have to go back and see which ones I had actual issues also and post it more clearly. ;]
Im beat.
Night
Mags
Sorry Stefan. I missed that voltage probe on the battery. I changed the battery voltage to 60V.
Here it is.
.99
@poynt99
Looks like the battery is charging from the green line
with the small ripples.
All in all,
these circuits, which draw current from batteries and
also immediately return current via back spikes
can use batteries much more efficient.
If you draw low power from a battery bank in this way that for example
has 100 Amphours of capacity,
you will see, that you suddenly can draw draw 150 Amphours
of energy out of it, before the battery bank is discharged.
That is also the case in a good Newman coil or Bedini setup.
These negative spikes recharge the battery on the fly and make
them last longer, so they have a bigger capacity,
although you might have only charged them up with the
energy for 100 Amphours, you can then draw 150 Amphours out of it,
although the average mean current is still positive.
So the ou effect is more dependant on the right battery pulsing
and is happening INSIDE the battery as Mr. Bedini found out.
But in Rosemary´s test1 I would say from the burst envelope that
the scope had a negative input current value,
what also the mean digital numbers showed.
She really needs to take more and better scope shots to verify it in more detail.
Regards, Stefan.
hello Steve,
I have finally 'got it' that you want a more detailed shot of the oscillating waveform during 'light' and 'heavy' duty modes. Abject apologies. Of course I'll do this. Downside is that I'll need to unpack those batteries. They're heavy - so can't do this myself. But I'll have some help here tomorrow and will then set the experiment up. I need to do this anyway. It's just that I took timeout. I'm just so sick of experiments.
Meanwhile - I assure you that in those oscillations - heavy duty or light duty - ALL show a greater return. I've avoided showing this precisely because that math trace and even the cycle mean show even greater negative voltages. It's been impossible to try and reconcile all that excess.
I'm still not getting notification of posts here. It's intermittant. And I'm getting my emails through OK. Could I impose on you to check this?
Kindest regards,
Rosemary
Quote from: hartiberlin on March 23, 2011, 10:02:37 PM
@poynt99
So the ou effect is more dependant on the right battery pulsing
and is happening INSIDE the battery as Mr. Bedini found out.
But in Rosemary´s test1 I would say from the burst envelope that
the scope had a negative input current value,
what also the mean digital numbers showed.
If I can get those spreadsheets to you I will Stefan. The puzzle is this. The instantaneous wattage analysis SHOWS a negative mean wattage. This is in line with the math trace. And the math trace is a product of instantaneous voltage across the batteries and the shunt. I was given to understand that this is the result of the phase angle. They're at 180 degrees in antiphase. This means that when the battery is discharging the voltage (current) across the shunt is at it's lowest. Correspondingly when the battery is recharging then the voltage (current) across the shunt is at it's highest. In other words - that much ignored and discarded parasitic oscillation - is actually the system trying to 'give back' what was first delivered.
I was also advised that the reason instantaneous analysis is required is PRECISELY because it takes these phases into account. I keep saying this. Those waveforms perfectly re-inforce each other and, while it's in that burst oscillation mode, then the advantage is to the supply source. PLEASE NOTE this. We all know the immediate effect of a strong current flow from the battery. It tends to drop - certainly under standard applications. Well. We get that same drop when it goes into 'heavy duty mode'. But INTERESTINGLY - and within minutes - it climbs right back up. I'll try and video this as well.
I haven't even touched on the MANY different waveforms and effects that we found. The MOST interesting is that we can get the battery voltage showing a negative voltage - with wild swings even showing up on the Digital multimeters. Then there are 'burst mode' settings where there are intermittent and HIGH voltage oscillations during the 'on' period. There's a world of interest there. We only confined our tests for the demo to those two extremes as they represent the anamolies that need to be resolved relating to the applied measurement protocols. I keep saying this. If classical power measurement is based on the INSTANTANEOUS product of vi dt - then classical measurments most ASSUREDLY show a GAIN - notwithstanding that positive mean average on the shunt. And Harti. The mean average voltage is NOT the correct measure for wattage - ever. It's what it is. A mean average. It ONLY applies to a DC supply. And we do NOT have a DC supply once that switching kicks in. Surely you know this? Even Poynty et al concluded this in a rather lengthy debate on their forum.
And of even more interst is that it can, in fact, be tuned to show a negative mean even at heavier discharge. I'll try and get a scope shot of this as well. But we confined our demo to illustrate this precise point. In other words 'classical' measurement protocol applied - results in a value that - at it's least - can be said to be anomalous.
Kindest regards,
Rosemary
BTW = many thanks indeed for adding those shots of Poynty's.
Quote from: hartiberlin on March 23, 2011, 04:48:45 PM
So Rose, please try this, as it is very easy.
just instead of the function generator just get a power supply
and feed in a negative DC voltage to the Gates.
Regards, Stefan.
Hi again. I missed this Stefan. I need to speak to the guys at CPUT. As it is they've given me an extended loan on the functions generator and I'm not sure that they'll also throw in a dc power supply. But I'll certainly ask. I've 'retired' from campus until I can arrange research funding - if possible. The Lab I was working is is due to be modified and there's building work planned. And we need to get this into a more dedicated research basis. I know that one student wants to write a paper to disprove this. It'll be interesting. But we need to get things done more professionally than we've managed to date. Everything's been done on a shoestring - and none of it funded. And frankly it's cost me much more time than I can afford. Hefty inroads into the savings. But no regrets here.
Be interesting if all it needs now is that DC supply. I had no idea. I'll get back here. It's what I've been looking for.
Kindest again,
Rosemary
Hi Mags.
I see you've been really busy. Very well done for showing that gain. It seems that this is supported all over the place.
I'm still hoping against hope that your proof is definitive. But I want to speak to the guys at CPUT. They're only back next week. Another holiday - this time to celebrate Freedom day - which is a tribute to the sacrifices at Sharpville.
And I trust you've caught up on some of that sleep. I wish I could say the same.
Take good care,
Kindest regards
Rosie
and Woopy - Golly. Many thanks indeed for that update. You're the experimentalist here and Mags our thoretician. Nice combo.
Kindest regards,
Rosemary
The problem being overlooked by many here, is that the battery scope measurement is meaningless unless taken directly across the battery terminals.
Clearly you have not done this Rose, evidenced by the large magnitude of ringing, and the fact that the scope probes in your video are placed on the proto-board somewhere, NOT on the battery terminals.
This really is important, and Stefan you ought to be asking for that imo. All the numbers will come out quite different if this is done.
You would be wise Rose, to make an input power measurement using the two DMM/RC filter method. I think you may be surprised. You are already half way there by using the DMM to measure the voltage of 60V (shown in your video).
.99
Yes Neptune, you are correct about what I was trying to get at regarding the voltage divider. ;)
.99
Quote from: poynt99 on March 24, 2011, 12:19:13 AM
The problem being overlooked by many here, is that the battery scope measurement is meaningless unless taken directly across the battery terminals.
Clearly you have not done this Rose, evidenced by the large magnitude of ringing, and the fact that the scope probes in your video are placed on the proto-board somewhere, NOT on the battery terminals.
This really is important, and Stefan you ought to be asking for that imo. All the numbers will come out quite different if this is done.
.99
Poynty. What you actually mean is that you HOPE all the numbers will come out differently. Unfortunately - the scope probes cost a FORTUNE and they simply do NOT physcially - SPAN those batteries. Nor can it be arranged that they do - UNLESS OF COURSE ONE ADDS WIRES? ::)
Quite apart from which, Poynty Point - if they are WRONG then explain the voltage on the DRAIN. Is that also a 'spurious' effect? Whatever the battery is doing - the fact is that the energy is CLEARLY going through them in both directions. Isn't that the point? Poynty?
Rosemary
The Drain scope trace is irrelevant for your input power measurement.
You need the battery voltage and the battery current. That's it, done.
Remove all your probes and use them near your battery array if you wish to try the scope again for input power. You will need another CSR in series with the battery.
Otherwise, use one DMM to measure the DC current, and another to measure the voltage across the batteries as you are already. Multiply the two, and you have your input power. The meters should provide enough averaging to give you an accurate number. The voltage seemed stable enough, it's just a matter of how stable the current through the meter will be. If it is stable (DC current setting btw), then you are off to the races. ;)
.99
Quote from: poynt99 on March 24, 2011, 12:31:45 AM
The Drain scope trace is irrelevant for your input power measurement.
You need the battery voltage and the battery current. That's it, done.
Remove all your probes and use them near your battery array if you wish to try the scope again for input power. You will need another CSR in series with the battery.
Otherwise, use one DMM to measure the DC current, and another to measure the voltage across the batteries as you are already. Multiply the two, and you have your input power. The meters should provide enough averaging to give you an accurate number. The voltage seemed stable enough, it's just a matter of how stable the current through the meter will be. If it is stable (DC current setting btw), then you are off to the races. ;)
.99
When you find a DMM that can manage the frequency at those oscillations then let me know.
And what does that mean ' off to the racees '? I've never heard the expression.
Regards,
Rosemary
Quote from: Rosemary Ainslie on March 24, 2011, 12:37:56 AM
When you find a DMM that can manage the frequency at those oscillations then let me know.
And what does that mean ' off to the racees '? I've never heard the expression.
Regards,
Rosemary
Are you measuring the battery voltage with a DMM in your video? I seem to recall seeing both a ~60VDC measurement, and a ~50VDC measurement.
How did the meter manage the high frequency at those two measurements?
Off to the races:
http://idioms.thefreedictionary.com/off+to+the+races
.99
Guys, it is very evident that the only way these results can be refuted is to look to AVERAGING everything in reach. If one relies on averages - then I am reasonably certain that one could also, thereby deny the measurements. BUT. It would need to be applied in the face of the required classical measurement protocols. This is Poynty's and Humbuggers last ditch argument.
The ENTIRE reason that we put up those two demonstrations was to SHOW that what is known of in 'school classical' as 'parasitic oscillation' has got exploitable advantages that have NOT been evaluated - thus far - by that same school classical. Those oscillations move in both directions across zero indicating that energy is both delivered and returned. They correspond to the voltages measured at the drain so there is clear evidence that current is flowing first from and then back to the supply source. The ONLY appropriate question then is this. Is there more or less energy being returned? What the Our team boffins are trying to imply here is that NO significant energy is being returned and this can be SHOWN , SOMEHOW? by looking at the results on a DMM. Which is interesting. Becuase there is no DMM that can show this happening. What the DMM will do is 'average' that value. Essentially the argument is this. DO NOT LOOK AT THE EVIDENCE THROUGH A MICROSCOPE. Just use your eyes. I am entirely satisfied that if we did just use our eyes - then we would indeed not be able to evaluate that advantage.
We do, indeed, use a DMM to show the overall voltage on the battery only to double check that this corresponds to the mean average voltage that we show on our scope. But we are absolutely NOT interested in that average. We are interested in the moment by moment benefit of that oscillation. Unless, of course, there is some merit in refusing to do a detailed evaluation. Then we can just claim that the retained level of charge on the battery is the anomaly and this would then NEVER be able to proven. You catch the drift - I hope. We would then be left arguing which battery gives the best benefit - which is absolutely a never ending argument - and, as intended, will entirely obscure the actual questions that have been addressed.
Poynty. Stop scraping that barrel. You and Humbugger are tediously trying to refute these measurments. I see that Cheeseburger is now claiming that there was no-one at the demo. Tell him, from me, that we did that video at about 4 o'clock in the afternoon - having shown those results during that extended time period - from 11 am through to 4 pm. Indeed, at 4 there were only 6 of us still there.
What ludicrous depths will you two go to to deny all this.
Regards,
Rosemary
Quote from: Rosemary Ainslie on March 24, 2011, 01:03:34 AM
Guys, it is very evident that the only way these results can be refuted is to look to AVERAGING everything in reach. If one relies on averages - then I am reasonably certain that one could also, thereby deny the measurements. BUT. It would need to be applied in the face of the required classical measurement protocols. This is Poynty's and Humbuggers last ditch argument.
The ENTIRE reason that we put up those two demonstrations was to SHOW that what is known of in 'school classical' as 'parasitic oscillation' has got exploitable advantages that have NOT been evaluated - thus far - by that same school classical. Those oscillations move in both directions across zero indicating that energy is both delivered and returned. They correspond to the voltages measured at the drain so there is clear evidence that current is flowing first from and then back to the supply source. The ONLY appropriate question then is this. Is there more or less energy being returned? What the Our team boffins are trying to imply here is that NO significant energy is being returned and this can be SHOWN , SOMEHOW? by looking at the results on a DMM. Which is interesting. Becuase there is no DMM that can show this happening. What the DMM will do is 'average' that value. Essentially the argument is this. DO NOT LOOK AT THE EVIDENCE THROUGH A MICROSCOPE. Just use your eyes. I am entirely satisfied that if we did just use our eyes - then we would indeed not be able to evaluate that advantage.
We do, indeed, use a DMM to show the overall voltage on the battery only to double check that this corresponds to the mean average voltage that we show on our scope. But we are absolutely NOT interested in that average. We are interested in the moment by moment benefit of that oscillation. Unless, of course, there is some merit in refusing to do a detailed evaluation. Then we can just claim that the retained level of charge on the battery is the anomaly and this would then NEVER be able to proven. You catch the drift - I hope. We would then be left arguing which battery gives the best benefit - which is absolutely a never ending argument - and, as intended, will entirely obscure the actual questions that have been addressed.
Poynty. Stop scraping that barrel. You and Humbugger are tediously trying to refute these measurments. I see that Cheeseburger is now claiming that there was no-one at the demo. Tell him, from me, that we did that video at about 4 o'clock in the afternoon - having shown those results during that extended time period - from 11 am through to 4 pm. Indeed, at 4 there were only 6 of us still there.
What ludicrous depths will you two go to to deny all this.
Regards,
Rosemary
Thank you for that confirmation regarding the DMM battery voltage measurement being valid. Now, do the same with another such meter, but this time use it as a current meter.
It is perfectly valid to heavily average both the battery voltage and battery current measurements for INPUT power only. Multiply the two averaged values together to obtain the average input power from the batteries.
It's that simple Rose.
.99
Quote from: poynt99 on March 24, 2011, 01:09:46 AM
Thank you for that confirmation regarding the DMM battery voltage measurement being valid. Now, do the same with another such meter, but this time use it as a current meter.
It is perfectly valid to heavily average both the battery voltage and battery current measurements for INPUT power only. Multiply the two averaged values together to obtain the average input power from the batteries.
It's that simple Rose.
I confirm that the DMM can do an AVERAGE. Now. Tell me, if you can, how an analysis of those averages accommodates the advantage of the phase angles - that 180 degree phase angle? Or is it that this will be entirely obscured? And is this - perhaps - why you so URGENTLY require this?
Again,
Rosemary
Guys - Stefan - all - I really need to make this clear. There are readers on this forum that are not that used to the spreadsheet analysis and the significance of this. Many of you are - like me - amateurs. And the most of you interested in experimenting on the claims in these threads. But this point needs saying and I hope you can bend your mind around it. For those who already know this - apologies for stating the obvious.
Power measurements are based on wattage which is determined by vi dt. The more samples to determine that voltage the more exact is that value likely to be. Now. What surprised me is how accurate is this. One example is that one can take a voltage sample across the battery and it never defaults past zero - and one can take the voltage average of the drain - and nor does this cross zero. And yet - when you do an instantaneous analysis of this - being a product of the battery voltage and the drain voltage - then that voltage can CERTAINLY show a repeated zero crossing. And that also, PERFECTLY reflects the shape of the waveform across the load resistor as evidenced. Perhaps Humbybumble can check this out. He seems to think that two postives can NEVER result in a negative. Little does he know.
I'm entirely unschooled. So this was REALLY interesting to me. The more so as this gave an exact depiction of the waveform across that resistor as shown in the scope shots that we managed off our Fluke (borrowed for a VERY short time).
The same principle is evident in the actual wattage delivered to and from the battery. Here we have evidence that the shunt is recharging the battery when the battery voltage is at its highest - and that it's discharging the battery when the battery voltage is at it's lowest. Therefore the battery recharge always trumps the discharge. I'll try and download some spread sheet shots. God knows how this is done - but it must, surely be possible.
Meanwhile - just to recap the principle. The 'clockwise' flow of current is multiplied by the battery battery voltage - multiple samples through that entire period. Then the the 'anti clockwise flow of current is multiplied by the battery voltage - multiple samples through that entire period. That way, and ONLY in that way - can one take the actual phase of the two voltages into account. Stefan I do hope you get this. The ONLY way to determine the energy delivered from those batteries is, as Poynty et al first claimed and are now ANXIOUSLY denying - is to take INSTANTANEOUS WATTAGE ANALYSIS. If you rely on mean average voltages then - by all means - feel free. But it is absolutely NOT correct power analysis. I HOPE THIS IS CLEAR. I seem to keep having to say it.
AND this is for ALLCANADIAN. It is ABSURD to claim that collapsing fields - in whichever direction - can exceed the resistance of an opposing diode. Just rethink this please. If the current flow is negative - then - in relation to the drain it will show POSITIVE. That absolutely DOES NOT MEAN that current has continued to flow in the same direction. What a load of nonsense.
If you think about this in terms of an AC current flow through a rectifier - then here's what happens. Above zero - the current flows clockwise. Below zero the current flows anti clockwise. with reference to the drain - BOTH will appear to be above zero. BUT that is absolutely NOT a relfection of the paths they have taken through that circuitry.
Regards,
Rosemary
ADDED. Btw. What worries me is that I have to explain this. I'm the amateur guys. What gives? Is there an agenda here? Or is it that you really don't know these things? Golly. ??? ::)
And Guys, in this repeated effort to cast aspersions - as freely as confetti at a wedding - is the new claim that the VV math trace is, confused by us all, as a reflection of wattage. I challenge ANY ONE OF THOSE MISINFORMANTS ON POYNTY'S FORUM to show any SINGLE reference by any one of us - either in the demonstration or on any posts here - or on my blog that we have referred to that math trace representing a WATTAGE VALUE.
This, again, is in the hopes of spreading the general impression that none of us know whereof we speak. As it is, right now, I'm rather concerned that they really do NOT know. Because if they do - then why are they going to such extraordinary lengths to misinform everyone. What we reference is that the math trace represents the product of two voltages. That's the limit of the math capability on those DSO's - as it does not offer us a formula option. Or if it does, then the fault is mine. I do not know how to apply it. But the product of two voltages is an accurate guide because, if it is negative - then that will reflect in the wattage analysis. And if it is positive then that too will reflect in the analysis. It is a GUIDE. And we only ever reference it as a GUIDE.
I'm heartily sick of having to refer to these things. And if I don't, then - as has happened before - there is the chance that those who are interested in this - will simply assume that all is based on ERROR. And that is the one thing that I cannot allow to happen again. There is always risk associated with posting on these forums. There are many who are actively engaged in refuting all. When the claims are small and the evidence weak - then those poor experimentalists get some kind of license to continue. But when they're strong - then - as sure day follows night - we/they will be dogged by attacks that are personal, inappropriate or entirely erroneous. In my case I've been accused of every possible criminal motive coupled with every possible psychotic afflication, coupled with every possible lack of ability, training or intelligence. Makes one think. To the best of my knowledge I don't think that there has ever been this scale of attack on any other technology as has been mounted against us here. And - frankly - therein is my comfort. Why would they bother if they weren't somehow deeply concerned? It doesn't help that there are also those who are sincerely blinded to this reach and march alongside and trumpet all that denial. And this, simply because they don't have the intellectual acumen required to analyse the facts for themselves.
And what's doubly frightening is that they manage to discourage - not only us the poor ou promotors - who are already confronting mainstream and classical school - but those that dare replicate or take these claims seriously. Everyone has been calling for careful measurement. I think we've obliged. Certainly to extent of my pocket and our combined skills. yet is seems that there's still an ongoing need, apparently, is to devote huge chapters of my time - trying to rescue the evidence from a concerted attempt at diminishing it. If it's within my capability - I will not let that happen again.
Kindest regards,
Rosemary
Guys, I can't get the test up again until Saturday. Meanwhile this is for Harti. It will be a whole wack of screen shots - and I'll give comments against each one. So. Apologies for this but there'll be multiple posts following.
This one.
Channel 1 = Rshunt
Channel 2 = Vbatt
Channel 3 = Gate
Channel 4 = Drain
These settings never vary.
a - cycle mean rshunt
b - math trace a x c
c - mean average vbatt
d - mean average rshunt
Typically an example of very high wattage disssipation at the load. In this case > 44 watts
Note that the cycle mean is negative - the mean average is positive.
Math trace - as in all examples stays negative.
Included here to remind you all that high wattage dissipation does not automatically result in a postive cycle mean average. AGAIN. That example used in the demonstration was intended to highlight the concern related to the phase condition of those voltages that result in an infinite COP.
Added
2nd example.
Settings the same as previous. This an example of a 'runaway' heat rise that required quick disconnection. No idea of the actual wattage output. Certainly in excess of 44 watts. Shown here to again highlght the point that we do not ALWAYS get a positive mean average voltage across the shunt. And again. It was simply used in the demonstration to highlight the advantage of the phase angles that result in an infinite COP.
Note that the cycle mean and the mean average voltages are negative.
Note also that the spikes are no longer periodic. They're all over the place.
Also. The spikes on the mosfet are VERY HIGH. This was always our guide that we were stressing the system. When I saw this we disconnected - at speed. Max temperature measured was to 220 degrees centigrade. Didn't risk taking it higher.
3rd example
Settings same as previous
This one to show that on a range of samples limited to the 'oscillation' only - then there is INVARIABLY the mean average voltage across the shunt in the negative. But I'll redo some of these at the weekend and post them here as Harti requires. The cycle mean result here is meaningless as the sample range does not include a full cycle. But the principle holds. It's always negative. Hopefully I'll find another example.
4th example
Settings same as previous
I'll make this my last example. Just to highlight the typical waveforms that we were showing at the demo. No apparent advantage - and YET. The instantaneous wattage analysis shows an infinite COP.
I hope I've made the demo objectives clearer now.
Kind regards,
Rosemary
So guys. I hope that now clarifies things. We are well able to fine tune the circuit to get a negative mean average over the shunt. Even at runaway wattage levels evident from the resistor element. That wasn't what we were pointing to. We were showing that the hidden benefit is always in the 180 degree antiphase relationship between the battery and the shunt. Or that was the intention. It seems to have eluded you all - and no doubt - I should have made this clearer.
The point is this. When that burst oscillation mode is evident - then also, there is invariably a gain - based on instantaneous wattage analysis. So. I hope that's clearer.
Kindest regards,
Rosemary
Actually I've found 1. But I'll definitely post more of these at the weekend.
Regards,
Rosemary
Quote from: Rosemary Ainslie on March 24, 2011, 04:32:24 AM
And Guys, in this repeated effort to cast aspersions - as freely as confetti at a wedding - is the new claim that the VV math trace is, confused by us all, as a reflection of wattage. I challenge ANY ONE OF THOSE MISINFORMANTS ON POYNTY'S FORUM to show any SINGLE reference by any one of us - either in the demonstration or on any posts here - or on my blog that we have referred to that math trace representing a WATTAGE VALUE.
I assume your challenge here is open to anyone. So...please observe the presentation video starting at 8:25 in (very near the end). The mystery presenter clearly points to the VxV math trace and says clearly that it shows 5 Watts. So your challenge is rather easy, Rosemary.
On a different subject, but related, is another observation that I think is worth considering. Seems we have all in the past (self included) assumed that the current in the shunt represents the current in the battery. To and from, as it were. This would certainly be the case under a DC analysis, where the MOSFET gate is correctly considered an open circuit without current flow.
At a frequency of 1.5MHz and each MOSFET having (from the data sheet) 2800pF of capacitance from Gate to Source, with five in parallel that is 14nF or 0.014 microfarads which is substantial. We see the 1.5MHz oscillations appear on the gate voltage traces in Rosemary's scope shots.
That means substantial RF current is circulating in the resonant LCR tank consisting of the MOSFET input capacitance, the Shunt resistance and inductance, the wiring inductances and the complex impedance of the gate drive cable, which, by the close-up photos, is not a 50 ohm coaxial cable matched to the generator and is of unknown characteristic impedance and length. This RF current loop includes the shunt but does not include the battery. Thus the shunt current is not the same as the battery current.
The energy circulating in this resonant circuit is what is responsible for wiggling the gate and causing the 1.5MHz oscillations and the currents involved are fairly significant. The energy to sustain the current circulation in the gate loop is injected from the drain node of the MOSFET via the drain-gate capacitance as the drain voltage swings up and down by hundreds of volts.
Lastly, for anyone trying to figure out what the difference is between the high power and low power modes, it's quite simple:
In the low power mode, the gate drive high voltage is always kept below the 3-4V gate turn-on threshold. When the gate drive gets close to or briefly hits the turn-on threshold, it stops the oscillations but does not result in actual turn-on of the MOSFETs. This is why no current flows during the non-oscillating portions of the drive duty cycle. And why the load heat drops to a few watts as supplied by just the oscillating portion of the burst envelope.
In the high power mode, the drive offset is adjusted so that during the non-oscillating half of the period the MOSFETs are actually turned on and DC current flows out of the battery through the load. This normal DC current adds a great deal more heat to the load, so we get 44W now. 50W flows out of the battery.
These numbers are not made up. They are there for all to see. The scope traces show that when the MOSFET gates are driven above 3-4V there is always positive current flow. Please don't take my word for this...check out the facts yourself. There are no real mysteries involved.
cHeeseburger
Hi Rosemary .The scope shots look convincing to me but I would like to see comments from Harti . I know that you get overwhelmed with info , but bear this in mind .Harti suggested replacing the Function generator with a DC power supply , and you said it might be hard to obtain one . You can get the same effect using just TWO CHEAP COMPONENTS . The gate will draw no current , so get a 9 volt transistor radio battery , and a 1K potentiometer . The pot will have 3 terminals . Connect the center one to the Fet Gate . Connect the other 2 to the 9 volt battery terminals . Now run a wire from the battery positive terminal to the ground of your device .Job done . You now have a neg potential on the gate which can be varied from zero to 9 volts by the 1K pot . Try it when you get time .
I received a private email today from someone that suggested that you are looking for ways to measure the outcomes to suit your thesis. I and many others have also reached that conclusion some time ago. This reminded me to a visit I had in the USA to a large research institute. I was talking about analysing data with the head of one of the research programmes and two PHD graduates. We all agreed it is common problem even amongst academics of sometimes looking at measuring methodologies or selective data to suit ones bias towards a hypothesis rather than a rational look at all methodologies. This is why Peer Review is so important.
Several people have made excellent suggestions, and offers. Sadly you only talk to those who concur with you and ignore the others.
So please take a fresh approach of analysing what you have done to date and how you could better do it. Until you do come up with methodologies that satisfy the industry professionals, you will never be taken seriously by mainstream.
I am writing this as helpfull advice, not to shoot you down. Go back again , read what has been said and device a new methodology. People want to help.
Kind Regards
Mark
Thanks for posting the higher-res scope shots. I am very busy with other projects at the moment, but I'll be interested to see how this turns out.
Quote from: neptune on March 24, 2011, 12:50:08 PM
Hi Rosemary .The scope shots look convincing to me but I would like to see comments from Harti . I know that you get overwhelmed with info , but bear this in mind .Harti suggested replacing the Function generator with a DC power supply , and you said it might be hard to obtain one . You can get the same effect using just TWO CHEAP COMPONENTS . The gate will draw no current , so get a 9 volt transistor radio battery , and a 1K potentiometer . The pot will have 3 terminals . Connect the center one to the Fet Gate . Connect the other 2 to the 9 volt battery terminals . Now run a wire from the battery positive terminal to the ground of your device .Job done . You now have a neg potential on the gate which can be varied from zero to 9 volts by the 1K pot . Try it when you get time .
Hello Neptune. You make this sound so easy. I'll ask if Marco can set this up - but I must admit I'm reluctant to change that artefact. Anyway. I'll CERTAINLY try the Power supply number as that's within my competence. But that test needs to wait until the guys are back from a conference. Sometime next week. That's the soonest. I'll do more waveforms at the weekend and - hopefully - show you some more of those really complex numbers where the battery average itself falls to something weird.
added - sorry Neptune. Yes. If the guys can set this up for me - I'll test it. It seems such an elegant solution.
And Feynman, I'd be glad if you get on board here eventually. I"m still battling to find some way of showing those spreadsheets.
Kindest regards,
Rosemary
Rosemary, I've just been going through your blog-Report - you really should do something about the images there, though 'click-able', they don't expand much if at all, and are almost unreadable! But I made a discovery - despite all your talk of negative voltages on the gate from the get-go, I always took this to mean zero-volts! Rank-amateur and sad but true, it also kinda explains why I had a negative result the first time round - I was using a pulse-generator, 0->5v range, not the the 555 circuit.
Do you have a link to where someone could buy the heater element you used? The company "Specific Heat" you list in the report doesn't google anything relevant.
Quote from: Sprocket on March 24, 2011, 03:06:24 PM
Rosemary, I've just been going through your blog-Report - you really should do something about the images there, though 'click-able', they don't expand much if at all, and are almost unreadable! But I made a discovery - despite all your talk of negative voltages on the gate from the get-go, I always took this to mean zero-volts! Rank-amateur and sad but true, it also kinda explains why I had a negative result the first time round - I was using a pulse-generator, 0->5v range, not the the 555 circuit.
Do you have a link to where someone could buy the heater element you used? The company "Specific Heat" you list in the report doesn't google anything relevant.
Sprocket - this is beginning to sound promising. Yes. I can definitely pm you on this. But PLEASE. There is absolutely NO requirement for a precise component EVER. I need to make this very clear. I'm not sure of the cost but those are standard immersion heaters. What it shows is that it works very well. Plus/minus 10 Ohms. Guys - for anyone wanting to experiment on this or aspects of this test - it is absolutely NOT frequency dependent and nor is it component dependent. I KNOW that this can be shown on just about any variation and variety. Look even at the configuration that Mags has shown. All that is needed - as I see it - is that there is the generation of BEMF - or - maybe - FEMF as Mags calls it. BUT. To generate that amazing burst oscillation - then I THINK you all that is needed are those mosfets in parallel and some kind of negative triggering. That's it. I would be really sorry to find that anyone gets ensnarled again in attempting a precise replication. It's not needed. Look at all the varieties that I've shown. And I've only given a fraction of what our data shows. And you guys are skilled. You could very easily take this to some kind of application. That would be so nice. Just to tempt you. I think you could unplug your hot water cylinders with between 6 and 8 of those batteries. I'm reasonably certain that we were dissipating in excess of 200 watts and that with just 4 batteries. If you do this and if you manage it - then let us all know. It would be most enouraging.
Kindest regards,
Rosemary
@Sprocket . As you have worked out for yourself , a simple function generator without a voltage offset control will only give a square wave out put that toggles between a positive value [say 5 volts] and zero . The 555 timer circuit is just the same except that the positive part of the square wave is at a higher voltage , approaching the voltage of the battery supplying the 555 circuit . Rosemarys function generator has a voltage offset control . What this does in effect is move the zero line of the voltage graph up the page , so the pulses are alternately positive and negative . note that depending on the control setting these pos and neg voltages are not necessarily equal . In other words you can move that zero line as far up or down as desired . Note that In its published form the 555 timer can NOT give negative pulses . I have a circuit in my head that could enable it to do so , but I do not know how to put it on the computer .The simple battery and pot circuit I describe above simply keeps the gate at a constant negative voltage .
Hi Hartiberlin
in response to your inquiry on youtube
hope i have undesrtood your mind
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RQFD1cDlEUU
good luck at all
Laurent
Quote from: woopy on March 24, 2011, 06:16:24 PM
Hi Hartiberlin
in response to your inquiry on youtube
hope i have undesrtood your mind
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RQFD1cDlEUU
good luck at all
Laurent
Hey Woopy
In teslas igniter pat, he uses a very low ohm primary of another transformer let say, in series with your switch across the cap.
The switch has 2 ON functions.
1 When closed, the large inductor is put directly across the source, so the freewheeling builds much quicker and stronger. Now when the switch opens, the inductor charges the cap really high, because it takes a lot to bring the inductors freewheeling to a halt, because its spinning so fast. ;]
Like a bullet from a gun, if I throw the bullet at you, you might just laugh at me, but from a gun, a lot of speed and speed is power. ;]
2 When the switch closes, it doesnt just short out the charge in the cap, it dumps it into the low ohm primary of the transformer, while the source is getting the inductor going. Get it? Tesla was pure genius. So efficient in all ways.
So instead of charging the cap as you are, and just sorting it out to discharge or sending it elsewhere via another way, the one switch does it all. If you have another microwave transformer or an automotive spark coil, you can use its primary in series with the switch
and keep the first transformer you have been using as the flywheel.
Now while you demonstrate, we get to see big sparks from the output. :o be careful, we dont know what the output will be till you try. ;]
Keep uP the good work woops. Ill be joining you in a few days with this, as i have something I need to test on these bi-toroid theories.
I thing there can be many ways to separate the secondary induced fields from the primary field, and that is key for not having an increase in primary current as secondary load current increases. And safe, its just a transformer. ;] i like safe, no like nuke. have you read today about where we store used fuel rods these days? Same as Japan, and they are holding more than they should, at every plant. =[
Mags
Woops, one more thing
Ive been told that those caps have a built in resistor, that looks like why your charge voltage is declining as it sits. Some of these caps have the resistor welded to the outside terminals and can be removed. these caps can hold very high voltages. Ive picked up a few charged caps in my time that I was shocked, literally and not ;], at what 200 or 300v in a tiny cap can feel like, but up to 2000v :o Thats why they have the resistor so the voltage doesnt stay in the cap when not in use.
;]
Magz
@Rosemary - Thanks for the info. Yes, I am definitely thinking of specific applications as well, hence my reason for wanting a 'real-world' heater element. I presumed that the one you were using was somewhat specialised as it seemed fairly low-power - most of the heater elements I've googled were in the 2-4KW range. Since any garden-variety should do, I'll probably source one locally.
@neptune - that certainly describes my pulse-generator, simple - just pulses, nothing else, and definitely no offset option. I've been threatening to get a decent function-generator for years but inconveniences like eating/beer etc. always seem to win out! And recently one of the channels went in my scope. I finally managed to trace the fault, but the needed i.c. (UB1202AM) has been relegated to the status of "obsolete stock" so it's gonna take mucho deneros if I opt to fix it - most US firms will only sell wholesale and don't even respond to emails, but I managed to find a Chinese supplier who will sell me a minimum of 5 for $10 each, so we're talking at least 100 bucks. The function-generator will have to wait for another while. As for the 555 circuit, I'm sure I will be able to scare up something to generate the required waveform without too much difficulty.
Hey Woops
I stuck us in the Tesla Igniter thread as it is appropriate and this is Roses deal here and the cap shorting is getting away from mine and her discussions. Shorting the cap is just putting direct source across the inductor, thus more voltage seen, and more current seen. ;] The idea though is on the same lines with the flywheel effect.
You can check us out over there Rose. =] Always welcome. And I have another treat for ya. Its a way to use 1 energy 2 times, well almost 2 times. Very simple. ;]
Mags
Quote from: cHeeseburger on March 24, 2011, 12:22:12 PM
On a different subject, but related, is another observation that I think is worth considering. Seems we have all in the past (self included) assumed that the current in the shunt represents the current in the battery. To and from, as it were. This would certainly be the case under a DC analysis, where the MOSFET gate is correctly considered an open circuit without current flow.
At a frequency of 1.5MHz and each MOSFET having (from the data sheet) 2800pF of capacitance from Gate to Source, with five in parallel that is 14nF or 0.014 microfarads which is substantial. We see the 1.5MHz oscillations appear on the gate voltage traces in Rosemary's scope shots.
Here I forgot to mention that the very large narrow spikes we see in all the shunt current traces all correspond to the switching pulses from the pulse generator charging and discharging the gate capacitance through the shunt.
The shunt inductance enlarges these spikes. They are confined to the gate-source current loop and thus do not appear in the actual battery current.
To obtain an accurate waveform and measure of the battery current ONLY, I would recommend highly that a Kelvin-sensing shunt of extremely low inductance be used, placed on the battery minus side of the common ground point (rather than on the MOSFET source side).
Such a shunt can be easily fabricated in a few minutes for about $5.00 US. See the picture below for the details.
Kindest regards,
Bryan
CHeeseburger
Quote from: woopy on March 24, 2011, 06:16:24 PM
Hi Hartiberlin
in response to your inquiry on youtube
hope i have undesrtood your mind
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RQFD1cDlEUU
good luck at all
Laurent
Okay, thanks,
but I meant , what would happen,
if you pulse the power supply
to the circuit, not shorting the capacitor.
Anyway, as you did it looks good and you
could use a incandescent lamp like
a 12 Volts 10 Watts Halogen lamp
in series with your switch when you short out the cap,
then this lamp will light up.
P.S: I will move this Forward EMF discussion postings to a different
thread, as it does not apply to the Rosemary circuit..
Regards, STefan.
Quote from: cHeeseburger on March 24, 2011, 10:41:45 PM
Here I forgot to mention that the very large narrow spikes we see in all the shunt current traces all correspond to the switching pulses from the pulse generator charging and discharging the gate capacitance through the shunt.
The shunt inductance enlarges these spikes. They are confined to the gate-source current loop and thus do not appear in the actual battery current.
CHeeseburger
Yes, through the switching of the function generator
additional energy can be flown into the circuit via the
Gate Source and Gate Drain capacitances.
So it will be wise to just use a negative DC power
supply on the Gates to start and keep the oscillations.
Hey Stefan
If it is ok, you could put the posts in the igniter thread. If you insert them just before my first post today, it will fit the time period as there wasnt any posts for a long time. In it fits. =] Just a suggestion.
Thanks
Mags
Quote from: hartiberlin on March 24, 2011, 11:46:38 PM
Yes, through the switching of the function generator
additional energy can be flown into the circuit via the
Gate Source and Gate Drain capacitances.
Really? Where is this energy coming from? The plug? Or from ground? I can prove that it does not come from the plug and I intend proving that it does not come from ground through the simple expediency of applying a groundless connection. And that capacitance would need to generate in the order of 60 amps in BOTH directions. The ONLY supply that is capable of that much current is from the battery.
Rosemary
Rosemary,
please measure the battery voltage directly across the battery terminals
with the scope, not inside the circuit.
Here are the 2 scopeshots.
You decide which areas are bigger, the
red ones (positive ones) above the black
ground line or the green areas below the ground
line (negative current recharging the battery).
The math function of the scope says, the green area, is bigger.
You decide !
The question is, when the low potential of the
function generator also oscillates with 1.5 Mhz,
does this supply much power from the function generator
into the circuit via the capacity of gate to drain and source ?
As the funtion generator has about 50 Ohms output resistance,
I just calculated that it could add about 0.5 Watts max into the
circuit at these oscillation amplitudes via the capacitive coupling.
Regards, Stefan.
@ Poynt, please post your simulation file.
Thanks.
Quote from: hartiberlin on March 25, 2011, 12:00:21 AM
Rosemary,
please measure the battery voltage directly across the battery terminals
with the scope, not inside the circuit.
I would do this with PLEASURE. I cannot use the oscilloscope probes. I've written this in an email reply to you. I've mentioned this to Poynty here on this thread. THE SCOPE PROBES DO NOT SPAN THOSE TERMINALS. I can CERTAINLY do it if I add wire. But then we're back to where we started.
Quote from: hartiberlin on March 25, 2011, 12:00:21 AMHere are the 2 scopeshots.
You decide which areas are bigger, the
red ones (positive ones) above the black
ground line or the green areas below the ground
line (negative current recharging the battery).
Good point Harti. I would say that there's more above than below which definitely CONFLICTS with the displayed values. I suspect that this was taken from a stored shot of a full cycle. Else the numbers would have adjusted accordingly. I intend looking into this tomorrow.
Quote from: hartiberlin on March 25, 2011, 12:00:21 AM
The question is, when the low potential of the
function generator also oscillates with 1.5 Mhz,
does this supply much power from the function generator
into the circuit via the capacity of gate to drain and source ?
This can be easily proved or disproved. And this will CERTAINLY be tested tomorrow. I'll let you know.
Quote from: hartiberlin on March 25, 2011, 12:00:21 AMAs the funtion generator has about 50 Ohms output resistance,
I just calculated that it could add about 0.5 Watts max into the
circuit at these oscillation amplitudes via the capacitive coupling.
That EXACTLY matches the energy that we measured.
Stefan, will you PLEASE carefully read the email that I sent you. We're missing each other by a mile.
Kindest regards,
Rosemary
When the function generator has the low signal,
then the oscillation is running.
Then the oscillation amplitude of the 1.5 Mhz overlayed on the low
signal of the function generator is around 5 Volts
at maximum.
If we calculate the gate to drain-source resistance as a short
at this high frequency, there is only the limiting
resistor of 50 Ohms at the output of the function
generator.
Thus the maximum power can only be 5 Volts ^2 /50 Ohm / 2
cause the maximum power can be put out, when the
gate to drain-source capacitive resistance would be equal
to the internal output resistance of the function generator.
So at 5 Volts oscillation amplitude it could be a maximum
of 0.25 Watts.
( the function generator output resistance and the
gate to drain-source capacitive resistance are voltage
dividers and thus at the gate to drain-source capacitive resistance
only 1/2 of the output voltage of the function generator can occur at maximum)
At 10 Volts oscillation amplitude of the overlayed 1.5 Mhz signal it would be about 1 Watts max, what the
function generator could provide into the circuit.
Regards, Stefan.
Stefan - here again is the point.
Energy is vi dt. Therefore we multiply the current determined by voltage across the shunt with the voltage at the battery.
We addressed this at the demo. We used a TYPICAL waveform - that SHOWS NO NEGATIVE MEAN AVERAGE - and showed that the antiphase condition of those voltages - across the battery and across the shunt - INEVITABLY results in COP INFINITY. This is because the battery voltage is at its LOWEST when energy is delivered and at its HIGHEST when energy is being returned. That way - REGARDLESS - the gain is ALWAYS to the battery.
The anomaly is this. If we apply CLASSICAL PROTOCOLS then the result is Infinite COP. The question - as you rightly point out - is does the energy go through the battery? I do not know. But what I do know is that it is in line with the voltage measured through the drain. If it is argued that this energy on the drain is from the FET - then the FET would need to be discharging something in the region of 60 amps. I think this is unlikely. But I'll try and find a condition that can prove this more conclusively.
Rosemary
Quote from: Rosemary Ainslie on March 25, 2011, 12:15:27 AM
I would do this with PLEASURE. I cannot use the oscilloscope probes. I've written this in an email reply to you. I've mentioned this to Poynty here on this thread. THE SCOPE PROBES DO NOT SPAN THOSE TERMINALS. I can CERTAINLY do it if I add wire. But then we're back to where we started.
Yes, add some thick wires there and measure with the scope
head directly at the positive terminal
and with a thick diameter wire connected directly
connect the ground line of the scope to the neative pole of the battery.
Quote
Good point Harti. I would say that there's more above than below which definitely CONFLICTS with the displayed values.
Hmm, but it could also be, that the green area is bigger all in all.
As the scope says it is a negative nanoVolts ,
the negative area seems to be only very minuscule bigger...
Regards, Stefan.
Quote from: hartiberlin on March 25, 2011, 12:23:02 AM
When the function generator has the low signal,
then the oscillation is running.
Then the oscillation amplitude of the 1.5 Mhz overlayed on the low
signal of the function generator is around 5 Volts
at maximum.
If we calculate the gate to drain-source resistance as a short
at this high frequency, there is only the limiting
resistor of 50 Ohms at the output of the function
generator.
Thus the maximum power can only be 5 Volts ^2 /50 Ohm / 2
cause the maximum power can be put out, when the
gate to drain-source capacitive resistance would be equal
to the internal output resistance of the function generator.
So at 5 Volts oscillation amplitude it could be a maximum
of 0.25 Watts.
( the function generator output resistance and the
gate to drain-source capacitive resistance are voltage
dividers and thus at the gate to drain-source capacitive resistance
only 1/2 of the output voltage of the function generator can occur at maximum)
At 10 Volts oscillation amplitude of the overlayed 1.5 Mhz signal it would be about 1 Watts max, what the
function generator could provide into the circuit.
Regards, Stefan.
Ok. This is more comforting. We put a .5 Ohm resistor at the gate to measure the energy. We established that there was something in excess of 5 watts - but that this was being returned to the functions generator. One of the guys there said that there was enough capacitance associated with the generator to absorb this energy. I am not qualified to comment.
Regards.
Rosemary
Quote from: Rosemary Ainslie on March 25, 2011, 12:28:40 AM
Stefan - here again is the point.
Energy is vi dt. Therefore we multiply the current determined by voltage across the shunt with the voltage at the battery.
The problem is, you did NOT measure the voltage at the battery !
Only inside the circuit, where you have a long cable to the batteries,
which has too much inductance at 1.5 Mhz !
Please measure the voltage directly at the batteries with very big cables !
Quote from: hartiberlin on March 25, 2011, 12:39:31 AM
The problem is, you did NOT measure the voltage at the battery !
Only inside the circuit, where you have a long cable to the batteries,
which has too much inductance at 1.5 Mhz !
Please measure the voltage directly at the batteries with very big cables !
Still not sure what you mean. Do I add wires across the batteries? Or do I leave the cables there and simply apply the probe directly to them? I'll gladly do whichever - or both, as required.
Rosemary
Quote from: hartiberlin on March 24, 2011, 11:46:38 PM
Yes, through the switching of the function generator
additional energy can be flown into the circuit via the
Gate Source and Gate Drain capacitances.
So it will be wise to just use a negative DC power
supply on the Gates to start and keep the oscillations.
Yes, this will eliminate the giant spikes but still a Kelvin sensing ultra-low inductance shunt should be placed on the battery side of the common ground point to eliminate the currents in the gate-source circuit loop resulting from the oscillations at 1.5MHz (as well as any gate drive spikes, which will go away if the circuit can be made to oscillate with just a DC bias).
Stefan, you must remember that it is not only energy that comes from the sig-gen flowing in the gate-source current loop (and showing up in the shunt even though it is not flowing in the larger circuit loop that includes the batteries).
Quote from: Rosemary Ainslie on March 25, 2011, 12:34:29 AM
Ok. This is more comforting. We put a .5 Ohm resistor at the gate to measure the energy. We established that there was something in excess of 5 watts - but that this was being returned to the functions generator. One of the guys there said that there was enough capacitance associated with the generator to absorb this energy. I am not qualified to comment.
Regards.
Rosemary
So Rosemary's team acknowledges that 5W of 1.5MHz RF is circulating in the gate circuit when there is no dynamic transition signal coming from the signal generator.
We see this clearly when the 1,5MHz oscillations are going and there is AC voltage at the gate having to exist across the 14nF of gate capacitance. That represents significant power that is neither coming from the sig-gen nor flowing through the larger outer circuit loop and battery. But it appears on the shunt because the shunt is inside both the smaller and larger current loops at present. This why the shunt should be moved to the battery side of ground and thus taken out of the gate-source current loop. If the goal is to measure just the battery current flow by itself, this must be done.
If this is done, please note that the polarity reverses on the shunt. Think about that carefully and you will see that when current flows in the normal direction out of the battery (draining the battery) a shunt on the left (battery) side of the ground point will show a negative voltage below ground while a shunt on the right side (MOSFET source) of the common ground will show a positive voltage above ground. Remember the two shunts are in series with ground at the center tap.
Regarding that non-driven approach (DC bias without input pulses) Rosemary might find it won't readily begin oscillating. In my simulation, I used a DC bias and got continuous oscillation but I needed to have one single sharp pulse to get it to start going. I'm not predicting one way or the other, just noting a minor point that I found using the simulator. The actual hardware may be different.
Bryan
Dear Rosemary
Please forgive the intrusion in your thread, there seems to be a lot of issues about the measurements in your experiment.
A simple question if you will.
Have you ever ran your circuit for a longer period of time than would be possible on a battery (or bank of batteries) than without your circuit to the heat resistive element?
Seems like your circuit and your goal as intended to generate heat without depleting the source battery (or bank of batteries) to pre-heat water or other uses could run this circuit once started and tuned indefinitely. If you don't mind me asking, how long have you ran this circuit without interruption? I know you mentioned pushing the circuit and that the battery was still charged, but can you keep it running endlessly if not pushing it too much and still go past the C20 capacity rating for the battery?
Sorry for all the questions, I know you're busy but if you could answer the above I don't see what all the fuss about measuring is if you can keep the battery powering extra heat indefinitely :)
Regards,
Paul
Quote from: Goat on March 25, 2011, 01:10:37 AM
Have you ever ran your circuit for a longer period of time than would be possible on a battery (or bank of batteries) than without your circuit to the heat resistive element?
Seems like your circuit and your goal as intended to generate heat without depleting the source battery (or bank of batteries) to pre-heat water or other uses could run this circuit once started and tuned indefinitely. If you don't mind me asking, how long have you ran this circuit without interruption? I know you mentioned pushing the circuit and that the battery was still charged, but can you keep it running endlessly if not pushing it too much and still go past the C20 capacity rating for the battery?
Sorry for all the questions, I know you're busy but if you could answer the above I don't see what all the fuss about measuring is if you can keep the battery powering extra heat indefinitely :)
Regards,
Paul
It's a good question Paul - and I've sort of answered it all over the place. It seems to be a preferred way of proving things because it's so logical. I have NOT managed to find any loss on our own batteries - used pretty well continuously for 5 or so months. But the batteries are HUGE. I'll try and find the post that refers to this and then repost it. If you're asking this still then there are others with the same question.
Hang ten - I'll post it hereunder - when I find it? Not the quickest around this internet thing. LOL
Kindest regards,
Rosemary
Quote from: Rosemary Ainslie on March 25, 2011, 01:17:15 AM
It's a good question Paul - and I've sort of answered it all over the place. It seems to be a preferred way of proving things because it's so logical. I have NOT managed to find any loss on our own batteries - used pretty well continuously for 5 or so months. But the batteries are HUGE. I'll try and find the post that refers to this and then repost it. If you're asking this still then there are others with the same question.
Hang ten - I'll post it hereunder - when I find it? Not the quickest around this internet thing. LOL
Kindest regards,
Rosemary
Thank you for your quick reply Rosemary, I am humbled at your statement "If you're asking this still then there are others with the same question." because it seems like your thread and purpose here has become mired in measurement issues.
When you mentioned above "I have NOT managed to find any loss on our own batteries - used pretty well continuously for 5 or so months. But the batteries are HUGE." How HUGE was the battery as opposed to the resistive element and did the extended use show more heat than the battery bank could supply?
If so, mission accomplished :)
Regards,
Paul
Quote from: Rosemary Ainslie on March 25, 2011, 01:17:15 AM
It's a good question Paul - and I've sort of answered it all over the place. It seems to be a preferred way of proving things because it's so logical. I have NOT managed to find any loss on our own batteries - used pretty well continuously for 5 or so months. But the batteries are HUGE. I'll try and find the post that refers to this and then repost it. If you're asking this still then there are others with the same question.
Hang ten - I'll post it hereunder - when I find it? Not the quickest around this internet thing. LOL
Kindest regards,
Rosemary
It's a simple question, what is the longest time you've run the circuit off the batteries? Why don't you know this offhand? Seems fairly important. May I suggest trying tinselkoala's requests on the bottom of page 1 as a starting point to answering questions which seem to be going around in circles.
Thanks.
@ happyfunball
Rosemary said that the batteries ran the circuit for 5 months so she did answer that question but she also mentioned that the batteries were HUGE so it remains to be seen what size the battery bank was and what heat was being generated.
Rosemary did say she brought this up before so please be patient with the rest of us while she gathers her information and answers us.
Regards,
Paul
Quote from: Rosemary Ainslie on March 19, 2011, 01:03:54 AM
happyfunball. Another gross misnomer. LOL Your posts read like the prophets of doom. I've just trailed through a page of them. Your denial of OU is somewhat brutal. They're about as inspirational as as a tall glass of tepid tap water. And you're wrong of course. Measurements are given all over the place. It's just when the stack up to contradict what you clearly require - then they're ignored - or considered fallacious.
Just to fill you in here I'll say this again. When BP (SA) evaluated these results - some decade ago - they insisted that it would ONLY be proved on batteries. I was involved in a series of the most boring tests that I have ever been involved with. All the more arduous as I am - absolutely not - an experimentalist. I won't here go into the protocols. But it required close testing of controls against the experiment and run concurrently. The timing of those batteries was determined like this. When either one of those supply banks depeleted their PD from 24 v's to 20 volts or when each battery depeleted from 12 to 10 - then the tests were terminated. That constituted the 'test period'. What was evidenced is that the controls were entirely 'flat' when the test had barely lost a fraction of a volt. On the strength of these results PB (SA) allowed us to use their names as accreditors of that early test. Those early tests are on record as showing a COP>17. In effect we proved that the test batteries outlasted its watt hour rating against the control.
Now. When it came to giving a published report on those definitive tests - the PUBLISHER refused to allow ANY REFERENCE TO THE CONTROL. The publication was a technical journal. The editor was advised by an electrical engineering academic. They determined - regardless of my protests - that any reference to battery duration was entirely IRRELEVANT to the argument. Therefore was I not allowed to reference batteries. I ASSURE YOU - that as often as you guys state that the battery needs to be tested to it's full duration - just as often will that evidence be ignored. Batteries vary - one from another. Some batteries retain their charge and then collapse in moments - to nothing. Others distribute their charge more gradually. Others require small currents to match their ratings. Others don't. The electrolytes vary - one from another. So. If I was to test one then - for conclusive results - I'd need to test them all.
Then. We have hooked up as many as 7 of those very large batteries in one single test - apparently discharging nothing. Now. The artefact matters. When this experiment finally gets to our academies, then equivalent and nonequivalent capacities will need to be tested. In these tests we only used that same bank. And we could measure absolutely zero loss over a 5 month period. Exactly how long would it be required to run those tests? Would it take 2 years to prove it? 10? 6 months? What? What exactly would satisfy you? And how then does one run a control? Must we SHOW that under normal operating conditions a battery will discharge? I would have thought that that much could be relied on. And even then. I am ready to put money on it that while the most of you engineers require it - our learneds will, to a man, insist that the battery duration is irrelevant. I wonder if I can state this more plainly. They're right. The minute you start evaluating the battery performance - then you are trying to resolve a result in line with specific commodity with a market supply that has varieties that are probably counted in their thousands if not their hundreds of thousands. That's an awful lot of testing.
What is intersting is this. We have an energy returned to the supply that is far greater than the energy delivered from that supply. Now. Here's the thing. If, as is widely assumed by mainstream - that energy is lost to a battery when it discharges current flow - then - by the same token one would expect the energy to be increased in line with a recharge cycle. In point of fact the batteries voltages varied under test conditions. The stronger the current discharge the quicker the decline. But OF INTEREST - is that immediately thereafter it systematically climbs - within minutes - to it's previous high. Not higher. Perhaps there are those subsequent tests that may take it higher. In previous tests we have certainly found a climb to a higher 'start condition'. But in these tests we did not. It never exceeded its 'kick off' voltage level.
I would modestly propose therefore, that there is a fixed amount of energy that is available from that potential difference - and that no new material - electrons or whatever classical assumption requires - has been introduced to the system. That's interesting. That implies that this may be a closed system. It also implies a whole lot of other things. But for now - just consider that. That is, if you are not 'happily' out to throw more of that tepid tap water on this research.
Rosemary
Got there. Strangely this was in answer to Happyfunball. Seems like he either missed the post or the sense in that post. I will not again get embroiled in evaluating the battery draw downs. Anyone feel strongly about this feel free to do your own tests. Meanwhile - as a reminder - if I had to rely on battery performance then it would eliminate one half of a very strong argument. My intention is to show that these gains apply to AC or DC supplies.
Thanks for the defense here Paul. I'm always grateful for this. It seems that either my personality or the facts of these experiments tends to polarise opinions.
Kindest regards,
Rosemary
Quote from: cHeeseburger on March 24, 2011, 12:22:12 PM
Quote from: Rosemary Ainslie on March 24, 2011, 04:32:24 AM
And Guys, in this repeated effort to cast aspersions - as freely as confetti at a wedding - is the new claim that the VV math trace is, confused by us all, as a reflection of wattage. I challenge ANY ONE OF THOSE MISINFORMANTS ON POYNTY'S FORUM to show any SINGLE reference by any one of us - either in the demonstration or on any posts here - or on my blog that we have referred to that math trace representing a WATTAGE VALUE.
I assume your challenge here is open to anyone. So...please observe the presentation video starting at 8:25 in (very near the end). The mystery presenter clearly points to the VxV math trace and says clearly that it shows 5 Watts. So your challenge is rather easy, Rosemary.
Golly. Humbugger. If I didn't know better I'd think you were 'spinning'. Actually, I'd be inclined to think that this was a HUMDINGER of a lie. I'll post a link to the video in question. There is NOTHING in that math trace that is referred to as watts. Unless - that is - that you are concluding that -5VV that Donovan points to - is somehow meant to relate the the measured plus/minus 44 watts dissipated.
Sorry. I forgot to add the link to the video. Here it is. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fyOmoGluMCc
It reminds me of the time when you related that joke to us all where you got clearance from some rather weighty Governmental laboratories - on one of TK's videos. You pointed out that, notwithstanding evidence to the contrary - they had found a 'hidden' wire that was therefore appropriate to that junction. Remeber that Cheesie? For those readers that may be interested here's that link.
http://newlightondarkenergy.blogspot.com/2011/01/36-pretender.html
I've said this before. If I were inclined to suspicions and general paranoia - then I'd be inclined to think that you had some kind of agenda here.
And - if you need to explain those 'spikes' as coming from the capacitance in the MOSFETs - then you'd need to explain how it is that they generate in excess of 60 amps in both directions through the circuit. It would take a miracle of some considerable proportions to manage that argument and still sound sane.
Rosemary
EDITED
Quote from: hartiberlin on March 25, 2011, 12:32:41 AM
Yes, add some thick wires there and measure with the scope
head directly at the positive terminal
and with a thick diameter wire connected directly
connect the ground line of the scope to the neative pole of the battery.
Hmm, but it could also be, that the green area is bigger all in all.
As the scope says it is a negative nanoVolts ,
the negative area seems to be only very minuscule bigger...
Regards, Stefan.
Remember that there are long wires in between each of the batteries too, so just moving the probes to the +/- terminals of the end batteries will not get rid of the large inductive voltage swings.
The reality is that the battery voltage as measured by the DMM seems to always exactly or very closely match the mean battery voltage as reported by the scopes. We all know the battery voltage itself is DC and has only a very small AC ripple due to its internal impedance. So the only problem is that the wild 100V+ AC voltage swings that Rosemary is feeding into the scope math as the battery voltage plus the current waveform due to the shunt inductance are giving bad numbers when multiplied on an instantaneous basis.
It's really simple to measure the input power. The battery voltage is a DC quantity with negligible AC ripple. All we need now is a good low inductance shunt placed properly to sense ONLY the battery current. Then get the average of that either by using the mean function on the scope or by a simple low-pass filter consisting of a single resistor (10K) and a single capacitor (1uF) on the shunt with a simple DMM measurement. Calculate the current considering the shunt value. Then multiply. Power! The end.
Bryan
hi Rosemary
thanks for posting the finer detail scopeshots
it seems to me (an old stager, who still remembers progamming computers with punched cards, paper tape & front-panel switches!) that for some reason you're on the receiving end of an unwarranted amount of flak
i put it down to a mismatch of experimental approaches between conventional and unconventional
i believe that it's possible to ride this out with large measures of goodwill and patience on both sides (and there's no doubt that you've led the way, there)
Quote from: Rosemary Ainslie on March 25, 2011, 02:22:17 AM
...
My intention is to show that these gains apply to AC or DC supplies.
...
Rosemary
that sounds good!
you've done the 'DC supplies' bit
i think you'll find that you'll quickly satisfy the eager demand for data on your experiment by progressing now to the 'AC supplies' bit
there is sufficient power in the equipment to be measured on easily available wall-socket meters (eg. Kill-o-Watt, true power versions)
- plug the K-o-W type meter into the wall socket;
- plug the SigGen and a DC Power suppply (up to, say, 60V, 3A?) into the K-o-W type meter;
- switch on the 2 pieces of equipment, set to their operating levels (obtained from a pre-run);
- read the baseline power draw shown on K-o-W type meter;
- connect your experimental circuit, switch on & ensure tuning is correct
- read K-o-W type meter;
- compare and report readings;
job done (as our Chief Technician used to say "No Fuss, No Dust!")
good luck! :)
np
http://docsfreelunch.blogspot.com/ (http://docsfreelunch.blogspot.com/)
Thanks NP. Always a pleasure to read an upbeat post. I have a problem with the ac supply source. For reasons which will entirely exahust everyone's patience - the circuit would probably need to carry two loads - negative to one load and positive to another. I can't see it working through a supply with a rectified current.
But I've undertaken to test this which, hopefully, will not be too far away. Otherwise, I agree. With the caveat that the circuit is configured with two entirely separate loads - then indeed - the numbers should stack up.
Kindest regards,
Rosemary
Quote from: Rosemary Ainslie on March 25, 2011, 03:22:34 AM
I assume your challenge here is open to anyone. So...please observe the presentation video starting at 8:25 in (very near the end). The mystery presenter clearly points to the VxV math trace and says clearly that it shows 5 Watts. So your challenge is rather easy, Rosemary.
Golly. Humbugger. If I didn't know better I'd think you were 'spinning'. Actually, I'd be inclined to think that this was a HUMDINGER of a lie. I'll post a link to the video in question. There is NOTHING in that math trace that is referred to as watts. Unless - that is - that you are concluding that -5VV that Donovan points to - is somehow meant to relate the the measured plus/minus 44 watts dissipated.
Sorry. I forgot to add the link to the video. Here it is.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fyOmoGluMCc
It reminds me of the time when you related that joke to us all where you got clearance from some rather weighty Governmental laboratories - on one of TK's videos. You pointed out that, notwithstanding evidence to the contrary - they had found a 'hidden' wire that was therefore appropriate to that junction. Remeber that Cheesie? For those readers that may be interested here's that link.
http://newlightondarkenergy.blogspot.com/2011/01/36-pretender.html
I've said this before. If I were inclined to suspicions and general paranoia - then I'd be inclined to think that you had some kind of agenda here.
And - if you need to explain those 'spikes' as coming from the capacitance in the MOSFETs - then you'd need to explain how it is that they generate in excess of 60 amps in both directions through the circuit. It would take a miracle of some considerable proportions to manage that argument and still sound sane.
Rosemary
EDITED
Anyone can listen, starting at 8:25 in the video. I quote: "And finally, the most important aspect of it would be the actual instantaneous WATTAGE calculation as can be seen on the LeCroy." The camera then zooms to the LeCroy and he refers us to the red math trace and the VV number FIVE shown. How this equates to me being a liar by simply referring to what was said in the video...your video...I cannot fathom.
You seem to be reverting again to name-calling and vicious ad hominem attacks, Rosemary. You make a big deal over something that you acknowledge was just a joke.
Regarding the 60A spikes coming from the gate capacitance, I have no idea what you are talking about. There are currents flowing in the gate circuit loop that get into the shunt, positioned as it is. Some of them (the large spikes) come from energy supplied by the driving pulses that come out of the signal generator.
Other currents that represent the 1.5MHz oscillations at the gate are also appearing on the shunt. You reported that these represent about 5W of power. Neither of these currents are flowing into or out of the battery. They should not be included in any measurement of battery current. This can be accomplished by moving the shunt out of the gate/source leg and putting it in the battery leg, as I have shown.
Please stick to the subject and stop the personal flame war, Rosemary. As you may have noticed, that's what I am doing. Just the facts and helpful relevant solid technical observations and suggestions regarding accurate measurement methods, no insults and no name-calling. You will not bait me into a flame war if that's what you are trying to do. :)
Bryan
Quote from: Rosemary Ainslie on March 25, 2011, 04:32:47 AM
Thanks NP. Always a pleasure to read an upbeat post.
I have a problem with the ac supply source.
...
- the circuit would probably need to carry two loads - negative to one load and positive to another
...
upbeat is good! :)
there shouldn't be a problem replacing your battery bank - which is currently connected as a unipolar supply, i believe - with a unipolar output power supply** unit fed from the AC supply
one benefit of this scheme is that you can transfer your experiment without needing to change any of the wiring
(** need to use a simpler, non switched-mode type supply, so that your circuit can return energy to the output ballast capacitor - which must be directly across output, with no 'non-return' diodes)
if you mean that you want to use a split-supply (ie., Pos-Gnd-Neg), then that will still work with the Kill-o-Watt type test scheme outlined above - just replace the unipolar supply with a split-supply unit, and connect to your circuit as you wish)
looking forward to hearing about any 'AC supplied' results!
all the best
np
http://docsfreelunch.blogspot.com (http://docsfreelunch.blogspot.com)
Hi Rosemary .Rearrange your batteries into a U shaped line , so that the input and output terminals are physically close together . Now your scope probes will reach .If you lived closer I would get on my bike and come and help you lift them! .Upbeat as ever , Neptune .
Quote from: neptune on March 25, 2011, 07:02:20 AM
Hi Rosemary .Rearrange your batteries into a U shaped line , so that the input and output terminals are physically close together . Now your scope probes will reach .If you lived closer I would get on my bike and come and help you lift them! .Upbeat as ever , Neptune .
LOL. Yet again Neptune. I clearly have that dysfunctional IQ that Poynty keeps pointing to. Of course. But that too will need to wait until tomorrow. I will, God willing, and assuming that I survive the night - solemnly undertake to show those waveforms directly across the battery.
Golly. Clearly in need of more intellect. ::)
Regards,
Rosemary
;D
Guys, I need to alert you all - again - to the fact that for those of you who contribute to this thread - then you are all, any one of you, likely to be the recipients of personal messages or emails - from one of three members and ex members to this forum. They will, inevitably be intended to throw doubt on these numbers and these test results and their intention is to systematically errode any credibility related to these test results.
The latest is, apparently, that I am 'skewing' the results to accommodate my thesis. I CANNOT skew results. They are carefully recorded and that record is NOT made by me but by a machine. And I am INDEED using the evidence in support of the thesis. The thesis preceded this test as can STILL be PROVED. I make NO APOLOGY for this. It is my rights to do so. But NOR have I FORCED that thesis onto this thread. Therefore no-one is obliged or even expected to familiarise themselves with it. Good heavens. Should I be apologising for this? For some reason?
Rosemary
Rose,
If you can not arrange the batteries such that the first and last in the series are next to each other, then YES, use a length of wire (it does not have to be heavy wire as it is not carrying any current) necessary to reach the probe tip.
Try to keep this wire as short as possible, and avoid having this sense wire running along side parallel with any of the current-carrying wires, to avoid induction to the measurement wire.
Stefan, attached are the PSpice simulation files.
.99
Quote from: poynt99 on March 25, 2011, 10:21:05 AM
Rose,
If you can not arrange the batteries such that the first and last in the series are next to each other, then YES, use a length of wire (it does not have to be heavy wire as it is not carrying any current) necessary to reach the probe tip.
Try to keep this wire as short as possible, and avoid having this sense wire running along side parallel with any of the current-carrying wires, to avoid induction to the measurement wire.
Stefan, attached are the PSpice simulation files.
.99
Poynty - I know how to do this. I only need to wrap a small wire around the neck of the terminals. Neptune has explained this. We need to arrange the batteries that the negative first in series is next to the positive last in series. That way the probes can span both.
Now. I've set a good example here Poynty Point. I'm bending over backwards to accommodate your ask. Please return the favour and give us a picture of those simulations. I'm not sure if others struggle as I do. But it would be so nice to alleviate any struggles at all. Just size it that it doesn't fall off the page. Ta muchly Poynty.
Kindest regards,
Rosie
Quote from: Rosemary Ainslie on March 25, 2011, 10:33:50 AM
Please return the favour and give us a picture of those simulations. I'm not sure if others struggle as I do. But it would be so nice to alleviate any struggles at all. Just size it that it doesn't fall off the page. Ta muchly Poynty.
Kindest regards,
Rosie
I've already posted the sim scope shots and schematic in png format. The file above only contains the necessary files to run the simulation on PSpice.
.99
Quote from: poynt99 on March 25, 2011, 10:51:39 AM
I've already posted the sim scope shots and schematic in png format. The file above only contains the necessary files to run the simulation on PSpice.
.99
Sorry Pointy. Good stuff. I was hoping you were giving us a shot without any discharge across the shunt. Have you tried this yet? It would be interesting to see if can be done.
Kindest regards,
Rosie
Dear Rosemary . I believe you are now very close to a sort of breakthrough . By that , I mean that it will become much clearer to everyone just what is happening in your device . Once the scope shots across the battery are plain for all to see , that will eliminate one source of doubt . If you can get the oscillation going with just the 9volt battery and pot on the gate , That will basically make the device Much easier to duplicate . I foresee a time when it will be possible to duplicate this with a simple kit of parts , and no more equipment than a soldering iron , a multimeter , and a cheap AM radio to listen to the 1.5 Mhz oscillations on . Constructors will use smaller cheaper batteries to enable shorter run tests .I know how important it is to you to convince academia . Why not take a leaf out of Rossi Book [cold fusion reactor] and short circuit academia , making their opinion irrelevant ? Maybe after 10 years of people getting free hot water , they will wake up and take you seriously .Hang in there rose and stay positive [except on the gate where I hope you can stay negative!]
Hi Rose
With Magluvin we think it is better to transfer the discussion of the freewheeling circuit to the "igniter" thread. So not to disturb here.
Good luck and another time BRAVO for your pugnacity.
A last video here and i go. Of course your comments are welcome on the other thread.
Bye
Laurent
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Auv_66Ke-iw
Very kind of you Neptune. I'm not that interested in replications though. Please guys. We need to work this to applications. Tempus fugit.
Also Woopy - sorry to lose you. I'm not sure I'll spot your thread. Not too good at this sort of thing. As a for instance, when this thread falls off the page I'm forever lost. Have no idea how to retrieve it. Except that I can still go to my trash emails and link in from there. So. PLEASE. Give us a link here. And all the best. I LOVE hearing of results that fly in the face of. Always a pleasure.
Thanks again. I've got that rare feeling of support.
Kindest regards,
Rosemary
Rose:
Finding topics you have posted in is easy. At the top left of the page, to the right of your photo should look like this:
Show unread posts since your last
Show new replies to your posts
Total time logged in
IF it does not, go to the top right of the page under the photo of the famous people and next to the date and you will see a little square with a - in the middle. Click that and that will open the above listed choices next to your photo on the left.
Then, all you ever have to do is come to the site and click on the choice
"Show new replies to your posts"
and every topic you ever posted in will be shown and then you can click on it and it will take you to as far as you have read in that topic. This is the easiest way to keep up with things. This way, you never have to worry about a topic falling off the front page.
I hope this helps.
Bill
Quote from: Pirate88179 on March 25, 2011, 03:42:50 PM
Rose:
Finding topics you have posted in is easy. At the top left of the page, to the right of your photo should look like this:
Show unread posts since your last
Show new replies to your posts
Total time logged in
IF it does not, go to the top right of the page under the photo of the famous people and next to the date and you will see a little square with a - in the middle. Click that and that will open the above listed choices next to your photo on the left.
Then, all you ever have to do is come to the site and click on the choice
"Show new replies to your posts"
and every topic you ever posted in will be shown and then you can click on it and it will take you to as far as you have read in that topic. This is the easiest way to keep up with things. This way, you never have to worry about a topic falling off the front page.
I hope this helps.
Bill
Thanks Bill. You've tried teaching me this before. I've now copied your post into my word files. I always find my way around them. LOL. At least I'll have a reminder of what to do. But Mags and Woopy must still PLEASE give the link in this thread - at some stage. Much appreciated.
Kindest,
Rosie
Quote from: Goat on March 25, 2011, 01:57:05 AM
@ happyfunball
Rosemary said that the batteries ran the circuit for 5 months so she did answer that question but she also mentioned that the batteries were HUGE so it remains to be seen what size the battery bank was and what heat was being generated.
Rosemary did say she brought this up before so please be patient with the rest of us while she gathers her information and answers us.
Regards,
Paul
The question was what is the longest time she's run the circuit continuously off the batteries.
Quote from: Rosemary Ainslie on March 25, 2011, 03:47:58 PM
Thanks Bill. You've tried teaching me this before. I've now copied your post into my word files. I always find my way around them. LOL. At least I'll have a reminder of what to do. But Mags and Woopy must still PLEASE give the link in this thread - at some stage. Much appreciated.
Kindest,
Rosie
Hey Rose
Which link are you speaking of? =]
Mags
First let me say that I think replications , especially ones that prove to work for extended periods , are important .People are then far more likely to invest precious time and money on building their own device . There was a time when I could have thrown 500 dollars at a project like this and not worried too much if it failed . Sadly , for me and a lot of others , those days are gone . Given a working device , I am convinced that I could develop it into a useful water heater , and probably other applications .Talking of applications , I keep trying to think of a commercial heating element that resembles the coiled shape of Rosemarys heater . Here in the UK most heating elements are at least 30 ohms . which probably does not matter . I think bending an element into a coil shape would most likely destroy the internal insulation . So for most of us the starting point is nickel chrome wire on a ceramic former . I am not sure it is relevant , but does anyone know the break down or avalanche voltage of the zener diode inside the fet ?
Oh i understand now. here is the link Rose.
http://www.overunity.com/index.php?topic=8841.msg279320#new
=]
Mags
Hi Rosie,
Quote from: Rosemary Ainslie on March 25, 2011, 03:23:44 PM
Very kind of you Neptune. I'm not that interested in replications though. Please guys. We need to work this to applications. Tempus fugit.
Well said. Lets do some imagining. What are our appications for heat? Obviously, water and room heating. Peltier related applications. ! :) Stirling or other related heat engines. Steam turbines. Ovens. Kilns. There are lots of possibilities, which means lots of opportunites.
Cheers,
Twinbeard
Hi guys, typically I'm not able to sleep. As this is on my mind I'll see if an off load will act as a soporific.
For you Neptune. I'm not sure what the Zener's tolerance is. But look up the specs on IRFPG50. I'd do this for you but it would take a month of Sundays. What I do know is that we only got that extended oscillation when we put those FETS in parallel. I did, at the start of that adjustment - try to do a detailed record of first one and then two and so on. But - it was tedious. And there were a whole lot of other parameters that then would have to be taken into account - so just stuck to all 5.
My take is this. That single spike that we used with just 1 MOSFET - is well able to do the job. We could get the negative mean and the cycle mean into sustained negative averages - duly witnessed and recorded. It was interesting. The more so as it was also scalable. Effectively we could show a 20 degree rise in temperature for every extra 12 volts applied. And we could run this off slow or fast frequencies. It did not make a blind bit of difference. From memory - I'd need to check the notes - I think we took this up to 4 batteries - or 50 volts or thereby. Also. We took the temperature to the 100 degree mark - which was the first challenge. BUT. There was always that familiar spike that then rang down to the zero crossing. And I was keen to test the full potential.
I was surprised when we saw that parasitic oscillation. The significance was as plain as daylight - because there was that delicious antiphase relationship and a waveform as perfectly periodic as a pulse. Not only that - but this was the first possible evidence for me - that there were two distinct current flows on the same circuit - the one sustaining the other - like two drunks on a roller coaster. Now. That was and is my interest. And I know it's hardly likely to grab any of you. So. I'll not refer to this again.
Here's my point. I am a rank amateur. I had NO idea that this parasitic oscillation as it's called - is also well known. I had to look it up when I saw reference to it on these forums. I had no idea that this could be expected to cross zero. Had I known how easy it was to get this - I'd have done it yonks back. It was the decisive moment for me to do that demo. I hoped to show our experts that that current flow could only be the result of energy from the system vs energy from the supply. Unfortunately the experts did not attend that demo. Everyone but. And I am satisfied that the indictment is theirs. It was a shameful display of cowardice. However. There are those few experts who are prepared to look at the demo - less publicly. I'm happy to show them. I'll see if I can solicit some qualified acknowledgement of anomalies. I'm ever the optimist.
But to get back on topic. That oscillation. It's extraordinary. I would remind you that the only current that can be perpetuated is under really cold conditions. What we have here is a really strong current. And it is most assuredly, a self-perpetuating current. It simply cannot settle. This remarkable little waveform is precisely the proof that I was looking for because that antiphase condition may be some kind of evidence that current flow needs to return to its source. And the other point is this. It does not vary, one cycle to another, one oscillation to another - despite significant and measurable heat being dissipated all over the place. Then the last point is this. Those oscillations result in a gain to the system supply - not because of any negative mean averages but precisely because of the antiphase condition of those oscillations. Those are the anomalies that intrigue me and the members of the team.
So. The bottom line is this. We absolutely do not need that oscillation to get the required negative mean average and cycle mean average and negative math trace. But what we have with this parasitic oscillation is something way more profound. And, I believe very much more profoundly significant. I just can't get over that I'd never even heard of this parasitic oscillation. Certainly not as it shapes itself here. And to think that all that was ever done with it was to snuff it out or throw it away. Extraordinary.
Anyway. I'm now even more awake. So much for hoping to tire myself out.
Rosemary
Quote from: twinbeard on March 25, 2011, 06:29:47 PM
Hi Rosie,
Well said. Lets do some imagining. What are our appications for heat? Obviously, water and room heating. Peltier related applications. ! :) Stirling or other related heat engines. Steam turbines. Ovens. Kilns. There are lots of possibilities, which means lots of opportunites.
Cheers,
Twinbeard
Hi TWIN. Always a pleasure to see you around. And I see you're thinking applications. Never a bad thing. I want to get this onto a hot water cylinder. We call it geysers - here is SA. This is MUCH NEEDED for our rural communities. They're off grid for the most part and rely on burning wood or - for those who can afford it - coal. Not so good - for obvious reasons. ::)
Kindest regards,
Rosemary
Hi,
what about this circuit ?
Just use a 9 Volts battery and a pot to supply the
negative bias voltage at the gates.
To get it to oscillate you might need to switch the
9 Volts battery on and off a few times.
Then also as Humbugger said the shunt will only
have the battery current and not the 9 Volts battery current.
Well to measure also the battery voltage with a dual channel scope that
has a common ground you need to do this circuit then.
See attached picture.
Many thanks.
Regards, Stefan.
I have, apprently been precipitous in my previous reply. Let me try this again.
I cannot set up that experiment nd I've been advised that any results taken there will be meaningless
Do you still require the waveforms across the battery?
Stefan - I've now spoken to Donny. I understand you've configured the circuit to give a continuous negative trigger. I had no idea. I need you guys - Neptune? or someone - to do this. I simply cannot. And there's no-one on the team at the moment who has the time. But thank you for the schematic.
There's something badly wrong with our apparatus. I'm hoping it's the cable from the Functions Generator. Someone is coming out this afternoon to check it out. If there's a problem then I will only be able to do those battery terminal scope shots on Monday. It seems that the alarm and despondency on the OUR.com forum is based on the reasonable certainty that I'll brook no argument with these results. Not true. We're all of us fishing for a valid argument. None such to hand yet.
But if we can get the continual negative triggering - then that will certainly resolve something. Unfortunately it's out of my competence. The guy who built the apparatus is coming out later today. if he's up for it - he may be able to put this together.
I will, either later today or from Monday onwards - do more testing. I need to show you all that the heavy duty dissipation is WELL ABLE to show a continual negative mean. It also seems that Geln Lettenmaier is advising everyone that it's just a trick of 'choosing' the right moment. That may well be. But the math trace DOES NOT have the benefit of that choice. It takes the value of the sample range - regardless. And I'm reasonably certain that I can video a 5 minute shot of a typical example - where you will all be able to see that neither the negative mean nor the math trace default to positive. The difficulty is getting it into a mode that it doesn't push past the setting and simply do it's own thing. The actual problem is containing the energy - and that, only because there's a tolerance limit on our test apparatus.
It's one thing to argue that the values may be erroneous. I also want to find this out. We have way more energy being returned than is evident in the battery recharge condition. It is another thing entirely to insinuate that this is a hoax. IT IS NOT. I am just way too old and too tired of this argument to get embroiled in such stupidities. So Poynty. Please advise your members. Their latest insinuations are as absurd as their previous. God. If I were to schedule the variety of criticisms that have been levelled against me and this technology and the whole gamut - then I think I could fill a book the size of Africa. it's getting way too tedious guys. Just look at the science for God's sake. And it DOES NOT help to regurgitate more and more of your assumptions. JUST LOOK AT THE EVIDENCE.
Regards,
Rosemary
First of all thanks to Hartiberlin for posting "my" circuit . I am still saving up money to buy the Mosfets .So I am not able to test this circuit at present . Rosemary I hope you get the function generator sorted .Hopefully , soon you will not need it . There is someone out there no doubt who can test this . Just remember that some of us out here will continue to believe in your device until or unless it is disproved beyond any doubt . We are a long way from that at this time .
Quote from: Rosemary Ainslie on March 26, 2011, 03:07:30 AM
I have, apprently been precipitous in my previous reply. Let me try this again.
I cannot set up that experiment nd I've been advised that any results taken there will be meaningless
Do you still require the waveforms across the battery?
You do not need to fiddle with the circuit at all.
Simply get it running as usual, then take the battery measurement as we've described, right on the battery terminals.
This is a starting point, so the only interest at the moment is actual battery voltage wave forms. There is no need for additional shunts or 9V battery circuits to make the device run.
There are 4 jumpers connecting the batteries together, and I estimate that each is about 1.5 feet in length. So even though you may place the scope leads directly across the 60V battery stack, there is still 6 feet of inductive wire in that circuit, and it will affect the voltage wave form.
My assumption is, that 6 feet of wire will show a marked difference compared to about 22 feet of wire (all the wire in the battery circuit, including that running to the device), and this will be enough to cause Rose to pause and ask "
why is this measurement different compared to the other?"
btw, what was meant by your comment above Rose? Are you saying you won't do the test?
Of course the battery voltage wave form is required; your entire experimental results ride on the contention that the battery voltage wave form will be quite different, depending on
where the measurement is taken. ::)
.99
Quote from: poynt99 on March 26, 2011, 10:36:33 AM
You do not need to fiddle with the circuit at all.
Simply get it running as usual, then take the battery measurement as we've described, right on the battery terminals.
This is a starting point, so the only interest at the moment is actual battery voltage wave forms. There is no need for additional shunts or 9V battery circuits to make the device run.
There are 4 jumpers connecting the batteries together, and I estimate that each is about 1.5 feet in length. So even though you may place the scope leads directly across the 60V battery stack, there is still 6 feet of inductive wire in that circuit, and it will affect the voltage wave form.
My assumption is, that 6 feet of wire will show a marked difference compared to about 22 feet of wire (all the wire in the battery circuit, including that running to the device), and this will be enough to cause Rose to pause and ask "why is this measurement different compared to the other?"
btw, what was meant by your comment above Rose? Are you saying you won't do the test?
Of course the battery voltage wave form is required; your entire experimental results ride on the contention that the battery voltage wave form will be quite different, depending on where the measurement is taken. ::)
.99
Poynty. I've set up the batteries as required by Neptune. The probes span it comfortably and I've got 5 in series. Can add a sixth. That's in the bag. The problem is that the circuit isn't workig. I think it's the functions generator. If it is - then I can only test this on Monday because that's the only time I can get another cable. That's the first point
I know that lthere's likely to be very little difference - but I'll let you draw your own conclusions.
Now. I am under no obligation to read your forum. But I do. It's invariably head to toe on comments regarding me, my character, my intentions, my delusions, my stubborness - name it. Why do you allow this? You know perfectly well that those comments are NOT the truth and that they are diametrically against your posting standard requirements. It intrigues me that not only do you allow it - but you ACTIVELY encourage it. Where Poynty is your sense of fair play? Your members are poisonous.
Rosemary
Quote from: neptune on March 26, 2011, 09:28:05 AM
First of all thanks to Hartiberlin for posting "my" circuit . I am still saving up money to buy the Mosfets .So I am not able to test this circuit at present . Rosemary I hope you get the function generator sorted .Hopefully , soon you will not need it . There is someone out there no doubt who can test this . Just remember that some of us out here will continue to believe in your device until or unless it is disproved beyond any doubt . We are a long way from that at this time .
Neptune? Was that what you were asking? I've got someone coming out here soon. I'll let you know if we can do this. Yet again, Neptune to the rescue.
And I really don't want anyone to believe in this or otherwise. Never the intention. All that's needed is to find out where all that extra energy is coming from. It's an embarrassment of riches Neptune. We have between 20 watts to 150 watts being added to the system. It makes no difference if you factor in the inductance over those components because the advantage comes from that antiphase relationship between those voltages. Clearly whatever measurement protocols are being applied are wrong - or there's an error in the measurements. Which is why we got a second scope. And the second scope gave the same readings. So. Where then is the error? At it's best it conflicts with classical prediction. And its worst it shows that classical measurement protocols don't apply. Either way - it's an untenable place to find ourselves. Certainly there is absolutely NOT any evidence conservation.
Poynty et al are relying on enough variation in the measurement across the battery to obviate this. If this happens then - even then, we'd have to say that the excess was due to the wires. Which means what? We must eliminate those wires? That the benefit was erroneous? And so it goes. Round and round in circles. I've had a belly full. In every respect.
But I'll do these last tests. I know it won't resolve anything. But I'll do that test. And if I can get someone to do that design of yours Neptune - then count on it. I'll CERTAINLY do that one. That, at least, will give some kind of resolution.
Kindest regards,
Rosemary
Poynty
I should be able to get that oscillation with just one battery. The scope wires would be connected directly to the battery. No other wires in the setup.
Now. Tell me what will change that I - at it's least - know what it is that YOU expect.
Will there now be no evidence of that wild voltage oscillation at the battery? Will it peak and trough at lower and higher values - correspondingly? Or will it simply stay level? With the occassional ripple?
Will the antiphase condition between the voltage and the shunt now change? Will this be out of phase and therefore 'no advantage'?
If I apply the math trace - a product of the battery and shunt voltages - will they now show 'positive' as opposed to negative?
Will the mean average across the shunt change to default always to positive?
Let me know what you expect to see Poynty. Because this time I want the argument 'up front' if possible.
Rosemary
Hi Rosemary . It would be nice if you can get someone to do the negative gate circuit , but don't bust a gut because it sounds like You have your share of problems right now . So take it easy . Now some random suggestions for replicators . As I said earlier , unless someone can suggest a spiral shaped element from a domestic appliance we are stuck with a home made element . Nickel chrome wire is very common in scrap domestic appliance heaters from toasters , clothes dryers , electric fires and storage heaters etc . Make the coil large diameter compared to its length . Wind the wire on a former . A glass bottle or jar might do to start with or perhaps a pot mug with the handle broken off . Or a ceramic egg cup? You could use Nichrome wire to make your own non inductive shunt resister , just measure the resistance with your multimeter .The mosfets IRFPG50 are now available on Ebay from Hong Kong at 2 for under 10 dollars .Batteries are perhaps the major expense .In the past I have used scrap car batteries . Remember a scrap car battery is one that is no longer capable of giving 100 amps to start a car .Go to the scrapyard armed with a car headlamp bulb , and pick the batteries the give the brightest light .Remember you can always sell them back to the scrapyard and get most of your money back .Finally It would be useful to have an AM radio to listen for the oscillations around 1.5 Mhz.
Quote from: neptune on March 26, 2011, 12:22:16 PM
As I said earlier , unless someone can suggest a spiral shaped element from a domestic appliance we are stuck with a home made element . Nickel chrome wire is very common in scrap domestic appliance heaters from toasters , clothes dryers , electric fires and storage heaters etc .
Maybe you could use Mug Water Heaters.
Sometimes they are called Travel Immersion Water Heater.
They are for sale for around 6 - 15 US dollars
I have one at home that has a resistance of 185 Ohms and is suitable for 220V.
Or something like this one with a lot of surface area for its length?
@Teslaalset:
Those are cool. I didn't know that they existed.
Bill
Rose,
Indulge me in a simple exercise for which the results we can hopefully agree on: Analogy Part 1.
This is not meant to relate directly with your inductive switching circuit, it is meant to demonstrate a simple concept. Albeit, the two circuits are similar in concept.
Do you agree with the equation shown to calculate the power delivered by the battery Vbat?
V(P1-P4) is the voltage across the battery, and V(P3-P4)/0.25 allows us to determine the current through the battery. Their product then equals battery power...agreed?
If you agree, then I can proceed to part 2 of this analogy.
.99
yes - agreed
Rosemary
@teslaalset .Great idea on the mug heaters .They are also available in 12 and 24 volt varieties with resistance values of 1.2 ohms and unspecified resistance/wattage at 24volt .These may be better as they are nearer in resistance to Roses experiments . They cost about£5 each on Ebay . Several could be used in series if required . @Pirate , do we know the application and resistance of the element you show ?
Quote from: Rosemary Ainslie on March 26, 2011, 12:05:33 PM
Poynty
I should be able to get that oscillation with just one battery. The scope wires would be connected directly to the battery. No other wires in the setup.
Yes Rose, that would be excellent if you could do this.
Quote
Will there now be no evidence of that wild voltage oscillation at the battery? Or will it simply stay level? With the occassional ripple?
Correct. Assuming you can achieve the self-oscillation as before with a single 12V battery, the battery voltage measurement taken directly across its terminals will show a 12VDC value, with an estimated 350mVpp of oscillation ripple riding on top of that.
Quote
Will the antiphase condition between the voltage and the shunt now change? Will this be out of phase and therefore 'no advantage'?
The small ripple voltage seen riding on the 12VDC may still be in anti-phase with the shunt oscillation, but the fundamental battery v(t) x i(t) product is going to look and compute quite differently.
Quote
If I apply the math trace - a product of the battery and shunt voltages - will they now show 'positive' as opposed to negative?
You will ostensibly have a steady 12V x your same oscillating Vcsr voltage. Your battery voltage trace during the oscillation phase may vary from between 11.8V to 12.2V as opposed to what you have now, where Vbat varies between 0V and +250V.
Quote
Will the mean average across the shunt change to default always to positive?
I can not reliably predict what the shunt voltage wave form will look like at 12VDC supply (assuming you can make it work at 12VDC), vs. the operation at the 60VDC supply, but the fact that you are measuring the battery voltage at a different point will not affect the shunt voltage measurement, as you will measure that at the same point as before.
Quote
Let me know what you expect to see Poynty. Because this time I want the argument 'up front' if possible.
I believe I have done so.
.99
Quote from: Rosemary Ainslie on March 26, 2011, 02:24:17 PM
yes - agreed
Rosemary
Right, Part 2 then.
What will happen to our PVbat calculation if rather than using this agreed upon equation:
PVbat = V(
P1 - P4) x V(P3 - P4)/0.25
we make a small change and use this instead:
PVbat = V(
P2 - P4) x V(P3 -P4)/0.25
What happens to the PVbat calculation?
.99
Ok. Now. 2 things. Give me the balance of your argument. And are you able to apply any kind of moderation on your forum. Call off your dogs POYNTY. Or is there a 'free for all' when it comes to trashing my character? IN which case why am I speaking to you?
You really need to apply some constraint there. Your forum is losing credibility. Just look at the readership levels. As for the latest incursion by Fuzzytomcat. Why do you allow it? Is it because it satisfies your argument somehow? Not good Poynty. Not at all. I may be an idiot - I may even be a moron. I don't know. But I sure as hell am NOT a liar.
Rosemary
PS our posts crossed and I've got a visitor. I'll get back here tomorrow.
R
Quote from: poynt99 on March 26, 2011, 02:57:26 PM
Right, Part 2 then.
What will happen to our PVbat calculation if rather than using this agreed upon equation:
PVbat = V(P1 - P4) x V(P3 - P4)/0.25
Okay. 49.99 milliwatts flowing out of the battery.
Quote
we make a small change and use this instead:
PVbat = V(P2 - P4) x V(P3 -P4)/0.25
What happens to the PVbat calculation?
.99
Hmm,
what should this be now ?
Only half the power..
Quote from: poynt99 on March 26, 2011, 02:48:19 PM
Correct. Assuming you can achieve the self-oscillation as before with a single 12V battery, the battery voltage measurement taken directly across its terminals will show a 12VDC value, with an estimated 350mVpp of oscillation ripple riding on top of that.
.99
.99:
Am I missing something here? If Rose is feeding energy back to the single 12 volt bat. in the form of amps and volts, would this not show up on the bat. terminals? What I mean is, checking only across the battery terminals will not show which way the energy is flowing, only the energy available at the terminals correct?
Example:
12 volts at the terminals, circuit off. Circuit ON and feeding back 5 volts (just a number for this example) to the battery from the running circuit, would you not measure 17 volts at the terminals with a DMM?
Bill
Quote from: Pirate88179 on March 26, 2011, 03:10:43 PM
.99:
Am I missing something here? If Rose is feeding energy back to the single 12 volt bat. in the form of amps and volts, would this not show up on the bat. terminals? What I mean is, checking only across the battery terminals will not show which way the energy is flowing, only the energy available at the terminals correct?
Example:
12 volts at the terminals, circuit off. Circuit ON and feeding back 5 volts (just a number for this example) to the battery from the running circuit, would you not measure 17 volts at the terminals with a DMM?
Bill
Bill,
In order to send power back into the battery, the voltage and current have to be in anti-phase, i.e. a positive voltage higher than the terminal voltage, AND a current going in the direction of the battery (a negative current), both at the same "time".
A DMM will measure the average voltage on the battery terminals. So, if there is a consistent higher voltage and negative current, the DMM will measure that increased voltage.
The goal of this exercise however, is to establish if the present battery voltage measurement is valid. If there is a significant difference between the measurement made directly on the battery terminals vs. on the other end of 22 feet of wire, then there is an obvious problem that must be addressed, and this puts the claims and measurements into question. Do you agree?
.99
Okay. poynt99,
I now know what you mean,
you wanted to say, that the first 1000 Ohm resistor
is like the resistance(impedance) of the cable
going from the battery to the circuit.
Yes, there are losses there, but you have seen,
that you also have a small positive ripple in your simulation,
that means the battery voltage rises, when the current at the shunt
is negative, i.e. it is recharging the battery.
So it would be good that if the measurements of the battery voltage
will be taken directly at the battery terminals, but you will see only
a small ripple as in your simulation there.
The only question I still have is, if the inductances of the shunts
distort the measurements, so that the mean average values of the
current shows a total negative current, also, if 6 or 40 Watts of power
are heating the heater element ?
Rosemary probably did not run the circuit 5 months contineously,
but only a few times in the 5 months during measurements, so longer
testing times are needed to see, how the battery voltage is
going up or down.
As a lead acid battery is full at about 12.5 to 12.8 Volts
and is nearly empty already at 12.0 Volts,
these voltage changes must be noted and at only 6 Watts of heating,
it should be let run for about 1000 hours, if all the 5 batteries have 100 Amphours
capacity. Only then the 5 batteries should be empty and the battery voltage
should fall to 60 Volts.
Regards, Stefan.
Quote from: hartiberlin on March 26, 2011, 03:38:49 PM
Okay. poynt99,
I now know what you mean,
you wanted to say, that the first 1000 Ohm resistor
is like the resistance(impedance) of the cable
going from the battery to the circuit.
Yes, there are losses there, but you have seen,
that you also have a small positive ripple in your simulation,
that means the battery voltage rises, when the current at the shunt
is negative, i.e. it is recharging the battery.
Actually no, that's not really what I am trying to say. My point was to show that the two measurements are not the same.
If the two measurements are not the same, one of them must be incorrect. I wasn't expecting anyone else to answer the question, as I had hoped Rose herself would be allowed to see the point I am trying to make.
Quote
So it would be good that if the measurements of the battery voltage
will be taken directly at the battery terminals, but you will see only
a small ripple as in your simulation there.
You will see the actual voltage across the battery, which is the required goal for obtaining the correct PVbat. A small ripple is precisely what you
should see. You seem to be thinking contrary to this....why?
.99
Here is a crazy thought if we really want to be pedantic .What is magic about the battery terminals . These are just the point at which the lead "wires" [bus bars] inside the battery change to copper wires outside the battery .Should we not really put our probes INSIDE the battery on the actual plates?
Quote from: neptune on March 26, 2011, 04:43:34 PM
Here is a crazy thought if we really want to be pedantic .What is magic about the battery terminals . These are just the point at which the lead "wires" [bus bars] inside the battery change to copper wires outside the battery .Should we not really put our probes INSIDE the battery on the actual plates?
It is unfortunate that you perceive me as being pedantic.
The issue of where the battery voltage is measured is paramount to obtaining a valid battery power computation by the scope.
How was your post helpful in any way?
.99
Quote from: poynt99 on March 26, 2011, 03:51:32 PM
Actually no, that's not really what I am trying to say. My point was to show that the two measurements are not the same. If the two measurements are not the same, one of them must be incorrect. I wasn't expecting anyone else to answer the question, as I had hoped Rose herself would be allowed to see the point I am trying to make.
Well the second is wrong, but I don´t understand what your point is here...what you want to say with it..
hmm...a bit confusing..
Quote
You will see the actual voltage across the battery, which is the required goal for obtaining the correct PVbat. A small ripple is precisely what you should see. You seem to be thinking contrary to this....why?
No, I don´t think contrary.
The voltage will be almost constant, just only a small ripple, i.e. rising of the voltage,
when the battery current is negative and a bit falling, when the current is positive.
But the differences will be only in the MilliVolts range, as the internal
resistance of the batteries is pretty low.
The battery works here as a big capacitor, where the voltage can not jump on it,
so only a small ripple will be seen on the DC supply voltage.
This is why we can neglect the ripple voltage and can calculate with
a "constant" battery supply voltage and just
observe the current on the shunt.
When the current trace area below the ground line , which I painted green
in the posted scope shots on the shunt, is bigger than the
area above the ground line(painted red), then we can already see, if energy
is flowing back into the battery or energy is flowing out of the
battery. Then we don´t need the battery voltage.
Hope this helps.
Regards, Stefan.
Stefan,
One of the two battery measurements is incorrect. That is problem number one that needs attention.
Second, now that you bring up the current measurement, that too has it's problems.
Referring to your post; your area fill-in of the csr voltage is going to come out very close to equal when comparing both halves. First inaccuracy is that cycle mean is being used, and there are multiple cycles displayed. This is not the intended way to use cycle mean. Furthermore, the scope can not know what constitutes one cycle (it simply looks for zero-crossings), and therefore it completely missed that fact that one full switching cycle includes the portion of the cycle I highlighted.
http://www.overunity.com/index.php?topic=10407.msg279211#msg279211
Second (see scope shot below), realize that you are only looking at about half of the cycle. The other half clearly shows that there is positive current sourced from the battery. I have highlighted this in a red elipse.
In summary; the shunt voltage mean value shown is of no use, and does not reflect what the real average current is for that measurement.
.99
Now, Stefan and Poynt, we are converging on the truth finally. The battery is a fixed DC potential with millivolts of actual ripple due to its internal resistance. The battery voltage does not actually have the 150VAC 1.5MHz signal Rosemary is feeding the 'scope.
The importance is now properly focused on the shunt and the actual current flow there.
This demonstration shows the difference between the waveforms obtained across the inductive shunt and the resistive portion of same shunt. The scale factors are identical (1V per division) on both traces. Notice three super-important things:
1) The amplitude when we include the inductance is way higher and does not agree at all with the actual current measured just across the resistor. The inductance allows a much larger voltage swing, fooling us into thinking the current is much larger than it really is.
2) Look at the areas above and below zero. In the larger (inductance included) trace, by eyeball, it looks like the areas are close to even or maybe even slightly more negative. But in the real current trace it is clear that the area above zero is easily greater than that below zero.
3) There is significant phase skew between the two waveforms and this will ruin the accuracy of any multiplied samples. The true current (across just the resistive part of the shunt) does not peaqk at the same time as the false, inductor-polluted "current" trace and is in fact not always the same polarity at a given instant in time. Notice the inductive shunt trace is approximately at its peak at the zero-crossings of the real current: almost 90 degrees phase shift. Basic fundamentls when the L vastly dominates the R of shunt!
So, the amplitude, waveshape and phase angle of the "current" signal Rosemary is feeding into the scope is by no means an accurate picture of the true instantaneous current flowing in the circuit. When the "battery" voltage also has an enormous misrepresentation due to series inductance inside the measuring points, and we multiply the data samples point by point, the numbers are so far from any believable reality that it boggles the mind and the results could come out anywhere and are totally meaningless, sorry to say.
Here is a challenge for Rosemary: Submit this post to your favorite Tektronix Applications Engineer. He or she is a certified oscilloscope measurement expert and is called on all the time to sort out these kinds of measurement questions. Ask him or her to write a paragraph about it, agreeing or disagreeing with what I have wriiten here, attach his or her name to it, and publish it here for us.
Cheeseburger
Quote from: poynt99 on March 26, 2011, 02:57:26 PM
Right, Part 2 then.
What will happen to our PVbat calculation if rather than using this agreed upon equation:
PVbat = V(P1 - P4) x V(P3 - P4)/0.25
we make a small change and use this instead:
PVbat = V(P2 - P4) x V(P3 -P4)/0.25
What happens to the PVbat calculation?
.99
Poynty - Still not called off your dogs? Shame on you.
Now. Regarding that equation. P never, to the best of my knowledge - is represented in any of those equations that you've put forward. Power is ALWAYS vi dt. Or Volts x amps x time. THAT's it. You can try and argue this till the cows come home Poynty. This is the fundamental requirement for wattage analysis and this over time = POWER. NOTHING ELSE.
SO. Take that example that you've given us. I'm looking at your schematic. The amount of current discharged from your batteries will be determined by the amount of resistance in the path of that current. Therefore resistance will be R1 + R2 + R3. IF R1 = 1 Ohm and R2 = 1000 Ohms and R3 = 0.25 - then the total resistance determined by that circuit will be 1001.25 Ohm.
Let us further assume that VBatt = 24 volts. Therefore the current discharged by that supply source will be 24/1001.25 = 0.024 amps. THEREFORE vi dt = 24 (vbatt) x 0.024 (amps) = 0.575 watts x (say) 5 minutes would be 0.575 x 60 x 5 = 172.5 Joules. THAT'S IT. The ONLY correct way to determine that power.
So. To get back to your question. The Ohmage in the path of that P value that you refer to cannot be considered in isolation to the power over the entire circuit which will be distributed according to the resistance over the whole circuit. You CANNOT look at one isolated part of the equation and expect it to represent a true value.
Now. To get back to that same circuit that you drew and REPLACE R2 with a whole pile of MOSFETs in parallel. Then. Replace the R1 @ 1 Ohm with R = 10.86 Ohm. NOW. Apply a switch that the battery is ONLY connected during 20% of the time and for 80% it is disconnected and THEREFORE NO POWER IS DELIVERED.
P = vi dt. THEREFORE. 10.86 (R1) and 0.25 (R3) + 0 resistance at the MOSFET. Therefore R = 11.11 Ohms. THEREFORE if Vbatt = 24 then 24/11.11 = 2.16 amps. 24 (v) x 2.16 (i) = 51.85 watts. Assume a 5 minute run time. Therefore 51.85 x 60 x 5 = 15.552KJ.
The actual question here is what happens during the period when the switch is open and the battery APPARENTLY is not able to discharge any current flow. Hopefully you're looking at this.
Rosemary
Quote from: poynt99 on March 26, 2011, 06:47:02 PM
Stefan,
Second (see scope shot below), realize that you are only looking at about half of the cycle. The other half clearly shows that there is positive current sourced from the battery. I have highlighted this in a red elipse.
In summary; the shunt voltage mean value shown is of no use, and does not reflect what the real average current is for that measurement.
.99
Well Poynty. I hope this is still on the same page that we can still reference that RED ELIPSE. You forgot to add those BIG SPIKES AT THE TRANSITIONAL PHASES OF THE SWITCH. Roughly 10 volts above zero and 30 volts below zero. During THAT moment we have 10/0.25 = 40 amps from the battery and 30/0.25 = 120 volts being returned to the battery. AS WE ALL KNOW the one spike never manifests at the same time as another. THEREFORE over time 40 amps * vbatt was deliverd and THEN 120 amps * vbatt was returned. Factor that in together with the amount of time that the current was flowing during the 'ON' time of the switch or we'd be inclined to think that you're only looking at one side of your argument.
Now. Assume that the battery average is applied during those spikes. P = vi dt - therefore during those two moments we have 40 amps * 73.3 volts = a staggering 2 932.00 WATTS discharged and 120 amps * 73.3 volts returned = an even more staggering 8 798 WATTS returned to the battery. And that's not all. We then also have another problem. The actual voltage during the flow of that 40 amps FROM THE BATTERY trends to less than 73.3 volts. And the actual voltage during the flow of 120 amps BACK TO THE BATTERY trends to more than 73.3 volts.
Rosemary
Folks,
I tried. :-\
.99
@ Rosemary:
In a nut shell, what do you plan to do? patent your device and sell it? or open source it and give it to the world?
Quote from: Poit on March 26, 2011, 11:03:06 PM
@ Rosemary:
In a nut shell, what do you plan to do? patent your device and sell it? or open source it and give it to the world?
Poit. It is absolutely and categorically and empirically and in fact and in truth - ENTIRELY UNPATENTABLE - is the first point. It is that well known. It is therefore NOT mine to sell and nor is it mine to GIVE. All we've done is try - really, really hard - to show you what you've all been throwing away - simply because Mr Kirchhoff has claimed an EQUIVALENCE in the transfer of electromagnetic energy - WHICH HAS NEVER BEEN REQUIRED BY Mr Faraday. We're not even breaking the rules here. IT'S THAT SIMPLE.
Quote from: poynt99 on March 26, 2011, 10:52:58 PM
Folks,
I tried. :-\
.99
Poynty - that's a COP OUT. You make an obscure point which NO-ONE on the forum gets and then you throw your hands up in exasperation. And then you and your dogs will continue to MUTTER about the incompetence and the lack of understanding and God knows what else that afflicts ALL EVERYWHERE ELSE. If there was a simple answer then I'm entirely satisified that - not me - but those that I've been working with - would MOST CERTAINLY have found it. We're looking. You're trying to stop us from looking. WHY?
AND WHY do you want to AVERAGE everything when that obscures the classically required method of determining wattage? BY DEFINITION vi dt requires an exact approximation to time. Are you saying school classical is WRONG?
Rosemary
ADDEDSorry. 'Exact approximation' is tautological. What I really mean is as precise a relationship to time as can be managed. And it's very, very well managed on the sampling range offered by our LeCroy.STILL WRONG. Not tautological. Mutually exclusive. Something like that. In any event. It can't be both exact and an approximation. Golly. I'll get there eventually.LOL You've probably got it right - Poynty Point. It's presumptuous of me to consider myself an idiot as you've already pointed out. :o ;D
Quote from: Rosemary Ainslie on March 26, 2011, 10:52:03 PM
Well Poynty. I hope this is still on the same page that we can still reference that RED ELIPSE. You forgot to add those BIG SPIKES AT THE TRANSITIONAL PHASES OF THE SWITCH. Roughly 10 volts above zero and 30 volts below zero. During THAT moment we have 10/0.25 = 40 amps from the battery and 30/0.25 = 120 volts being returned to the battery. AS WE ALL KNOW the one spike never manifests at the same time as another. THEREFORE over time 40 amps * vbatt was deliverd and THEN 120 amps * vbatt was returned. Factor that in together with the amount of time that the current was flowing during the 'ON' time of the switch or we'd be inclined to think that you're only looking at one side of your argument.
Now. Assume that the battery average is applied during those spikes. P = vi dt - therefore during those two moments we have 40 amps * 73.3 volts = a staggering 2 932.00 WATTS discharged and 120 amps * 73.3 volts returned = an even more staggering 8 798 WATTS returned to the battery. And that's not all. We then also have another problem. The actual voltage during the flow of that 40 amps FROM THE BATTERY trends to less than 73.3 volts. And the actual voltage during the flow of 120 amps BACK TO THE BATTERY trends to more than 73.3 volts.
Rosemary
The answer to all these completely unbelievable numbers and where they come from is, once again, already explained thoroughly.
1) Your shunt is not 0.25Ohms and it is not primarily a resistor, It is more like 1.5 Ohms and primarily an inductor (at 1.5MHz)
2) The spikes you see at the transitions of the gate drive signal contain even higher frequency energy than the 1.5MHz waves, Therefore, the shunt impedance, being primarily inductive, is far higher yet to these spikes, probably around 10 or more Ohms. As I hope you know, the voltage spike on an inductance does not relate to the value of the current but only to how fast the current is changing (di dt). This is why even low inductances in a shunt for high frequency work ESPECIALLY WHEN SAMPLING AND MULTIPLYING are being used to derive instantaneous POWER points is STRICTLY TABOO.
3) Those current spikes, on the order of an Ampere or two peak in reality, are contained entirely in the current loop that is constrained to the gate-source, signal generator and shunt loop and do not even appear at the battery
This has all been explained very clearly several times before,
Kindest Regards
Humbugger
Hey Rose =]
Was wondering. How did you get involved in this project? What were the the beginnings that got you started in this pursuit?
Mags
Quote from: Rosemary Ainslie on March 26, 2011, 10:38:32 PM
Now. Regarding that equation. P never, to the best of my knowledge - is represented in any of those equations that you've put forward. Power is ALWAYS vi dt. Or Volts x amps x time. THAT's it. You can try and argue this till the cows come home Poynty. This is the fundamental requirement for wattage analysis and this over time = POWER. NOTHING ELSE.
Rosemary,
I have frequently noticed your Power Equation P = vi dt and refrained from commenting. Now that you have asserted that so ferociously and implied that Poynt is ignorant when he says P=V*I simply (which is correct), I feel I must comment.
The term "dt" in electronics, statistics and math in general means RATE and refers, of course, to time. . dv/dt is the rate of change of a voltage and is given in Volts per second. di/dt is the rate of change of current, given in Amperes per second.
Power is the rate of energy usage per unit time. Power is also simply Voltage times current and is an instantaneous quantity apart from time. It is measured in Watts. Pwatts = Vvolts x Iamperes. There is no "dt" involved in calculations of power except where energy consumed or supplied (i.e. rate of change or transfer) per unit time is known and one wishes to find the power: p = dw/dt where w is energy in Joules, p is power in Watts and t is seconds. Saying p = vi dt makes no sense given that p = vi, plain and simple.
Energy is Power times Time, pt. One Watt that is available for one second is one Joule or one Watt-second. Ten Watts that is available for 10 seconds is 100 Joules or 100 Watt-seconds.
If you have 1 billion Watts for 1 nanosecond, you have one Joule of energy.
But I know you already know this...I've seen you use these relationships correctly many times.
Neither p (instantaneous power) nor P (average Power over time) is correctly expressed as vi dt. The equation for average power in a repeating non-sinusoidal waveform is far more complex and involves a DC component and the amplitude and phase relationships of all the AC sinewave voltage and current components as derived from a Fourier Series.
This is essentially what your scopes are doing in a somewhat different way AND THE AMPLITUES AND PHASE ANGLES BETWEEN THE VOLTAGE AND CURRENT AT ALL PRESENT FREQUENCIES MUST BE ACCURATELY FED INTO THE SCOPE OR IT JUST DOESN'T WORK OUT THE RIGHT ANSWER.
Cheers,
Humbugger
@ Rosemary:
Thank you for your response.
Please forgive my stupid questions, but heres another :)
Could you please explain in a short paragraph what exactly you have? (i.e demonstrating). I understand it is some sort of heating device. I've tried reading the posts surrounding this demonstration, but get quickly bamboozled by all the tech talk. I would consider my self a novice inventor and have a keen interest in OU, not a great understanding of electronics (but enough to get by - i.e basics, what the components do and why etc etc).
If this question has anoyyed you, please disregard, as I would understand if you declined to answer (due to the ignorance on my half) - sorry
Poit (Peter)
P.S If this is something that is unpatenable and something that you feel members here have missed, would it be feasible for a step by step guide to build this invention? again sorry for the ignorant questions :) Thank you
Quote from: Magluvin on March 27, 2011, 12:14:22 AM
Hey Rose =]
Was wondering. How did you get involved in this project? What were the the beginnings that got you started in this pursuit?
Mags
Hello Mags. SO NICE TO SEE YOU AROUND. You don't want to know. It's a long story. I was trying to prove a magnetic field model. It needed the electromagnetic force to be controlled by - or based on - a one dimensional magnetic field. The strong nuclear force needed to be based on a 2 dimensional field. And gravity on a three dimensional field. I could only PROVE it on the electromagnetic force. Which is why I put that circuit together. So. The argument is that ALL is magnetic. In other words it's a FUNDAMENTAL force and it has its own particles. It's just that - in a field - they move at faster than light speed. So. Light can't find it. It's invisible. And since our astrophysicists are LOOKING FOR precisely this 'invisible' particle or 'dark energy' in a 'dark force' - then I'm inclined to think that it's right here. In the magnetic field. It's way too prosaic and too obvious to appeal to our learneds. And, unfortunately, it's apparently too complex to appeal to the general public. So. I've fallen between two chairs.
But that's a really long argument. To me it was as clear as daylight. So far there are precisely 6 people that I know understand it and possibly another dozen or so who are not owning up to understanding it. So. To my surprise - it's actually not that clear at all.
But I would absolutely not recommend you get embroiled in it. It's not for the faint hearted and it's not relevant to what this proof shows. What's needed here are APPLICATIONS. IF, that is, we can convince anyone at all. Neptune suggests we stop trying to convince the academics and just concentrate on the possible uses. And it's probably a good suggestion.
Quote from: Poit on March 27, 2011, 12:26:24 AM
@ Rosemary:
Could you please explain in a short paragraph what exactly you have? (i.e demonstrating). I understand it is some sort of heating device. I've tried reading the posts surrounding this demonstration, but get quickly bamboozled by all the tech talk. I would consider my self a novice inventor and have a keen interest in OU, not a great understanding of electronics (but enough to get by - i.e basics, what the components do and why etc etc).
Poit - it's a good question. The 'how to' is probably best explained by Neptune et al. The 'what we have' is - we think - a means of getting an energy efficiency which our measurments show is pretty jolly good. We have great difficulty in measuring any energy at all 'supplied' by an energy supply source - for a great deal of energy 'dissipated'. The arguments are that there are errors in measurements. It's a valid argument. We need to explore WHERE those errors may be. But - thus far - we've not found them. Poynty et al - who probably represent the 'control' in a sort of experimental way - claim that we are wrong because we're not AVERAGING the values. But - as I've been trying to point out - mainstream will NOT ALLOW AN AVERAGING. Even if they did - we can get the experiment to show that EVEN WITH AVERAGING we have a gain.
Hope that makes it clearer.
Quote from: Poit on March 27, 2011, 12:26:24 AMP.S If this is something that is unpatenable and something that you feel members here have missed, would it be feasible for a step by step guide to build this invention? again sorry for the ignorant questions :) Thank you
It probably would. But I am most reluctant to recommend 'replications'. This because a previous excursion in this direction resulted in a jealous attempt to appropriate that as a discovery. This is counter productive. It would deny the thesis that preceded the claim and it would open it to patenting options which we've been at GREAT PAINS AND EXPENSE to avoid. And more to the point - PRECISE replications are IMPOSSIBLE. How may ways are there to generate Back electromotive force? And how many ways can one generate parasitic oscillations? I'm not sure it could EVER be determined. What we're trying to encourage people to do is to look at the value in that - and to stop throwing it away. Because, according to the numbers that we show - there's a surprising evidence of an awful lot of energy that is also very exploitable.
Again. Hopefully that helps explain things.
Kindest regards,
Rosemary
[/quote]
Thank you :)
Hey Rose
Very cool. So you've been in the deep end of the pool. ;]
I always blew off ideas of aether, or energy from the vacuum, dark energy/matter. But once I got into the Faraday Paradox, a lot of things look different to me. Just the fact that the magnet could move with the conducting plate and current was still produced, opens doors.
Imagine a magnet/coil and led arraignment that you could just attach to the spokes of a bicycle wheel and as the wheel spins, led lights.
My beginnings was in 7th grade. Found books in the library on perpetual motion. I made many wheels. My grand father helped. =]
He was an inventor as was his dad. I think Great grandpa Carl may have known Tesla, as they both had dealings with Westinghouse in Pittsburgh, 60 miles from home.
Carl had a setup in the early 1910s that was what looked like 2 motors connected at the shaft and all wires connected to a box with a switch. Flip the switch and spin the shaft by hand and off it went.
He had shown it around town, so ha had many witnesses. But the men in black of 1910 came and made threats. He dismantled the device.
So here we are. I think we are on the edge of rediscovering many things that were discouraged many years ago.
This Gabriel transformer is a huge discovery. It is described in a Tesla pat 433702. We could have had this back then. Less power in than out. Thank God for Tesla, and having the paperwork still available to find. Its hard to decipher the intentions of his patents. But once you get one of them, you learn how to read into others the same and you get more out of it.
;]
Mags
I have found interesting bit of information about parasitic oscillations of MOSFETs in PARALLEL (the condition is to have more than one!):
www.microsemi.com/micnotes/APT0402.pdf (http://www.microsemi.com/micnotes/APT0402.pdf)
Hello KeHYo. I also saw that link. Very interesting. And note that the only recommendation is to get rid of it. LOL. What fixates my attention is that zero crossing. I wonder if we shouldn't try and digest the implications here. It's very telling.
And Mags, very interesting. I think once one gets into aether energy - then one just becomes obsessed. It's the nature of the beast. It just calls for so much attention. Hopefully we've got aether energy here or dark energy or whatever anyone wants to call it. We need all that abundance.
Good stuff guys. I'm off for the day. Nice mornings postings.
Rosemary
Congratulation Rose... Sorry I'm late. :)
Quote from: kEhYo77 on March 27, 2011, 01:00:43 AM
I have found interesting bit of information about parasitic oscillations of MOSFETs in PARALLEL (the condition is to have more than one!):
www.microsemi.com/micnotes/APT0402.pdf (http://www.microsemi.com/micnotes/APT0402.pdf)
PETT oscillations, PETT = P lasma E xtraction T ransit T ime.
http://www.mourick.com/parasitic_oscillations.html
Quote from: Rosemary Ainslie on March 26, 2011, 11:00:20 AM
The problem is that the circuit isn't workig. I think it's the functions generator. If it is - then I can only test this on Monday because that's the only time I can get another cable.
...
Rosemary
hi Rosemary
i was reading the PDF on parasitic oscillations linked by kEhYo77 and wondered if the following excerpt might be reason for the circuit not working at the moment
"Such an oscillation condition...can cause over-voltage transients on the gate...and can even lead to uncontrolled, sustained oscillation and destruction of one or more devices" is it possible that one or more of the MOSFETs has died and is stopping the correct switching action of the remainder?
just an idea
regards
np
<<EDIT #1>>interesting, also, that rensseak's link to PETT describes the parasitic oscillation as a
negative resistance event! (although i don't recall it clarifying whether it's negative
differential resistance, or the real thing)
<<EDIT #2>>i've been a bit concerned about the suggestions to generate the parasitic oscillations by just connecting a negative voltage across the gate - the driving waveform from the SigGen is after all a dynamic waveform, not just a collection of two DC levels - ie., it also contains transients
so we shouldn't overlook the possibility that the parasitic oscillation is 'triggered' by a transient, before being able to sustain during a suitable state of the input (ie. the negative level)
this possibility seems to be supported by some of the info in the links mentioned above (eg., example oscillations are shown to follow either the 'ON' or the 'OFF' signal transient, or both, at the gate, depending on gate input resistance, production characteristics of the MOSFET die, and/or parasitic inductances in the circuit under test)
http://docsfreelunch.blogspot.com (http://docsfreelunch.blogspot.com)
@Poynt99 .What I actually said in my post was ,"If we want to be pedantic" . I did not specifically say you were pedantic . You ask , how was my post helpful in any way . I was hoping to encourage people to think outside the box , and see things in a new perspective . So I still say there is nothing magical about the battery terminals . I did not say there is anything wrong with measuring there . So please , lets avoid flame wars and leave it at that
@nul-points . You say that applying a constant negative voltage at the gate may not work because there are no transients and you could be right . Harti makes the point that it might be necessary to disconnect and reconnect the 9 volt battery a few times to start the oscillation . And HE could be right . And for less than $5 we could find out the truth .
Quote from: neptune on March 27, 2011, 06:06:40 AM
@nul-points . You say that applying a constant negative voltage at the gate may not work because there are no transients and you could be right . Harti makes the point that it might be necessary to disconnect and reconnect the 9 volt battery a few times to start the oscillation . And HE could be right . And for less than $5 we could find out the truth .
hi Neptune, greetings from the sunny south of England!
i agree
my point is that in electronics (as in so many things), the history of how something reached a state can be as germaine as the state itself
i'm not saying that we shouldn't try a DC negative gate drive setup - or that it is mistaken
i'm saying that the 'low' state of a SigGen output is only half the picture of what happened immediately prior to the start of the parasitic oscillations - and that we should bear that in mind when we try to understand what is happening on Rosemary's experiment
my EDIT #2 above gave some supporting evidence from those links that such oscillations *can* be caused by transitions (in either direction)
our job as 'ou investigators' should be to discover what is 'necessary and sufficient' to recreate unusual energy phenomena
in this case, a negative gate drive may well be 'necessary' - but not 'sufficient'
i didn't mean to be contentious - just thorough
there seems to be an abundance of woolly-thinking in the OU field - and i've certainly contributed my share! ;)
kind regards
np
PS in your quote above, it appears that Harti & i are essentially saying the same thing - just using a 9V DC gate drive on its own may not be sufficient to start the oscillations - it may be necssary also to add transitions to the steady DC condition
Harti quite rightly suggests that this could be achieved by simply disconnecting & reconnecting the 9V DC a few times
of course, in a circuit with plenty of reactance, we shouldn't ignore the possibility of frequency playing a part, either - so it *could* turn out that just the addition of a few transitions is not sufficient to trigger the oscillations - this could bring us back possibly to a SigGen being necessary to provide frequent/regular transitions!
who said 'breaking the stranglehold' of Classical scientific dogma was going to be easy?!? :)
http://docsfreelunch.blogspot.com (http://docsfreelunch.blogspot.com)
Hi Nul-points, and Greetings from Lincolnshire in the cold misty North of England . You are preaching to the converted , so to speak, in that I agree 100% with your last post .We must leave no stone unturned . The 9 volt battery and pot idea is a simple cheap starting point . As Rosemary says this effect is not frequency dependent , mechanical switching becomes possible for experiment . Rose talks about frequencies as low as one cycle every 3 seconds!. If the constant neg bias does not work , we could use two battery and pot circuits to pulse the gate pos and neg alternately using a microswitch to change them over .Microswitch could be operated with a variable speed DC motor driving a cam , or you could even operate it with a pendulum .These methods might be easier for some than 555 circuits which normally only pulse between pos and zero .With two bias batteries , you could vary the voltage of pos and neg pulses independently . My point is that experimentation at this level could be cheap .Not everyone has a function generator
Just read the article linked bykEho77 in reply number385 , and also the one linked by rensseak in reply388 . We can learn much from these .For a start , if we can not get the circuit to oscillate , try different wire lengths on the gate connections . If driving the gate with a pulse generator , a potentiometer of 100 ohms to 1Kohms between the generator and gate is desirable . Further study needed here . There is talk of the gate wiring acting as an aerial .Is this the purpose of the aerial, picking up electronic noise ,on Ismael Avisos car ?
Quote from: poynt99 on March 26, 2011, 02:57:26 PM
Right, Part 2 then.
What will happen to our PVbat calculation if rather than using this agreed upon equation:
PVbat = V(P1 - P4) x V(P3 - P4)/0.25
we make a small change and use this instead:
PVbat = V(P2 - P4) x V(P3 -P4)/0.25
What happens to the PVbat calculation?
.99
Ok. Poynty Point. Still struggling to find relevance here.
"
PVbat = V(P2 - P4) x V(P3 -P4)/0.25" refers.
Actually I'm going to change this entirely. You tell me. And this time look at the entire circuit assuming R = 1 Ohm. What is the current flow here? And how do you calculate this? Then. What is the current flow at R2 given that R = 1000 Ohms and what is the current flow at R3 given that R = 0.25 Ohm.Let us know Poynty.
Kind regards
Rosemary
CHANGED
And guys, the switch is now switching like an angel but I can't get any power through to the load. I think we've shaken a cable loose and I can't, myself, get in there. I'll try and get someone to fix this tomorrow.
Sorry about the delay Poynty. The probes still positioned as required. Hang fire. We'll get there.
Kindest as ever,
Rosemary
BTW - Many thanks for the good wishes Atomicx. But the credit is not mine - I assure you. The team rallied with that demo. I was just a spectator.
Kindest as ever,
R
And rensseak and nul-points - nice references and nice points. I also have no idea how that oscillation is actually triggered. It was a big surprise. But it seems to just want to keep going. And there's no question that there's some heavy duty current there. It shows up in the battery voltage drop - and climb. But I still have to show that with the probe directly across a 24 volt supply.
And another point for our Poynty. I can't span a 12 volt battery. I made a mistake. The best I can do here is 24. But that should do the trick - presumably. I'll keep those connections to the barest minimum. And I'll film it. So you'll see where the probes are positioned.
Again,
Rosemary
Quote from: neptune on March 27, 2011, 09:10:14 AM
Rose talks about frequencies as low as one cycle every 3 seconds!.
Neptune? I'll see if I can find that scope shot. It's not one cycle per 3 seconds. It's actually one cycle per 2.7 MINUTES at the lowest setting. I'll see if I can find it to post it.
Actually just recalculated this. More like 2.5 minutes. But that's still a long time. And no evident ringing down or up at each transition.Hang 10. I'll see what I can do. Not the best around this internet thing.
I think this is it. Here's hoping. Yes. Just look at the 50sec per division in the top left hand corner.
Kindest, as ever,
Rosie
edited
Here's another one. It shows it more clearly.
I've actually got these printed in colour and intend framing them.
ENJOY
;D
The channels
1 = shunt
2 = battery
3 = gate
4 = drain
The math trace - on D - is the product of v shunt and v battery. NOT WATTS. But in as much as it's negative then vi is definitely negative indicating energy returned to the battery. As I've mentioned - an embarrassment of riches. Because at this level of power that battery should be cooking with charge. UNLESS, as I'm hoping, current flow turns out to have nothing whatsoever to do with the flow of electrons. That's the ONLY departure from mainstream thinking that we've introduced. And even here - there are those theoretical purists who have known this since forever.
Rosemary
ADDED - and since I'm on a role here, and if anyone's interested. Here's some comments related to electron current flow. Possibly a bit critical. LOL.
http://newlightondarkenergy.blogspot.com/2010/11/more-on-inconvenient-truths.html
Quote from: Rosemary Ainslie on March 26, 2011, 10:38:32 PM
Power is ALWAYS vi dt. Or Volts x amps x time. THAT's it. You can try and argue this till the cows come home Poynty....
Rosemary
Power is volts x amps. Volts x amps x time is Energy.
Quote from: Bubba1 on March 27, 2011, 11:31:26 AM
Power is volts x amps. Volts x amps x time is Energy.
Exactly my point Bubba. vi dt.
Instantaneous Power : P = V * I
Energy is the integration of instantaneous power over time.
Only if the instantaneous power is constant you can forget the integration and just multiply V*I*t
Hope we can narrow the uncertainties.
-Alex
Sorry Rosemary . Another Senior Moment there! This business of one cycle every 3 Minutes is just so Gobsmacking that my subconscious keeps trying to tell me its 3 seconds . This makes it even easier to drive the microswitch at realistic frequencies for experiment with a pendulum .Although at one cycle/3 minutes you would need one hell of a pendulum . As I said a while back you could actually switch it manually with a stopwatch .
Quote from: neptune on March 27, 2011, 11:53:33 AM
Sorry Rosemary . Another Senior Moment there! This business of one cycle every 3 Minutes is just so Gobsmacking that my subconscious keeps trying to tell me its 3 seconds . This makes it even easier to drive the microswitch at realistic frequencies for experiment with a pendulum .Although at one cycle/3 minutes you would need one hell of a pendulum . As I said a while back you could actually switch it manually with a stopwatch .
LOL I also took a day or two to realise that it was minutes not seconds. And then only because it was pointed out to me by one of our academics. Interestingly there is NO drop in temperature over the resistor. Also - if you disconnect - for 3 minutes then the temperature drops dramatically. It's not in the material of the iron. So? Here's the question. How come the batteries are 'retaining charge' and yet dissipating energy? You see why it is that our academics are closing there eyes here? LOL.
So glad we've got you to deal with the practicalities of this design Neptune. I have no skills here - at all.
Kindest as ever,
Rosie
added
BTW Neptune. The ideal would be to get it to 'trigger' into oscillation mode and then just leave it to do it's thing. No need for any further switching - I'd have thought? It's holding the temperature - so it's doing work - and it's not - apparently, losing any charge at the batteries. It would be a really good test - if you guys - someone? can set this up. I'm going to give it at go at this end but, because I'll be relying on others to do your circuit - then it'll take time.
Hi Rosemary . Yes all points noted . If experiment shows that transients are necessary , and just switching on and off that 9 volt battery does not do the job , I would think the next step would be having two batteries each with its own pot and the hand operated microswitch idea . That way we have alternate pos and neg pulses on the gate , and we can adjust the voltages of the pos and neg pulses independently .When the oscillations start , just release the switch and it defaults to a steady neg condition . I am more of a practical guy than a theoretician , but from reading the article about prevention of parasitic oscillation in parallel Mosfets , I get the impression that 2 is the minimum number of mosfets to use , But choose the value of your load resister so as not to draw more current than 2 mosfets can handle . Rose I understand you are waiting for someone to help set up experiments but I am sure we will get there soon.
Quote from: Rosemary Ainslie on March 27, 2011, 11:59:09 AM
So? Here's the question. How come the batteries are 'retaining charge' and yet dissipating energy? You see why it is that our academics are closing there eyes here? LOL.
Kindest as ever,
Rosie
Could it be, hmmm, could it be that the heat created in the resistor is not really a loss felt by the batteries, and it is just an artifact of current flow. If we think about it, as the resistor heats up, the resistance will become higher as the heat becomes hotter. As the resistance becomes higher, and current becomes lower, yet the heat is higher. More heat for less energy?
This was just a blurt. I have to think about this.
Mags
Quote from: Rosemary Ainslie on March 27, 2011, 11:34:11 AM
Exactly my point Bubba. vi dt.
vi dt is not power, it is energy. power is vi.
Guys - there's someone contacted me who may be prepared to fund the required to take this to an application for LED's. Neptune - if you're game - let me know - or anyone who wants to take this further. It's nothing to do with me. I'm just go-between. But if you're up for it. PM me and I'll send on the details.
Kindest regards,
Rosemary
Also possibly Mags, nul-points - whoever. It may be a way of getting this tested DIRECTLY onto a limited application. And I'm sure that there'll be some compensation for the outlay. Just let me know. I'm back here later tonight or tomorrow morning early. I like the thinking. Just get it up and running and explain how it works after. Something like that. You'd be able to test the battery durations and the whole gamut.
Quote from: Bubba1 on March 27, 2011, 01:59:08 PM
vi dt is not power, it is energy. power is vi.
Bubba - why are you going on about this? Energy and power are generic terms. Applied to electric energy then Power is still volts times amps x time. And when time is factored in then its represented as Joules. I just don't see your point.
Rosemary
Hello,
I was wondering how much would the batteries last, if they weren´t getting any charge. This is a very crude aproximation:
If you use 6 12v batteries to power a DC load dissipating 50 watts, the current is around 50/72 which is 0.7 amps . Dividing the AH rating of the batteries, lets say 100 AH, by the current, we get the run time of 142.8 hours.
If the load is pulsed, it seems there will be extra run time, even more so with lead acid batteries.
What is needed is replication and continuous operation of the heater, this is better than the the measurements route. Any takers?
A simple PIC microcontroller + drive transistor could set the gate voltage and provide a safety circuit breaker function.
Best,
Alex
For anyone dubious about the idea that a shunt containing an inductance whose reactance is actually larger than the shunt resistance at the frequencies of interest could actually distort the direction of current flow and change the areas under the positive and negative portions of the trace, here is another even more astounding and revealing demonstration:
Here we have a current generator set up to ramp up and down linearly from zero to two Amperes. The true current flow is always positive as shown by the trace taken across the pure shunt resistance. It never once goes below zero.
Yet the voltage as taken across the R+L shows huge amounts of reverse (negative) “current flowâ€. If we believed that, that is.
You see, the whole idea of a shunt is based on using a pure resistance to obtain the analog of the current flowing through it by looking at the voltage drop and applying Ohm’s law E=IR. A resistor’s voltage drop across its terminals is a pure function of the instantaneous current flowing through the resistor.
The relationship between voltage drop and current is entirely different in inductors and capacitors. In an inductor, the voltage measured across its terminals depends ONLY on how fast the current is changing and whether it is rising or falling and not at all on the actual amount or the polarity of current. Inversely, in a capacitor, the current flow through it depends ONLY on how fast the voltage across its terminals is changing and not at all on the value of that voltage.
So, a pure inductor will have no voltage drop (zero) across its terminals no matter what the current flowing as long as that current is not changing. If the current is changing at a steady rate (di/dt is a constant slope), the voltage across the inductor will be a non-zero value and will also remain steady. If the current is rising, the voltage will be positive. If the current is declining, the voltage will be negative.
If the rate of change of current (di/dt) suddenly changes from one slope to another, there will be a “spike†of voltage produced. This is (di/dt)/dt, the rate of change of the rate of change. That is why we see the spikes each time the slope of the current instantly changes on our trapezoid waveform, shown here. If there were no resistance in series to damp these spikes, they would be infinite in amplitude if the change in slope was instantaneous NO MATTER HOW LARGE OR SMALL THE ACTUAL LEVEL OF CURRENT WAS.
So using a shunt that has internal inductance with a reactance far larger than its resistance at the frequencies of interest will primarily show the rate of change of the current and not the current’s actual value.
The scope traces here and in my sim of Rose’s circuit shown earlier prove the point that an inductive shunt can and does show negative voltages any time the true current is declining EVEN WHEN THE CURRENT ITSELF IS ALWAYS A POSITIVE NUMBER.
Humbugger
Quote from: Rosemary Ainslie on March 27, 2011, 02:18:56 PM
Bubba - why are you going on about this? Energy and power are generic terms. Applied to electric energy then Power is still volts times amps x time. And when time is factored in then its represented as Joules. I just don't see your point.
Rosemary
Yeah, I see that. Maybe it doesn't matter.
Hi Rosemary,
So back to applications. In your opinion, would it be possible to drive the existing resistive heating element in an off the shelf home water heater appliance from this circuit? If not, what is necessary to retrofit an existing heater with a replacement element suitable for use with the circuit? I think it is a easier path to mass implementation to provide a modular kit suitable to upgrade the existing devices in use, as opposed to the larger manufacturing requirements and hence consumer investment required
to replace existing systems altogether.
Cheers,
Twinbeard
Guys, It seems that OUR.com have banned me from viewing their forum. Not sure of the thinking here. Poynty himself HOWLED when Harti separated him from his work. Somehow he feels this is due to me. Apparently they want a free field where I can do nothing to stop all that slander. I think this is justified because? Actually I'm not sure why. I thought I was knee deep in a friendly discussion with Poynty. How wrong can one be.
I've now reported their abuse EVERYWHERE. I may as well add it here. Mookie has put out a general appeal for all to 'feel free' to come and comment. But i think they're only accepting ADVERSE comment. Never seen a more blatant example of bigotry and more sanctioned intentions to indulge in 'hate speech'. But Poynty apparently justifies it under the banner 'opinion'. I see NO opinions. Unless they do some retrospective editing. Poor Mookie is trying to advance the general impression that I'm always in my pyjamas - and that I live in a dusty little hole where I weave my fantasies at whim. Again. Not sure of the relevance - but could someone perhaps advise him that my living quarters are ample and really well serviced.
Rosemary
Quote from: alexandre on March 27, 2011, 06:19:09 PM
Hello,
I was wondering how much would the batteries last, if they weren´t getting any charge. This is a very crude aproximation:
If you use 6 12v batteries to power a DC load dissipating 50 watts, the current is around 50/72 which is 0.7 amps . Dividing the AH rating of the batteries, lets say 100 AH, by the current, we get the run time of 142.8 hours.
If the load is pulsed, it seems there will be extra run time, even more so with lead acid batteries.
What is needed is replication and continuous operation of the heater, this is better than the the measurements route. Any takers?
A simple PIC microcontroller + drive transistor could set the gate voltage and provide a safety circuit breaker function.
Best,
Alex
Alex I don't suppose that the batteries are more than 100 ah's but I'll check. And we've certainly run them for longer than 142 hours. But that's 142 x 8 and even then - it's assuming a .7 amp discharge. We've never managed any evidence of discharge. Nor have we seen any depletion of battery voltage. But it's not an argument that we'll win. Ever. And I, for one won't try it again. But it MAY be relevant if any of you guys do these tests on smaller battery capacities.
Not so keen on replications. It would be nice to try a small application. But either way - it's your choice.
Kindest regards,
Rosemary
Quote from: twinbeard on March 28, 2011, 03:45:21 AM
Hi Rosemary,
So back to applications. In your opinion, would it be possible to drive the existing resistive heating element in an off the shelf home water heater appliance from this circuit? If not, what is necessary to retrofit an existing heater with a replacement element suitable for use with the circuit? I think it is a easier path to mass implementation to provide a modular kit suitable to upgrade the existing devices in use, as opposed to the larger manufacturing requirements and hence consumer investment required
to replace existing systems altogether.
Cheers,
Twinbeard
Hi Twin. That's more or less what we were considering. When we chose that element it was simply to see how far from 'standard' we'd need to move. The surprise was that we didn't need to move away at all. Those elements that the guys are showing seem good. But small Ohmage may be preferred - just so that you can keep the battery voltage low. We could up the voltage because we had a generous donation of all those batteries.
Nice thinking.
Rosemary
Hello Rosemary,
I have been reading about it and I believe I have underestimated the capacity of the batteries. As for battery voltage, as pointed out already, it doesn´t represent the remaining charge. Especially when there is pulsing going on.
No consense on the mesurements either. IMO, more work is needed on this experiment. I would like to see continuous operation.
I hope you take this as constructive criticism.
Best
Alex
Quote from: alexandre on March 28, 2011, 10:31:06 AM
Hello Rosemary,
I have been reading about it and I believe I have underestimated the capacity of the batteries. As for battery voltage, as pointed out already, it doesn´t represent the remaining charge. Especially when there is pulsing going on.
No consense on the mesurements either. IMO, more work is needed on this experiment. I would like to see continuous operation.
I hope you take this as constructive criticism.
Best
Alex
You all would. And with good reason. But I don't have the funds to get a continuous test going with the required constant supervision. So. If even three experts stated that such a test would be definitive then that's another story. I'd bend over backwards to get it going. You see Alex - I'm anticipating a really slow but steady discharge from the battery. Certainly, from previous experience - that's what was evident. So. I'd first run a control - say discharging 0.7 amps. Then I'd need to run my own test. The control would run for about 100 amp hours /0 .7 amps = about 142 hours x 6 batteries = 857 hours or a staggering 35 days. Not too much of a problem because we'd be able to put that on a data logger. Now comes our test. Now we'd need constant supervision because it has a tendancy to trend into that heavy duty output mode which is hazardous. So. We'd first need to recharge those batteries then run it for the same period - another 35 odd days before we got any kind of proof at all. Then - to satisfy the picky complainers I'd probably have to run it for a further 35 days or to its point of absolute depletion - assuming it's depleting at all. Then the argument will be to RERUN the control and the test because - you see - the rate of charge at the start of both tests may have skewed the result. That would take a further 34 - 35 days each. And at the end of it? I'll be told that I'd simply fudged those results.
I assure you - battery durations will never cut it as an argument. And as I keep trying to remind you all - this is absolutely NOT the entire argument. There is nothing - in prinicple or in fact - that prevents these applications on AC supplies. What we've done should be more than enough as it depends on standard measurement protocols.
Kindest again,
Rosemary
And I do take it as constructive suggestion. I'm not sure that it's any kind of criticism at all.
It's just that what you're actually asking is the continually supervised for more than a month and possibly to be done twice. I simply cannot afford it.EDITED
I've had to change those numbers. I multiplied instead of dividing.
And guys - just a small ray of light in what, at the moment seems an endlessly dark tunnel. It seems that we may yet be able to do a second demonstration - to a small but EXPERT audience. This time I say this with a great deal of circumspection - but it does, indeed, seem MUCH more promising. So far 2 are committed to coming and there may be more. Who knows? Perhaps we'll get that acknowledgement or, dare I say it, accreditation, after all.
I guess the magic is always in the timing. Now I've got to get the circuit operational. So I've crossed my fingers and am saying my prayers.
Kindest as ever,
Rosemary
And by the way - it's being said that we are intending to claim an OU.com prize. Stefan - for the record - we will not be accepting any prizes - ever. Expert accreditation will be prize enough. Not that I don't need money. It's just not the point of this. At all. Not even close. Personally - if there's a prize contender I think it should go to LaserSaber or to the Joule Thief developers. And I also think both should have been considered - way back. Actually there's been so much. It's a shame that we all have to keep on struggling for recognition of this work. Hopefully the day will yet come when there's open acknowledgement.
Rosemary
Hi Rosie
As far as claiming the prize I am not aware of anyone coming close, the criteria is for a 1 W device,
yes 1 Watt of free energy may seem a small amount to some people but it would be a revolution
anyway I am still waiting to see one, maybe one year ::)
http://www.overunity.com/index.php?topic=5707.0
Hi Rosemary,
Can I ask what is your end goal?
For me, the end goal for a successful free energy device is this:
Make 6 - 10 working replications, make as fine detailed blueprints as I can (for easy replication - any one can do), then mail the 6 - 10 working replications to the top universities across the globe (America, China, India, Australia, New Zealand, Canada etc etc). And also mail it to key interest groups (like this and energetic forum). The day I mail it, I also apply for a GPL license with no royalties or anything, just the GPL so no one could patent it, carefully making sure it can be reproduced by anyone - also making it difficult for people to profit from it.
The result (hopefully):
Free energy for the world, and the governments would be powerless to cover and suppress it.
Poit
Quote from: powercat on March 28, 2011, 11:53:43 AM
Hi Rosie
As far as claiming the prize I am not aware of anyone coming close, the criteria is for a 1 W device,
yes 1 Watt of free energy may seem a small amount to some people but it would be a revolution
anyway I am still waiting to see one, maybe one year ::)
http://www.overunity.com/index.php?topic=5707.0
Cat? I think we're dealing with anything up to and more than 44 watts. And we certainly don't see a cost. What intrigues me is that we claim this - others claim all kind of ou results and YET none of us is believed. What gives guys? Must every piece of evidence just be ignored - forever? And how more conclusively does one give evidence. I think we've exhausted ourselves in this effort. Frankly this is just way too depressing. Poynty et al - deny on principle and the rest of you? Out of habit?
Rosemary
Quote from: Poit on March 28, 2011, 01:24:17 PM
Hi Rosemary,
Can I ask what is your end goal?
For me, the end goal for a successful free energy device is this:
Make 6 - 10 working replications, make as fine detailed blueprints as I can (for easy replication - any one can do), then mail the 6 - 10 working replications to the top universities across the globe (America, China, India, Australia, New Zealand, Canada etc etc). And also mail it to key interest groups (like this and energetic forum). The day I mail it, I also apply for a GPL license with no royalties or anything, just the GPL so no one could patent it, carefully making sure it can be reproduced by anyone - also making it difficult for people to profit from it.
The result (hopefully):
Free energy for the world, and the governments would be powerless to cover and suppress it.
Poit
Well. That's more or less what we've done. Interestingly - there's some small interest bubbling. so. Maybe it'll work.
Rosemary
Quote from: Rosemary Ainslie on March 28, 2011, 01:31:14 PM
Cat? I think we're dealing with anything up to and more than 44 watts. And we certainly don't see a cost. What intrigues me is that we claim this - others claim all kind of ou results and YET none of us is believed. What gives guys? Must every piece of evidence just be ignored - forever? And how more conclusively does one give evidence. I think we've exhausted ourselves in this effort. Frankly this is just way too depressing. Poynty et al - deny on principle and the rest of you? Out of habit?
Rosemary
This is all very good research and you are very determined, the problem is if you have free energy
then why can't you or anybody else produce a self-runner (yes that did come out as words)
as we are now on your third thread and yet again having measurement disagreement ::)
I feel that a self-runner it is the only answer left
I have seen many try to reproduced your work,some of them I know well and I trust them, yet they have also failed, I would love to make one of your circuits, if only I could believe in it.
Best of luck with the research I hope you win in the end you deserve it
;)
http://www.youtube.com/results?search_type=videos&search_query=Rosemary+Ainslie+circuit&search_sort=video_date_uploaded&suggested_categories=28&uni=3
Quote from: powercat on March 28, 2011, 11:53:43 AM
Hi Rosie
As far as claiming the prize I am not aware of anyone coming close, the criteria is for a 1 W device,
yes 1 Watt of free energy may seem a small amount to some people but it would be a revolution
anyway I am still waiting to see one, maybe one year ::)
http://www.overunity.com/index.php?topic=5707.0
Many people regard patents are simply an effective way of netting potential 'problematic' inventions, then either buying them outright our having them classified as having national-security implications - either way, they never see the light of day! I see this $1 million as a similar scam. Reminds me of the Great Randi's $1 million offer for proof of the paranormal - all smoke and mirrors as the 'terms & conditions' he stipulates are farcical. There's actually a very well-made youtube video that highlight this perfectly, except it done from the wannabe-psychics perspective, hilarious but scripted directly along the lines of what Randi demands. Idiot!
But I digress, I was considering an application for this tech and hit on something I am actually thinking of buying - a steam-distiller, the type for removing fluoride and chlorine etc. from tap-water. I currently get all my water from a natural spring, but have to drive quite a long way for it. They cost around $200, and seem to consume around 600W. I'm sure one could be made for a small fraction of that cost. But cooler still would be one that consumes little or no power!!! Even with ordinary-tech, that 600W should be easy to improve on - how about one of those piezo-foggers coupled with a tiny element to flash-steam the sucker! Just thinking out loud...
@Rosemary - You have a good brain, could you guesstimate what maximum output I could expect using your setup and a ton of Nokia 3.6V 1100mAH batteries connected in series - I have well over 100 of these guys that are begging to find an application! I realise their combined series-resistance may rule them out as being practical but I was quite impressed having used just 5 in series, I was able to have them comfortably power a 20W mini-pc for almost 45min - a home-brew UPS! btw, I ordered a 4KW heater element from China because it was so ludicrously cheap - $4 including shipping! I was sure it must be a mistake but my payment went through, so we'll see! Have no idea what I'm going to do with it though! :D
Edit: Just re-read that and it's a pretty open-ended question! Guess what I'm really asking is, do you think this thing is do-able with such small-sized batteries?
This particular device is designed to produce heat. It does so with apparently little or no disturbance to the source dipole. One way to recover energy to make a "self run" would be via peltier junction, but lets think in a little more practical terms. A small photovoltaic panel would amply cover providing current to the batteries to replace any that may be lost covering the cost of switching in the circuit. That is simply adding another input to our already open system, and adding that input at the source dipole, a point in the circuit that is critical to maintaining the resonance. I'm sure we could charge up a cap or even a tuned LC in the circuit itself somewhere as well without critically altering the heating effect, and switch it with an SCR so it dumps that collected potential back across the battery as well, if need be.
If we are seeing energy radiate through the circuit in all directions that there is a path to a point of lower potential, even back into the source dipole, then it appears we have the desired effect already though. Artificial stimulation of the environment to produce a resonant condition which creates harvestable electrostatic potentials. Lightning in a bottle:) If, at very worst, we have an incredibly efficient heater that draws very little current from a photovoltaic panel/battery array, then we have still done something important.
Cheers,
Twinbeard
Quote from: powercat on March 28, 2011, 02:36:38 PM
This is all very good research and you are very determined, the problem is if you have free energy
then why can't you or anybody else produce a self-runner (yes that did come out as words)
as we are now on your third thread and yet again having measurement disagreement ::)
I feel that a self-runner it is the only answer left
I have seen many try to reproduced your work,some of them I know well and I trust them, yet they have also failed, I would love to make one of your circuits, if only I could believe in it.
Best of luck with the research I hope you win in the end you deserve it
;)
http://www.youtube.com/results?search_type=videos&search_query=Rosemary+Ainslie+circuit&search_sort=video_date_uploaded&suggested_categories=28&uni=3
Quote from: Sprocket on March 28, 2011, 02:54:51 PM
Rosemary - You have a good brain, could you guesstimate what maximum output I could expect using your setup and a ton of Nokia 3.6V 1100mAH batteries connected in series - I have well over 100 of these guys that are begging to find an application! I realise their combined series-resistance may rule them out as being practical but I was quite impressed having used just 5 in series, I was able to have them comfortably power a 20W mini-pc for almost 45min - a home-brew UPS! btw, I ordered a 4KW heater element from China because it was so ludicrously cheap - $4 including shipping! I was sure it must be a mistake but my payment went through, so we'll see! Have no idea what I'm going to do with it though! :D
Hello Sprocket. Golly. That's a lot of batteries. I'd be most interested to see if they'd work. Can't see why not. Why so many? I don't own a hundred of anything. Never been brave enough to buy in bulk. My argument is that I'm not sure I'll live long enough to make use of it. Well. I have a Greek friend who tells me that they consider there's only 1 sin. That's buying retail. LOL. So. I've clearly got a lot to learn.
But I can't make predictions here - unfortunately. You'll just have to find out. But that's certainly at least a potential 360 volts to apply. It should be interesting. And at that value you should also be able see how well they last. Pity they're not rechargeable. I'm not sure if that would be required to take advantage of that energy return. I see Lawrence's device forever being compromised because of this lack. That's the real advantage of those lead acid numbers.
Anyway. Good luck. Nice to see the questions being asked. Wish I could answer them.
Kindest regards,
Rosemary
Quote from: twinbeard on March 28, 2011, 04:20:11 PM
This particular device is designed to produce heat. It does so with apparently little or no disturbance to the source dipole. One way to recover energy to make a "self run" would be via peltier junction, but lets think in a little more practical terms. A small photovoltaic panel would amply cover providing current to the batteries to replace any that may be lost covering the cost of switching in the circuit. That is simply adding another input to our already open system, and adding that input at the source dipole, a point in the circuit that is critical to maintaining the resonance. I'm sure we could charge up a cap or even a tuned LC in the circuit itself somewhere as well without critically altering the heating effect, and switch it with an SCR so it dumps that collected potential back across the battery as well, if need be.
If we are seeing energy radiate through the circuit in all directions that there is a path to a point of lower potential, even back into the source dipole, then it appears we have the desired effect already though. Artificial stimulation of the environment to produce a resonant condition which creates harvestable electrostatic potentials. Lightning in a bottle:) If, at very worst, we have an incredibly efficient heater that draws very little current from a photovoltaic panel/battery array, then we have still done something important.
Cheers,
Twinbeard
Nice thinking Twinbeard. :)
Quote from: powercat on March 28, 2011, 02:36:38 PM
This is all very good research and you are very determined, the problem is if you have free energy
then why can't you or anybody else produce a self-runner (yes that did come out as words)
as we are now on your third thread and yet again having measurement disagreement ::)
I feel that a self-runner it is the only answer left
I have seen many try to reproduced your work,some of them I know well and I trust them, yet they have also failed, I would love to make one of your circuits, if only I could believe in it.
Best of luck with the research I hope you win in the end you deserve it
;)
http://www.youtube.com/results?search_type=videos&search_query=Rosemary+Ainslie+circuit&search_sort=video_date_uploaded&suggested_categories=28&uni=3
Good point Cat. I can't answer you here. Actually I can. But it would take me forever. I expect something jolly close to a closed system though. And - frankly - I think we've got exactly that. But - as ever - time will tell. I'm tired of trying to convince anyone at all. I'll be happy when we get a few anomalies endorsed by our learned and revered as that may be a start towards something a little more positive. At least we can show that continual negative number - on low and high outputs. They'll have to digest that. And hopefully they'll come with their flash drives - so they can do their own sums. I'm also looking forward to their factoring in for that inductance when they do those integrations. It only adds to our argument.
Where I really feel I earn the prize is that I'm doing any experiments at all. It bores me to tears.
Kindest regards,
Rosie
There are still more questions than answers ::) as usual when all is said and done, more is said than done. ;D all I am saying is a self-runner is a very good way of proving your theory, if you have excess energy use it to make a self runner ???
oh how the world needs free energy now and I fully support any one trying to achieve this
:-*
Sorry I must have been posting when you were,so I missed your last reply,
any advances that you make in the direction of efficiency is a great step forward,
I am like most people here dreaming of free energy,
enough from me tonight.
determination will get you there in the end
;)
Quote from: Rosemary Ainslie on March 28, 2011, 04:23:28 PM
Hello Sprocket. Golly. That's a lot of batteries. I'd be most interested to see if they'd work. Can't see why not. Why so many? I don't own a hundred of anything. Never been brave enough to buy in bulk. My argument is that I'm not sure I'll live long enough to make use of it. Well. I have a Greek friend who tells me that they consider there's only 1 sin. That's buying retail. LOL. So. I've clearly got a lot to learn.
But I can't make predictions here - unfortunately. You'll just have to find out. But that's certainly at least a potential 360 volts to apply. It should be interesting. And at that value you should also be able see how well they last. Pity they're not rechargeable. I'm not sure if that would be required to take advantage of that energy return. I see Lawrence's device forever being compromised because of this lack. That's the real advantage of those lead acid numbers.
Anyway. Good luck. Nice to see the questions being asked. Wish I could answer them.
Kindest regards,
Rosemary
I got them for nothing from a store that was closing down, and they're all brand-new! They're also all rechargeable, (NiMH) so no problem there either. Yes, I've got 300+ volts but I'm sure their combined resistance would prove a problem, especially where high current draw is involved - like here I expect! But you're right, it needs to be tested...
Quote from: Sprocket on March 28, 2011, 07:42:29 PM
I got them for nothing from a store that was closing down, and they're all brand-new! They're also all rechargeable, (NiMH) so no problem there either. Yes, I've got 300+ volts but I'm sure their combined resistance would prove a problem, especially where high current draw is involved - like here I expect! But you're right, it needs to be tested...
WOW. Then I'll be really interested here Sprocket. Just one thing. Try and get that 'immersion' heater type coil. We know that it works. I think - frankly - that the higher the resistance - the more applied voltage required. But with all those batteries - you'd have no need to hold back.
Really good news. I'd be very interested to see how well those batteries last. And if they're rechargeable then it's relatively easy to set up your controls. Can't wait Sprocket. This is going to be interesting. Just think of it. An immersion heater element with, perhaps, it's own in built battery supply rig. That's got to be good for campers and even for those who are off grid. We've got such - in the millions. Adds exponential meaning to the concept of 'instant coffee'.
Kindest regards,
jRosie
Morning all .Struggling a bit today because I fell off my bicycle yesterday! @ Sprocket .All those batteries sound like a good find .What I would do is find a heater first and then select your battery voltage to give a current within their capabilities .You do not have to use all the batteries . It would be interesting to see your results . I am in the process of reading everything that has been written on this circuit .It is a bit like reading Tolstoy's "War and Peace". I keep thinking that this circuit could be run without a square wave generator of any kind , either by using a steady neg bias on the gate , or using a "tickler coil" magnetically linked to the load resistor , and thus creating an Armstrong Oscillator [google it]
Quote from: Sprocket on March 28, 2011, 07:42:29 PM
I got them for nothing from a store that was closing down, and they're all brand-new! They're also all rechargeable, (NiMH) so no problem there either. Yes, I've got 300+ volts but I'm sure their combined resistance would prove a problem, especially where high current draw is involved - like here I expect! But you're right, it needs to be tested...
get a bunch of thorium (camping lantern mantles, etc.), radium from clocks and some tritium (as a neutron moderator)... use the lithium from the batteries to purify the the thorium ash...
Quote from: neptune on March 29, 2011, 06:19:50 AM
Morning all .Struggling a bit today because I fell off my bicycle yesterday!
...
I keep thinking that this circuit could be run without a square wave generator of any kind , either by using a steady neg bias on the gate , or using a "tickler coil" magnetically linked to the load resistor , and thus creating an Armstrong Oscillator [google it]
hi Neptune
sorry to hear about the tumble :(
hope you and the bike get mended soon!
your suggestion about driving the MOSFET direct from its output just reminded me about a circuit i'd seen a while back...
that wiley old Marcus Wagner seems to have beaten us to it, 6 years ago!!!
the thread is at:
http://www.overunity.com/index.php?topic=413.0 (http://www.overunity.com/index.php?topic=413.0)of course, he used a double MOSFET series arrangement with the inductor, but the main switched current path is essentially the sort of thing we're looking at on this thread (the MOSFET body diodes still provide the same behaviour)
notice also that he rectifies the output pulses into a 1F cap which is across the battery, so again the same feedback to source (ie. looped) operation
(looks a bit like a MOSFET Joule Thief!)
i guess i should just add that i'm not suggesting this is a direct replacement for Rosemary's circuit with SigGen i/p - merely taking your idea to self-drive the circuit using feedback from the output
it could possibly be adapted to get it more into the mould of the RA circuit (eg, remove D1, change series MOSFETs to parallel, arrange drive signal to include some negative level, etc)
hope this distracts you from the cuts & bruises! ;)
np
http://docsfreelunch.blogspot.com (http://docsfreelunch.blogspot.com)
I'm disappointed, I have just done a head-count, it seems I only have a little over 50 - off by a factor of 2!
@Rosemary - Forgive me if you have answered this like 100 times already, did you try this with high-wattage wire-wound resistors? As far as I can make out these are all bifilar wound so their inductance would be negligible - is inductance an absolute requirement here? What I envision doing is piezo-fogging the water, then piping it over the likes of a wire-wound resistor, which is contained in a close-fitting tube of some kind to vapourise the stuff. Not an option if inductance is a prerequisite though.
@neptune - what I've been trying to determine is what would be the minimum voltage feasible for this. As you suggest, the maximum current they are capable of is the limiting factor - and the more of them I tie in series, the greater their combined series resistance, the more power that will be dropped across them in the form of heat. And this does not seem to be a low-current operation! Which had me thinking supercaps - these could supply 100's of amps, but at low voltages. I actually have quite a lot of these as well (5 ->360F) which I planned on reselling but haven't got around to yet - too many other balls in the air!
@WilbyInebriated - ...followed by "Abracadabra" no doubt!!! :D Sorry, I have no idea where you are going with this...
@Nul-points ,bike is OK .My knee is a bit stiff , but done 10 miles today to free it off , thanks .That's quite an interesting circuit from Marcus .I can see what you are getting at with that .@ Sprocket , I have no idea of the capacity of your cells .Let us assume they are capable of 1 amp .And assume your heater is 30 ohms . So you could try 30 volts worth of cells to start with . I don't know if you have a scope . Once you get it to oscillate , try the caps . hope this helps .Home made resistors are easy to make . see my earlier posts in this thread .
Quote from: Sprocket on March 29, 2011, 08:51:57 AM
Rosemary - Forgive me if you have answered this like 100 times already, did you try this with high-wattage wire-wound resistors? As far as I can make out these are all bifilar wound so their inductance would be negligible - is inductance an absolute requirement here? What I envision doing is piezo-fogging the water, then piping it over the likes of a wire-wound resistor, which is contained in a close-fitting tube of some kind to vapourise the stuff. Not an option if inductance is a prerequisite though.
Guys - you are all getting into a level of complexity that I can barely undestand. Which is a really good thing. I have always assumed that high levels of inductance was a pre-requisite. But apparently not. I suspect it's the casing around the wire that is giving us this greater benefit. But the precise requirement for that parasitic oscillation? It's absolutely outside my competence. I've always assumed that a cap is going to snuff out the benefits - but again. I'm open to correction. I can only point at what we've got. And, out of necessity - the design is kept to its essential simplicity. My own explanation for that high current flow is that it's from the back EMF that's induced on the load. And we've never really seen what this is trying to do - precisely because not all that voltage could flow as current. And that, because there was not enough 'path' given in a single Zener. I'm also assuming a counter clockwise current flow. And I know so little of classical thinking here - I'm not sure that even this much is exotic or if it's mainstream. So. Bottom line. I'm afraid you're on your own here. Which, again, is probably a good thing.
Kindest regards,
Rosemary
Quote from: neptune on March 29, 2011, 09:14:34 AM
Nul-points ,bike is OK .My knee is a bit stiff , but done 10 miles today to free it off , thanks .That's quite an interesting circuit from Marcus .I can see what you are getting at with that .@ Sprocket , I have no idea of the capacity of your cells .Let us assume they are capable of 1 amp .And assume your heater is 30 ohms . So you could try 30 volts worth of cells to start with . I don't know if you have a scope . Once you get it to oscillate , try the caps . hope this helps .Home made resistors are easy to make . see my earlier posts in this thread .
Glad there was no major problems here Neptune. If you're back up and riding then it was not too critical.
I wonder if it wouldn't be better to simply find those old immersion elements - even second hand - if they haven't shorted. I also see a similar type element in your average radial 'pancake shaped' element used on stoves. I'm reasonably certain it would work as well. And I imagine this could be fairly readily accessed from any kind of junk recycling shop. I'm assuming that the exact shape is irrelevant. Just the voltage against that resistive value may be quite important. We've been using upwards of 24 volts on a resistance of 11 Ohms or thereby. That may be a 'kick off' guide. So sorry I can't be of more help.
Kindest as ever,
Rosemary
BTW - Wilby - I would also love to understand where your thinking is going there. I'ts way over my head. Are you looking to making a battery?
And another quick note. I should get my circuit back and up an running by tomorrow. Here's hoping.ADDED
Quote from: Sprocket on March 29, 2011, 08:51:57 AM
@WilbyInebriated - ...followed by "Abracadabra" no doubt!!! :D Sorry, I have no idea where you are going with this...
:) the lithium is useful in the process to convert thorium to Th-233, and that will decay to U-233, which is fissionable... the abracadabra is optional but it always adds a nice flair. ;) sorry for the off topic comment.
@Rosemary - It's surprising that you and your team hasn't tried to pinpoint the source of the extra energy, or at least narrow down the possibilities. I'm going to order some wire-wound resistors anyway so we'll see what happens. It's hard to see where the oscillations come from without inductance though. I was reading up on some of your earlier posts and I see you mention that lower inductance seemed to enhance the effect. You also talked about where you increased the duty-cycle of your function generator to max - which was about 3min, that's a lot! - and during the mosfet-off stage, the parasitic oscillations continue for the duration, with no apparent reductance in heat produced, and for the full 3min, while there is no power being drawn from the battery! The opposite in fact, the battery is apparently being charged during this time - am I reading this correctly? If so, WOW! In fact, is there any need for a periodic waveform at all? Wouldn't a simple 555 monostable circuit do instead, something to basically just start it off? Or even a push-switch? Anyway, I've lots to think about, but I can't do much till I order some stuff.
@neptune - yeah, I've got a scope, or half a scope rather - one of its channels went kaput recently.
@WilbyEnebriated - my doctor said that I wasn't allowed to use my lithium for that. Bummer..
Quote from: Sprocket on March 29, 2011, 06:01:23 PMRosemary - It's surprising that you and your team hasn't tried to pinpoint the source of the extra energy, or at least narrow down the possibilities.
Golly Sprocket. Actually the entire circuit design was intended to prove the source of extra energy away from the battery and in the material of the circuit itself. That much, to all of us, was a given. But that's in the thesis and I've learned that there's not that much interest in the thesis. Therefore I sort of hold back here. Certainly I know that the interest on these forums is in the more practical side of things.
Broadly the argument is this. If the amount of energy discharged by a supply is less than the amount of energy dissipated on the circuit - then where does that energy come from? That was proved in our previous experiments. Now this has changed rather profoundly. It's now this. If the amount of energy returned to a battery EXCEEDS the amount of energy delivered by the battery in the first instance - then where does that energy come from?
In effect our proof is more comprehensive and anomalous as it relates to classical prediction. And it takes the evidence to infinite COP - which as we all know - begs a closed system. Now. We won't prove this on batteries. It's an obvious step - but I'm not prepared to go that route. If we keep to a discussion on batteries and battery performance it will be an argument that will outlast my lifetime. Hopefully you guys will get there with your replications or applications. But we most certainly can point to something that appears to be closed - as you point to hereunder. And our intention is to keep the discussion relevant to classical measurement protocols. But all I've ever tried to do is to resolve the measurements to prove the thesis. That's my entire focus. Indeed. It's why I put this circuit together in the first instance. And the thesis most assuredly proposes where that extra energy is from. What's intended is to show that there's an energy supply source in all bound matter which is based on Einsteins mass/energy equivalence. But, here's the thing. When that matter has inductive and/or conductive atomic or molecular material - then that can be exploited to become an electric energy supply source. But it's a different discussion Sprocket. I'm not sure that it's needed here.
Quote from: Sprocket link=topic=10407.msg279744#msg279744 date=1301436083
It's hard to see where the oscillations come from without inductance though./quote]Here the proposal is that there are two entirely separate currents flowing to and from their respective sources. The one induces the other - in line with inductive laws. They're able to sustain each other because their paths are enabled by those circuit components. And that 'stack' of MOSFETS is the 'path' for the current flow induced in the circuitry. The fact is that the current does not 'die down' and yet there's measurable evidence of work done in the heat across the laod resistor. All very much predicted and very much in line with that thesis.
[quote author=Sprocket link=topic=10407.msg279744#msg279744 date=1301436083I was reading up on some of your earlier posts and I see you mention that lower inductance seemed to enhance the effect. You also talked about where you increased the duty-cycle of your function generator to max - which was about 3min, that's a lot! - and during the mosfet-off stage, the parasitic oscillations continue for the duration, with no apparent reductance in heat produced, and for the full 3min, while there is no power being drawn from the battery! The opposite in fact, the battery is apparently being charged during this time - am I reading this correctly? If so, WOW! In fact, is there any need for a periodic waveform at all? Wouldn't a simple 555 monostable circuit do instead, something to basically just start it off? Or even a push-switch? Anyway, I've lots to think about, but I can't do much till I order some stuff.
Indeed that oscillation lasts for nearly 3 minutes. This is so nice. It seems that the significance of this 'time' is getting through. Stefan has drawn a circuit design by Neptune to see if this can simply be triggered once - and then left to oscillate. I'm hoping to perhaps get someone to build that circuit. But no joy yet. I think the team are all busy trying to earn a living.
Nice stuff Sprocket. Always a pleasure to see someone 'getting it'.
Kindest regards,
Rosemary
Hi Rosemary,
Here are real world reference values from some of my heater collection.
Volts, Heater wattage rating, Ohms measured
12vdc, 40 watt , 10 ohms (Cattle/Horse tank warmer)
12vdc, 200 watt, 1 ohm (Livestock tank de-icer)
12vdc, 600 watt, 0.5 ohm (Works good as a dump load)
120vac, 180watt, 146 ohm (Electric blanket)
120vac, 660watt, 30 ohm (Old style nichrome wire hot plate)
120vac, 1000watt, 15 ohm (Hot plate)
120vac, 1500watt, 6 ohms (Toaster oven, 1 heater bar)
240vac, 3800watt, 20 ohm (Water tank heater)
240vac, 5500watt, 10 ohm (Fast hot water tank heater)
Hi Neptune,
Got to watch out when riding a bike and catching a glimpse of a pretty lady walking down the street, glad your ok. ;)
Hello indeed, DreamThinkBuild.
That's a really nice collection of resistors. Well done.
:)
Kindest regards,
rosemary
Good day everyone . Been out on the bike early today . Leg working much better , and thanks for kind comments . @ Sprocket . It is important to notice that during the 2.7 minutes of parasitic oscillation the gate is negative relative to ground . So although pulsing may be unnecessary once oscillation starts , the negative state could well be indispensable .The internet is great in that we have global communication , but it does not actually permit us to meet and swap parts and physically work together . A scope [or half scope] will enable you to see the parasitic oscillation . I would also be interested to hear of anyone hearing the oscillation on an AM radio . For commercial applications , RF screening may be necessary to prevent radio interference . There are well tried and tested ways to do this .
@Rosemary - Yikes, now I realise why you normally don't expand more on what you believe to be the true source of the energy, especially here - that's more along the lines of alchemy than electricity, I bet people have been lynched for lesser heresies! :D
@neptune - As I posted earlier, my first attempt at this was when Rosemary was posting at EF and all I managed to achieve then was blow a few mosfets. What I wasn't doing was taking the gate negative, so I'm sure that it must be vitally important - at least I couldn't find anything interesting happening just taking it to zero. Incidently, my 'element' then was a length of resistance-wire pulled from a toaster and wrapped around a tin-can, insulated of course. 14 Ohms resistance, I forget what the inductance measured was. Not sure if this this helped or hindered...
Quote from: Sprocket on March 30, 2011, 08:55:15 AM
@Rosemary - Yikes, now I realise why you normally don't expand more on what you believe to be the true source of the energy, especially here - that's more along the lines of alchemy than electricity, I bet people have been lynched for lesser heresies! :D
LOL. I think I've had my share of being publicly lynched. In fact it never stops. The latest is to be banned from even viewing OUR.com when I wasn't even a member. So. Banned from all 4 forums where I've ever posted - and not less than 7 threads flamed and locked - possibly as many as 9. Which none of it does much to promote me as a peace loving individual with more than just a passing interest in clean green. I must say I'm enjoying an uncharacteristically long period of relative tolerance and calm. And I think that's due to Harti's direct moderation. Long may it last. But I must say I'm anticipating the inevitable '1st post' of a newbie - who'll again remind me how unpopular these findings are. And, as ever, I sincerely believe their reward for all that effort is more than just emotional. But there you go.
I've said it before. All that repetitious history marching alongside these our 'claims' and I've become a firm believer in conspiracies. Which is widely dismissed as further evidence of my pathological paranoid delusions. And, as ever, my excuse is that never before has anyone been so thoroughly deluded by so much evidence. It would all be really comical if it weren't quite so sad.
Anyway - that was a nice little rant. I'm feeling somewhat bruised at this latest intervention at OUR.com.
Kindest regards
Rosemary
Guys, just to get back on topic. Regarding Sprocket 'giving up' as he did previously - due to lack of anything apparently happening - I need to warn any replicators. The actual resonance - be it from 1 MOSFET for that single spike or from many to generate this new mad oscillation - please just know that tuning is everything. It needs patience and possibly some time turning those pots or the settings on the FG. Nothing easy about this. I was speaking to a replicator the night before last about just this truth. We've decided that God is forcing us to look hard to find the benefit. In desperation I had to mark the settings on my functions generator to get a guide - and even then the actual moment is 'elusive'. It's a really, really subtle moment. So be warned. And then you need a lot of patience. If any of you get close to that then perhaps get in touch with me and I'll see if I can help you get there. At least I can explain what to look for.
Kindest as ever,
Rosemary
Quote from: Rosemary Ainslie on March 30, 2011, 09:51:37 AM
It needs patience and possibly some time turning those pots or the settings on the FG. Nothing easy about this.
Why not automate the tuning using software+a computer driving the frequency generator+something measuring the output that is fed back into the computer, so that software can monitor the frequency in versus the output?
Quote from: FredWalter on March 30, 2011, 10:10:45 AM
Why not automate the tuning using software+a computer driving the frequency generator+something measuring the output that is fed back into the computer, so that software can monitor the frequency in versus the output?
One of our team members mentioned this, way back. It's apparently MORE than feasible. Just not to hand - for me. But you're right. I'd forgotten this. It can, indeed be automated through software. This is definitely doable.
Rosemary
Quote from: Rosemary Ainslie on March 30, 2011, 09:51:37 AM
Guys, just to get back on topic. Regarding Sprocket 'giving up' as he did previously - due to lack of anything apparently happening - I need to warn any replicators. The actual resonance - be it from 1 MOSFET for that single spike or from many to generate this new mad oscillation - please just know that tuning is everything. It needs patience and possibly some time turning those pots or the settings on the FG. Nothing easy about this. I was speaking to a replicator the night before last about just this truth. We've decided that God is forcing us to look hard to find the benefit. In desperation I had to mark the settings on my functions generator to get a guide - and even then the actual moment is 'elusive'. It's a really, really subtle moment. So be warned. And then you need a lot of patience. If any of you get close to that then perhaps get in touch with me and I'll see if I can help you get there. At least I can explain what to look for.
Kindest as ever,
Rosemary
Wow Rosie
that was some statement.You now need to be a tuning magician to make what appears to be a simple circuit work, on top of being a mathematical genius to measure it properly, Wow.
Now it makes sense why you have been on so many forums and so many threads for the last two years or so.
This really needs to be made simple (solid-state)I guess you've been relying on others to come up whit this solution, I can't blame you for that.
I think your problems will remain until things are simpler and your work can be replicate precisely by more people easier.
:)
Quote from: powercat on March 30, 2011, 10:42:46 AM
Wow Rosie
that was some statement.You now need to be a tuning magician to make what appears to be a simple circuit work, on top of being a mathematical genius to measure it properly, Wow.
Now it makes sense why you have been on so many forums and so many threads for the last two years or so.
This really needs to be made simple (solid-state)I guess you've been relying on others to come up whit this solution, I can't blame you for that.
I think your problems will remain until things are simpler and your work can be replicate precisely by more people easier.
:)
Cat. You don't need to be a mathematical genius to apply integrated power analysis. That's absolutely standard. And you certainly don't need to be a genius to implement battery controls and draw down tests. Nor do you need to be a genius to recognise parasitic oscillations. It's to deliberately generate them that is atypical and not within standard knowledge. Just remember that paarastic oscillations have actually never been studied. They've been 'snuffed' and - according to those links - there's a whole industry invested in the knowledge of how to get rid of them. What we're doing now is trying to get them to come and do their thing. That's different.
But the fact is that this resonating condition is required and we are certainly breaking new ground with this. So. We don't have all the answers. But I'm sure it's a short learning curve. And remember that we did - indeed - get a full on replication posted on this and on Energetic forum. It was not for want of evidence for that claim that there was resistance. I thought you knew this? You seemed to have followed this history rather closely.
Anyway. I'm doing my best here Cat. I only want to see this technology progressed. But perhaps I've taken it as far as I can and should let you guys just do your thing.
Kindest regards,
Rosemary
Quote from: Rosemary Ainslie on March 30, 2011, 10:59:50 AM
Cat. You don't need to be a mathematical genius to apply integrated power analysis. That's absolutely standard. And you certainly don't need to be a genius to implement battery controls and draw down tests. Nor do you need to be a genius to recognise parasitic oscillations. It's to deliberately generate them that is atypical and not within standard knowledge. Just remember that paarastic oscillations have actually never been studied. They've been 'snuffed' and - according to those links - there's a whole industry invested in the knowledge of how to get rid of them. What we're doing now is trying to get them to come and do their thing. That's different.
But the fact is that this resonating condition is required and we are certainly breaking new ground with this. So. We don't have all the answers. But I'm sure it's a short learning curve. And remember that we did - indeed - get a full on replication posted on this and on Energetic forum. It was not for want of evidence for that claim that there was resistance. I thought you knew this? You seemed to have followed this history rather closely.
Anyway. I'm doing my best here Cat. I only want to see this technology progressed. But perhaps I've taken it as far as I can and should let you guys just do your thing.
Kindest regards,
Rosemary
from what I can remember of the successful replication (not enough of them)and a huge amount of arguments about the measurements
so at the moment it all as clear as mud to me
but I live in hope and wish you all the best
http://www.youtube.com/results?search_type=videos&search_query=Rosemary+Ainslie+circuit&search_sort=video_date_uploaded&suggested_categories=28&uni=3
Quote"Whatever ideas are the most suppressed
are most likely to be the closest to the truth."
- Weidner's First Law of the Universe
"If a picture is worth a thousand words
then a symbol is worth a thousand pictures."
- Weidner's Second Law of the Universe
"The only people who call conspiracies
' theories' are the conspirators."
- Weidner's Third Law of the Universe
@Rosemary - I couldn't resist a Copy&Paste of Weidner's Three Laws - any conspiracy aficionado will know who he is! The first and last pretty well describe the situation. My first real taste of this here involved Archer Quinn, I personally remember checking stats on several of the most prolific posters then - several had user-names that had been registered years in advance, but had never posted! One in particular was then posting an average of 17 post per day, many huge in size! All to crawl back into whatever holes they had been summoned from when the melee eventually died down! I'm surprised I can remember this many details! OUR is kinda bizarre, the format there tends to be, Grumpy suggests something, then everyone else tells him why it's impossible! Apparently there's no interest in what's possible, only what's impossible - a kind of intellectual masturbation methinks. But back on topic...
Regarding tuning, I was just yesterday trying to track-down some multi-turn pots to help in this regard. The only one I could find was a 10K 5-turn pot, but that seemed a bit high for this. Of course there are lots of trimmers available but I'd like to get a potentiometer for this. First time round I was just using ordinary 3/4 turn ones. I presume with all your fancy equipment, you were just adjusting the signals amplitude and offset? My input was fixed.
I think,
as long as the function generator is still used these
measurement problems persist and the circuit is not very useable.
So better all replicators try it with the 9 Volt battery first
and try to get it running in this oscillation mode
without any function generator.
And please use low or almost zero inductance shunts, if you measure
the current as what Hummbugger has posted is true, that the
inductance of the shunts can mess up your scope shots.
Also use only Lead Acid batteries or maybe still NiMH
batteries with it, cause only these can stand the recharge pulses.
Don´t use Lithium accumulators, as they are easily blown
and can explode and cause severe fires from the BackEMF pulses !
Also you need to measure what power your load resistor is putting out
best calorimetrically heating water for example and then compare it to the
Watthours ( amphours x voltage) your batteries are holding.
If you can run it longer than the stored Watthours of your batteries
the circuit goes overunity.
Good luck.
Regards, Stefan.
Quote from: hartiberlin on March 30, 2011, 07:40:15 PM
I think,
as long as the function generator is still used these
measurement problems persist and the circuit is not very useable.
So better all replicators try it with the 9 Volt battery first
and try to get it running in this oscillation mode
without any function generator.
And please use low or almost zero inductance shunts, if you measure
the current as what Hummbugger has posted is true, that the
inductance of the shunts can mess up your scope shots.
Also use only Lead Acid batteries or maybe still NiMH
batteries with it, cause only these can stand the recharge pulses.
Don´t use Lithium accumulators, as they are easily blown
and can explode and cause severe fires from the BackEMF pulses !
Also you need to measure what power your load resistor is putting out
best calorimetrically heating water for example and then compare it to the
Watthours ( amphours x voltage) your batteries are holding.
If you can run it longer than the stored Watthours of your batteries
the circuit goes overunity.
Good luck.
Regards, Stefan.
Hi hartiberlin/Stefan
Because of your post at http://www.overunity.com/index.php?topic=9878.msg279916#msg279916 and the connection to this thread and you're above post wouldn't it make sense to use the ceramic Y5V
caps to absorb the heat from Rosemary's heater in the circuit to further exploit the circuit into a higher COP or a feedback to a large capacitor on the I/P (input) and remove the battery for a closed loop?
I don't know but this smells of Synchronicity!!!
Regards,
Paul
Quote from: hartiberlin on March 30, 2011, 07:40:15 PM
I think,
as long as the function generator is still used these
measurement problems persist and the circuit is not very useable.
So better all replicators try it with the 9 Volt battery first
and try to get it running in this oscillation mode
without any function generator.
And please use low or almost zero inductance shunts, if you measure
the current as what Hummbugger has posted is true, that the
inductance of the shunts can mess up your scope shots.
Stefan is correct here. Rosemary has explained that she sees very large spikes in the shunt (reported by her to be +10V and -30V in amplitude) at the moments the function generator switches. These come from the signal generator trying to suddenly change the voltage on the huge gate capacitance and are further hugely exaggerrated in amplitude by the fast-changing nature of the resulting current spike and the inductance of the shunt. They are only present in the gate-current loop and are not present in the battery loop, as I explained.
I believe it is these spikes that she agrees are far more negative than positive which cause her scope average on the current trace to often show a small negative value (millivolts) which is then misinterpreted as battery charging current. This only shows up in the scope-averaged current at the low-power operating level because the operating currents are very small, so these spikes throw off the average. In the higher power mode of operation, these spikes still subtract from the measured average current, but that current is much larger in this mode so the overall average still always shows as a positive number.
To get a true measure of the actual battery current, either the function generator must be eliminated (as Stefan suggests) or the shunt must be moved out of the gate circuit loop and placed where it sees only battery currents.
In either case, the shunt must have an inductive reactance that is far below the shunt resistance at 1.5MHz or the scope sampling and multiplying technique cannot be used due to large phase shifts in the apparent current versus the true current at any given sampling instant. This is extremely difficult if not impossible to do, since even the length of a one inch straight wire will add 20nH to the shunt, causing many degrees of phase shift. Even the very best "non-inductive" shunt resistors will exhibit several nanohenries of inductance and skew the phase at 1.5MHz significantly.
But all is not lost! Even with a highly inductive shunt, as Rosemary is using, the true average current in the shunt is easy to obtain...without even using a scope that features averaging!
Recall my demonstration from an earlier post in this thread where I showed a 0-2A trapezoid wave and the effects on the voltage displayed that a large inductance would have. The true average current in that setup was +1A and ramped evenly back and forth between zero and +2A, never going negative at all. Yet the inductive voltage was well below zero half the time, whenever the true shunt current was down-ramping toward zero. See the first picture, reproduced here for your convenience.
Now we take that same circuit, doing the same thing, with the same values (printed out for you on the second picture) and add two little simple RC filters to average both traces. Guess what! Both traces now show the exact true average current of 1 Ampere positive (50mV on a 50m Ohm shunt resistance). They are exactly superimposed. So now we know the magnitude and direction of the actual DC equivalent average current flowing even though we have measured it across a highly (grossly in this case) inductive shunt resistor!
Humbugger
Hello guys,
This thread is really going along well. I've just been over the last points and delighted to acknowledge that I do not understand the significance of different caps and different shunts and on and on. All exactly as it should be. So. I'll be leaving this thread to you guys. I know it's in very capable hands with Neptune and Sprocket - and even Paul. And I have much to do elsewhere. I'll post here when I get more results.
Just bear in mind the simple fact that - like the gold in 'them thar hills' there's energy in those spikes and even more in those oscillations. But. It releases heat - which is not the motive energy that you guys traditionally look for. And Neptune, if it's taken a long, long time to get here - just think of our 'kick off' position all of 12 year ago now. Then it was widely considered 'absurd' to try and return energy back to the source. Paradigms are definitely shifting.
And Magzy - I'm hoping that you'll do us the favour of posting your results here on those tests. They're BRILLIANT. Every bit of evidence helps. And such a clean way of showing it.
Nice thinking everyone. Hopefully you'll all find that 'extra' in some kind of variant of this circuit. And Stefan, many thanks for the input and - more to the point - for keeping this thread on topic. I am not sure though that the inductance/impedance thing is that significant. If you factor in for this - then the returns are even more extreme.
I need to focus on getting my circuit up and ready for more demos. And I need to focus on some much needed editing on my blog. I'll certainly post here when I've got news and/or results. I think I'll need a fortnight or so.
Kindest as ever,
Rosie
added
Just had a diagnosis. 2 of the MOSFETs blown. Interestingly it's enough to block that oscillation. Seems that they all need to work but still not sure if all 5 are required. I'll let you know. They're to be replaced - hopefully - by Monday.
Hi all . Mainly posting to keep this thread on the front page . Rosemary , sorry to hear your leaving us for a bit but the demo must take priority of course . If you can , let us know what will be different this time , apart from the audience . Maybe a non inductive shunt perhaps ? Regarding the dead mosfets , I would say it depends on their actual faults . If one or more went short circuit , it would no doubt kill everything . I personally think two would work , as this parasitic oscillation in parallel mostfets has been described as a "push Pull" effect . One would think that more mosfets would be better for higher power circuits . I am sure we all wish you the best possible luck with the demo , and look forward to the results .
Quote from: Rosemary Ainslie on March 31, 2011, 01:42:00 AM
added
Just had a diagnosis. 2 of the MOSFETs blown. Interestingly it's enough to block that oscillation.
looks like that link was correct about possible damage to the MOSFETS
wonder if it's correct about the other 2 things i picked out from it, too?
http://www.overunity.com/index.php?topic=10407.msg279486#msg279486 (http://www.overunity.com/index.php?topic=10407.msg279486#msg279486)all the best
np
http://docsfreelunch.blogspot.com (http://docsfreelunch.blogspot.com)
Hi all. Just seen that Humbugger is still posting. Please note that any attempt at 'averaging' is absolutely NOT acceptable measurement protocol. I realise why it's so urgently advanced. Also. The non-inductive shunt has been tested and shows not the SLIGHTEST difference. Also. There is - indeed - a measurable 5 watts at the gate. This RETURNS to the FG. It does not COME from it.
I think the most critical measurement, as has been rather obsessively poynted out - is the waveform at the terminal of the battery. Early indications are that this is consistent with the measurements at the test point on the apparatus. But to finalise this - I'll need to get that apparatus returned with the MOSFET's replaced.
Just word of caution. Please do NOT assume that Humbugger's opinions are anything more than that. In fact it is my opinion based on the inappropriate and anxious need to deny EVERYTHING related to this - not least of which is my own 'idiocy' as he refers to it on OUR.com - that he is rather anxious to kill all interest in this technology. And I wonder at that need. We may yet find that there's nothing in this experiment. But NOTHING can be concluded from AVERAGING ANYTHING AT ALL. Measurements of power is based on vi dt. That's it.
Kindest regards,
Rosemary
Added. While Humbugger continues to post - then I will definitely need to 'hang around'. Pity. I've got so much to do. Anyway. Hopefully I'll manage to diffuse some of his negativity.
Quote from: Rosemary Ainslie on March 31, 2011, 01:42:00 AM
Hello guys,
And Magzy - I'm hoping that you'll do us the favour of posting your results here on those tests. They're BRILLIANT. Every bit of evidence helps. And such a clean way of showing it.
.[/b]
Hey Rose
I used the sim to predict what woopy got on the bench, so this is reliable as to outcome. =]
Here is the circuit in the sim and the code.
http://falstad.com/circuit/ for the applet
Copy code below and import into the applet from the file menu.
$ 1 5.0E-6 0.05817778142098084 50 5.0 43
s 384 80 448 80 0 1 true
v 448 352 448 80 0 0 40.0 1000.0 0.0 0.0 0.5
r 384 352 448 352 0 0.01
c 384 352 384 80 0 9.999999999999999E-6 0.0010000000000002418
r 384 80 304 80 0 2.0
l 304 80 224 80 0 0.22 9.31524329736314E-19
c 224 80 224 352 0 1.0E-5 0.0010000000000000425
d 224 352 304 352 1 0.805904783
s 304 352 384 352 0 1 true
d 304 352 304 256 1 0.805904783
w 336 144 384 80 0
w 304 256 304 176 0
w 304 176 336 144 0
o 6 1 0 291 0.009765625 9.765625E-5 0 -1
o 3 1 0 291 0.009765625 9.765625E-5 1 -1
Close the switch on the right till the cap is fully charged to 1000v.
Then close the switch on the bottom till the desired cutoff is reached.
You can lower the speed of the sim at the upper right slider so you can see in the first scope shot when to release the switch at a particular voltage.
The second scope shot shows the 1000v cap and what is left in it after the cutoff.
Just hit reset at the top right to start over to clear the cap values to empty. =]
You will be able to see the femf caused by the flywheel effect. It may seem like the flywheel spins for a long time. The sim is running slow enough that we get to see this action.
Bemf happens very quick. So it is a fresh thing to see the time that the freewheel goes in this application.
Tesla was the man. ;]
I think having the 1kv really gets the wheel going as compared to 10v.
I did a 21.6v cutoff, and got 203.36v out. The 1kv cap always equals 1kv - cutoff. It really gets hard to believe there is a 50% loss happening. The sim does not show a loss such as this. In other tests that I did last night. What if the calculations are not presenting what really is? hmmm. We may have a win win situation. Me thinks it.
1 10uf cap at 10v 10v/10ohm load=1A 10vx1A=10W
2 caps in parallel, 20uf at 5v 5v/5ohm=1A 5vx1A=5W but with 2 times the capacitance. I see no loss here. Not 50% Crazy aint it? ;)
So why 50% loss from battery to cap as the physics site stated? ;)
Yesterday we seemed to have a huge obstacle of physics, but i think we are clear of that now. I think we are in a much better position than we were last night. ;D
=]
Mags
Hey Rose
Before we were cutting off the source when the receiver cap reached the source voltage. We are now cutting off at a much lower voltage, and the gain is apparent more than before.
We are going with woopys method here of using a cap as the source. Both the source cap and receiver are 10uf for this test.
The source is charged to 1000v, for purposes of Big Show.
And we have the recycle diode in place in the middle that continues the cap charging after we release the source cap at our desired voltage.
1 The 1000v cap is charged
2 The switch is closed
3 We wait till the receiver cap reaches 10v yes 10v
4 we open the switch and the recycle diode takes over to continue charging the receiver with the flywheel.
The outcome
The 1000v source cap is now 990v
The receiver, being cut from the source at 10v, reached 132v!!!
And this is the best part. We only have to replace 10v worth into the source cap to fill it up again. Not replace a complete 1000v worth at 10uf. Is that a savings?
I think so. It may be easier than if empty. Dunno. ;)
Mags
Quote from: Magluvin on April 01, 2011, 01:03:55 AM
Hey Rose
Before we were cutting off the source when the receiver cap reached the source voltage. We are now cutting off at a much lower voltage, and the gain is apparent more than before.
We are going with woopys method here of using a cap as the source. Both the source cap and receiver are 10uf for this test.
The source is charged to 1000v, for purposes of Big Show.
And we have the recycle diode in place in the middle that continues the cap charging after we release the source cap at our desired voltage.
1 The 1000v cap is charged
2 The switch is closed
3 We wait till the receiver cap reaches 10v yes 10v
4 we open the switch and the recycle diode takes over to continue charging the receiver with the flywheel.
The outcome
The 1000v source cap is now 990v
The receiver, being cut from the source at 10v, reached 132v!!!
And this is the best part. We only have to replace 10v worth into the source cap to fill it up again. Not replace a complete 1000v worth at 10uf. Is that a savings?
I think so. It may be easier than if empty. Dunno. ;)
Mags
Golly Magzy. This is FANTASTIC. Very well done to you both. Needless to say I couldn't do that simulator thing. But I'm hoping someone will be able to help me at the weekend. You guys are really something else. Very well done indeed. It's made my day.
I'm looking forward to the systematic destruction of all that supporating drivel that leaks out of some competing forums that's meant to represent what? Intelligent analysis? What will their final excuses be when we've disproved EVERY objection? That will be interesting. I am ready to put money on it that the protest will NEVER STOP. LOL.
Just seen that Americans pride themselves on their tolerance of the new idea. In fact, the top players at Google prefer to live in America to dodge some of that European Cynicism. What was said was interesting. "A new idea is very vulnerable. It can easily be snuffed out". That was on Stephen Fry's program on his trip around America. My sentiments exactly. Strangely - the detractors to all this 'new technology' here are mostly American. Actually maybe not. There are also some Canadians.
Anyway. Again. Very well done Magzy. I had a shrewd idea that you'd get the answer.
Kindest regards,
Rosie
Hey Rose
Thanks. Now we just find the cutoff point that gives us the best freewheel charge to the receiver cap, with the least amount of energy used from the source cap, then crunch the numbers. It shouldnt be that hard to figure. In the caps, it is what it is. =]
I was happy with this improvement. I think the key is, the 1000v in the 10uf cap. And the receiver cap is 10uf. We only use a small portion of the 1kv source cap. But the 1000v kick got the inductor really spinnin. =] Now to fill in the 10v on the source cap that we used, the supply that provides it, doesnt have to work hard at al to do a top off. So the first charging of the source cap is the most input that should be seen, then its topper time, smooth.
So figure, we took the source away at 10v on the receiver, and it went to 132v after? Is that an increase of 1320% of from our flywheel? ;)
I think we just might have enough out to run a supply, I have one, to keep the source cap loaded for cheap input from the receiver.
The circuit to control cutoff will need to be next, as in the sim, we have slowed it down and we manually hit the switches with the mouse.
It worked well for testing. =]
ok sleeps night Rose ;]
Magzzzz
LOL Do you still get any sleep Magzy? Good night indeed.
;D
Rosie
Quote from: Magluvin on April 01, 2011, 01:03:55 AM
Hey Rose
Before we were cutting off the source when the receiver cap reached the source voltage. We are now cutting off at a much lower voltage, and the gain is apparent more than before.
We are going with woopys method here of using a cap as the source. Both the source cap and receiver are 10uf for this test.
The source is charged to 1000v, for purposes of Big Show.
And we have the recycle diode in place in the middle that continues the cap charging after we release the source cap at our desired voltage.
1 The 1000v cap is charged
2 The switch is closed
3 We wait till the receiver cap reaches 10v yes 10v
4 we open the switch and the recycle diode takes over to continue charging the receiver with the flywheel.
The outcome
The 1000v source cap is now 990v
The receiver, being cut from the source at 10v, reached 132v!!!
And this is the best part. We only have to replace 10v worth into the source cap to fill it up again. Not replace a complete 1000v worth at 10uf. Is that a savings?
I think so. It may be easier than if empty. Dunno. ;)
Mags
Very interesting, Mags, but there is just one problem:
The energy held in a capacitor is 1/2 CV^2, as I'm sure you know.
To make the math easy, we also know that both caps are 10uF (C) and 1/2 is a constant when calculating the energy held in each cap. So all we have to look at is V^2 to get a number that relates each capacitor's energy content which can be stated as Joules if we multiply the V^2 in each case by the constant 1/2 C (5uF).
Now, if you are following that okay, let's see what the total energy is before and after one cycle of your circuit's operation:
We start with 1000V on the one cap and zero on the other, so all the energy is in the one cap at first and it is 1,000^2 times our constant 5uF (1/2 C) or 1,000,000 * 5/1,000,000 = 5 Joules of total energy in the circuit.
After the cycle is complete, we have 990 Volts on the source cap and 132 Volts on the "collection" cap. Seems like a nice energy gain. But let's do the math before jumping to conclusions, okay?
990 ^2 is 980,100 times our constant 5uF (1/2 C) = 4.9005 Joules still remaining in the source capacitor.
How much is in the collection capacitor at 132 V?
Well...132^2 = 17,424 times our constant 5uF (1/2 C) = 0.08712 Joules...
Add those two up 4.9005 + 0.08712 = 4.98762 Joules total energy left in the sum total energy of both capacitors. So on each cycle of the circuit, we have lost 0.01238 Joules of energy. Do that about 400 times and you have lost all 5 Joules of the initial 1000V capacitor's energy, assuming you add ten volts before each cycle to start again at 1000 Volts.
So, it is clear by using simple math and standard energy formulas for capacitors that your voltage numbers and simulations are probably correct but it is also clear that the circuit does not gain energy on each cycle but rather loses energy on each cycle.
On each cycle, you'll have to put a new 0.0995 Joules of energy from an outside source into the source cap to get it up from 990V back to 1000V and on each cycle, only 0.08712 Joules gets put into the collection capacitor. COP = 0.8756
Humbugger
P.S. Here's a good link where the secrets of using an inductor to transfer energy between capacitors is discussed:
http://www.smpstech.com/charge.htm (http://www.smpstech.com/charge.htm)
The approach and technique you are discovering and exploring has been used in switch-mode power supplies for almost fifty years, so your discovery is not new but it's very cool knowledge that lots of other smart circuit guys use all the time. I really enjoyed the the last few sentences in the Personal Anecdote section. Good advice! :)
Guys I thought I'd better answer this in depth or I'll be accused on 'closing my ears' to argument.
Quote from: cHeeseburger on March 31, 2011, 12:29:32 AM
Stefan is correct here. Rosemary has explained that she sees very large spikes in the shunt (reported by her to be +10V and -30V in amplitude) at the moments the function generator switches. These come from the signal generator trying to suddenly change the voltage on the huge gate capacitance and are further hugely exaggerrated in amplitude by the fast-changing nature of the resulting current spike and the inductance of the shunt.
Notice that it is stated as a fact that the spikes come from
'the gate capacitance - hugely exaggerated - by the fast changing nature of the resultant current spike'? I would have thought he meant the resultant oscillation - or resonance. Hardly a spike. Anyway. I keep needing to say this and clearly Humbugger is not getting the point. The result of factoring in inductance and impedance would be to INCREASE the resistance on the resistor. This would, correspondingly - reduce the value of the current flow measured from that voltage. Which is valid. Now here's the anomaly. When this is done - when we factor in for this inductance and impedance - then the result is that there's an even greater benefit - an even bigger return TO the system - than before. I've said this EVERYWHERE. We've highlighted it in the report. For some reason this is completely ignored. I wonder if this is deliberate? INDEED HUMBUGGER. We're all interested in this fact. Because it results in a greater gain when you do the required integrated power analysis. Could it be that the phase relationship is the critical factor and NOT the actual measure of the current flow? Or is the argument now that the phase relationship - which is required to sustain that current - else it would simply dribble away at the zero crossing - is purely an aberration of the system? Does the phase angle - shown by the scope meter, in fact NOT take place? Strange. Becasue it's seen through the battery, on the drain AND at the shunt. Then - as mentioned - our delusions are also being shared by our oscilloscopes and our circuit components. And you can't medicate those.
Quote from: cHeeseburger on March 31, 2011, 12:29:32 AM
They are only present in the gate-current loop and are not present in the battery loop, as I explained.
Also a gross misrepresentation of the fact - or, in other words, a humdinger of that 'L' word. It is evident across the battery in a HUGE positive spike and it is simultaneous with the spike at the shunt. Just that they're in antiphase, showing that its 'RECHARGING' that battery.
Quote from: cHeeseburger on March 31, 2011, 12:29:32 AMI believe it is these spikes that she agrees are far more negative than positive which cause her scope average on the current trace to often show a small negative value (millivolts) which is then misinterpreted as battery charging current. This only shows up in the scope-averaged current at the low-power operating level because the operating currents are very small, so these spikes throw off the average In the higher power mode of operation, these spikes still subtract from the measured average current, but that current is much larger in this mode so the overall average still always shows as a positive number..
I've highlighted it. Another HUMdinger from our Humbugger. He
HOPES that it's these spikes that throw off the average mean voltage across the shunt. What then would he then do with the mean average voltage in consistently NEGATIVE mode when we're dissipating frantically high wattage from the resistor element? I KEEP referring to this. Clearly I need to show more of these waveforms. I have some on the system. I'll look for them. And I will certinly concentrate on showing this in future. AGAIN, Humbugger, this is an emphasis that you need to lose if you're depending on it to win this argument.
Quote from: cHeeseburger on March 31, 2011, 12:29:32 AMTo get a true measure of the actual battery current, either the function generator must be eliminated (as Stefan suggests) or the shunt must be moved out of the gate circuit loop and placed where it sees only battery currents.
This is where? There is nowhere on the circuit that is not connected to every other part of the circuit. And it makes not a blind bit of difference if we put the shunt on the source or the drain. And it amuses me that when we used a 555 their call was for a functions generator. Now that we are complying to this the call is to get back the 555. Makes one think that there's nothing will satisfy these extensive reaches into the bottom of that barrel. The downside is that it - unfortunately - does seem to be bottomless.
Quote from: cHeeseburger on March 31, 2011, 12:29:32 AMIn either case, the shunt must have an inductive reactance that is far below the shunt resistance at 1.5MHz or the scope sampling and multiplying technique cannot be used due to large phase shifts in the apparent current versus the true current at any given sampling instant.
There it is again.We depend on the DISTORTIONS of those phase shifts. Mainly because they seem to be resulting in a wave form that is continually reinforced. There is NO QUESTION that if we eliminated them then we would lose that advantage. The advantage is NOT IMAGINED. Or is it that you'd simply prefer that we eliminate that advantage?
Quote from: cHeeseburger on March 31, 2011, 12:29:32 AMThis is extremely difficult if not impossible to do, since even the length of a one inch straight wire will add 20nH to the shunt, causing many degrees of phase shift. Even the very best "non-inductive" shunt resistors will exhibit several nanohenries of inductance and skew the phase at 1.5MHz significantly.[/b].
Well there you go. That's exactly what's needed.
Quote from: cHeeseburger on March 31, 2011, 12:29:32 AMBut all is not lost! Even with a highly inductive shunt, as Rosemary is using, the true average current in the shunt is easy to obtain...without even using a scope that features averaging!
And here, guys we get to the nub of the issue. The eternal requirement to AVERAGE. Humbugger - hold your horses. I intend showing you the AVERAGE on HIGH WATTAGE OUTPUTS so that I can finally silence this argument. Then you'll need to retract this argument. RIGHT NOW you're assuming that we ONLY GET HIGH WATTAGE ON POSITVE VOLTAGE AVERAGES ACROSS THE SHUNT. THIS IS WRONG. I will say this as often as is required. We've shown it. You are quite simply WRONG. If your final supporting argument is based on the assumption that we cannot get a continual negative mean average at higher voltages then - again - you are wrong.
Quote from: cHeeseburger on March 31, 2011, 12:29:32 AMRecall my demonstration from an earlier post in this thread where I showed a 0-2A trapezoid wave and the effects on the voltage displayed that a large inductance would have. The true average current in that setup was +1A and ramped evenly back and forth between zero and +2A, never going negative at all. Yet the inductive voltage was well below zero half the time, whenever the true shunt current was down-ramping toward zero. See the first picture, reproduced here for your convenience.
Now we take that same circuit, doing the same thing, with the same values (printed out for you on the second picture) and add two little simple RC filters to average both traces. Guess what! Both traces now show the exact true average current of 1 Ampere positive (50mV on a 50m Ohm shunt resistance). They are exactly superimposed. So now we know the magnitude and direction of the actual DC equivalent average current flowing even though we have measured it across a highly (grossly in this case) inductive shunt resistor!
This is hardly relevant. Just another red-herring from that bottomless barrel of fishy facts. We have entirely different results. Probably because we're using live test apparatus and because we all have open minds. It reminds me of those endless videos that you post of TK's where you show variations to waveforms from the same wire. Unfortunately you ALWAYS show the reference at a junction and not on that wire. I don't think we can accuse you of impartiality in the way you marshall your facts.
Regards,
Rosemary
Quote from: nul-points on March 31, 2011, 06:41:19 PM
looks like that link was correct about possible damage to the MOSFETS
wonder if it's correct about the other 2 things i picked out from it, too?
Indeed you were on the money here. Regading the rest I've done my best to comment. Sorry it took so long. I see now we need to pay attention better here nul-points.
Quote from: nul-points on March 27, 2011, 04:00:33 AM
<<EDIT #1>>
interesting, also, that rensseak's link to PETT describes the parasitic oscillation as a negative resistance event! (although i don't recall it clarifying whether it's negative differential resistance, or the real thing)
Also not sure. The thing is that the voltage seems to cross zero which introduces a negative component. But there's still negative spiking at the transitions to the 'on' switch. Then there's not, typically any further negative crossing until the next cycle. Just don't know.
Quote from: nul-points on March 27, 2011, 04:00:33 AM<<EDIT #2>>i've been a bit concerned about the suggestions to generate the parasitic oscillations by just connecting a negative voltage across the gate - the driving waveform from the SigGen is after all a dynamic waveform, not just a collection of two DC levels - ie., it also contains transients so we shouldn't overlook the possibility that the parasitic oscillation is 'triggered' by a transient, before being able to sustain during a suitable state of the input (ie. the negative level)
Not sure if I understand this. But I think that the actual trigger is the negative inductance established on the load during the on period. But really not qualified to comment. Better left to you guys. Perhaps Neptune or Paul. But I absolutely agree with you. It needs to be better explored. The first anomaly that we demonstrated was that this negative oscillation can occur with absolutely ZERO current being measured through the shunt. That was strange.
Kindest regards,
Rosemary
Not edited. Just took forever to find the referenced post.
R
thanks for the comments, Rosemary
i think there are a couple of things we can learn from those points:
- we can expect to have more MOSFET failures if we explicitly try to reproduce these parasitic oscillations (because the necessary gate drive is 'off-label')
and this would be one valid reason that the manufacturer recommends avoiding parasitic oscillations
(another reason being that such an output would be a 'distortion' of the input - and for most digital or analogue signal applications that would be an undesirable feature of a product!)
- 'positive' resistance is the characteristic of a component to directly convert electrical energy into heat energy
'negative resistance' is considered to be the inverse - ie., the ability of a component to directly convert heat energy into electrical energy
NR has been the subject of much discussion and debate - basically it would mean that electrical energy could be generated without having to expend energy - ie. no user-provided work would be required - because ambient heat which exists all around us, indoors and out (and waste heat from other machines) could be used as input to a negative resistance system to provide 'free' electrical energy as output
one of the few genuine 'negative resistance' components (based on carbon fibre material) was recently discovered in the US (by another lady researcher, Deborah Chung)
NR is not to be confused with negative differential resistance (NDR) where the component does exhibit the inverse Volts/Amps relation to usual Ohms Law, but there is still a positive DC offset, so in this case we are still expending energy as work to drive the system
so - the links quoted previously describe the parasitic oscillation area of the MOSFET characteristic graphs as exhibiting 'negative resistance' - but i didn't see them clarify if it is NDR - or if it is true NR
if the MOSFET data refers to true NR, then this would explain any anomalous electrical energy gained by systems such as Rosemary's
if the MOSFET data refers to NDR, then the parasitic oscillations are likely to be converting electrical energy to heat, as normal, not converting heat to electrical energy
- i think we've all made note of the third point now, that some voltage transitions might still be necessary to get the oscillations going, even if the gate input is a fixed negative DC voltage (eg. battery)
i hope this provides a reasonable summary
np
http://docsfreelunch.blogspot.com (http://docsfreelunch.blogspot.com)
Quote from: Magluvin on April 01, 2011, 03:10:34 AM
So figure, we took the source away at 10v on the receiver, and it went to 132v after? Is that an increase of 1320% of from our flywheel? ;)
Magzzzz
hi Magzzzz
it would be great to think 'contrariwise', but sadly the only thing here that is Overunity is your enthusiasm!! ;)
at the start, the input 10uF cap charged to 1000V holds 5000mJoules
at the end, the input 10uF cap at 990V holds 4901mJoules
so the input 10uF cap has supplied 99 mJoules to the 'Believe' circuit
the output 10uF cap at 132V holds 87mJoules
(ignoring the 0.5mJoule of 10V on 10uF)
Efficiency = 87/99 = 88%
if you want to even approach 100% then you need to transfer the charge from input to output in many steps of smaller energy transfer
it took me a year, using the same circuit arrangement in 2008, to confirm that the only things which are incorrect in the EE text books are that the value of charge-separation in an isolated circuit like this is NOT constant - and the energy dissipated : energy stored ratio is not always 1 : 1 as claimed
i've already given you & woopy a link to the thread which contains my results so i won't include it again here
i'm not trying to be negative about your work - i admire your zeal - i would like to save you guys from wasting your valuable time
regards
np
http://docsfreelunch.blogspot.com (http://docsfreelunch.blogspot.com)
Quote from: nul-points on April 01, 2011, 10:09:53 AM
- we can expect to have more MOSFET failures if we explicitly try to reproduce these parasitic oscillations (because the necessary gate drive is 'off-label')
and this would be one valid reason that the manufacturer recommends avoiding parasitic oscillations
Very true, Nul-Points. The gate oxide is very thin and fragile and gate voltage excursions beyond the specified limits on a repetitive basis basis will blast little holes in it, crashing the part's functionality little by little until...poof!
Even when the drive from the sig-gen is within the specified limits, voltage spikes due to parasitic inductances and gate circuit wire lengths and drain voltage swings coupling through the Drain-Gate (Crss) capacitance can push the gate voltage well beyond the maximum specs.
The standard way of preventing this is to place a pair of series-connected 15V zeners back to back across the gate and source leads very close (right on the leads as they enter the plastic body if possible) of each MOSFET and with very short (use SMT chip zeners if possible) leads on the zeners. This would probably prevent future breakdowns of the gate oxide without having any noticeable effect on the oscillations Rosemary has based her theories upon.
Quote
- 'positive' resistance is the characteristic of a component to directly convert electrical energy into heat energy
'negative resistance' is considered to be the inverse - ie., the ability of a component to directly convert heat energy into electrical energy
NR has been the subject of much discussion and debate - basically it would mean that electrical energy could be generated without having to expend energy - ie. no user-provided work would be required - because ambient heat which exists all around us, indoors and out (and waste heat from other machines) could be used as input to a negative resistance system to provide 'free' electrical energy as output
one of the few genuine 'negative resistance' components (based on carbon fibre material) was recently discovered in the US (by another lady researcher, Deborah Chung)
Here is a direct quote from Ms. Chung's original paper:
"True negative resistance in the former sense is not possible due to energy conservation. However, apparent negative resistance in the former sense is reported here. ... Although the negative resistance reported here is apparent rather than true, its mechanism resembles that of true negative resistance (which actually does not occur due to energetics) in that the electrons flow in the unexpected direction relative to the applied current/voltage."
â€" Wang, Chung, Apparent negative electrical resistance in carbon fiber composites[1]
She nor her co-author ever claimed or suggested, from day one until now, that the device is useable a source of electrical energy from ambient heat. You have been reading too much Bearden.
Quote
NR is not to be confused with negative differential resistance (NDR) where the component does exhibit the inverse Volts/Amps relation to usual Ohms Law, but there is still a positive DC offset, so in this case we are still expending energy as work to drive the system
so - the links quoted previously describe the parasitic oscillation area of the MOSFET characteristic graphs as exhibiting 'negative resistance' - but i didn't see them clarify if it is NDR - or if it is true NR
if the MOSFET data refers to true NR, then this would explain any anomalous electrical energy gained by systems such as Rosemary's
if the MOSFET data refers to NDR, then the parasitic oscillations are likely to be converting electrical energy to heat, as normal, not converting heat to electrical energy
The MOSFET data most certainly refers to the latter...NDR, as you call it. All that means is that there are regions in the transfer function curves that show a non-ohmic decrease in current as voltage increases...nothing more.
Humbugger
Hi nul-point. I couldn't get around to answering this yesterday.
Quote from: nul-points on April 01, 2011, 10:09:53 AM
i think there are a couple of things we can learn from those points:
- we can expect to have more MOSFET failures if we explicitly try to reproduce these parasitic oscillations (because the necessary gate drive is 'off-label') and this would be one valid reason that the manufacturer recommends avoiding parasitic oscillations (another reason being that such an output would be a 'distortion' of the input - and for most digital or analogue signal applications that would be an undesirable feature of a product!)
I agree. But we've now replaced those FETs and the problem persists. The hope now is that the fault is with the Functions Generator. It was new 'out the box' and it does seem that there's no required variation to the off set. So. This will be replaced - hopefully tomorrow. We simply can't get any energy to the load and the guys have checked ALL connections. But the fact is that these FETs are not designed to take those high voltage spikes and they'll always be brittle. Out of interest - I have acrtually spoken to 2 manufacturers and they both insisted that putting them in parallel would 'do the job'. Clearly it helps. Not certain that it's an adequate solution. Ultimately, one expects that some dedicated transistors can be manufactured.
Quote from: nul-points on April 01, 2011, 10:09:53 AM- 'positive' resistance is the characteristic of a component to directly convert electrical energy into heat energy - 'negative resistance' is considered to be the inverse - ie., the ability of a component to directly convert heat energy into electrical energy - NR has been the subject of much discussion and debate - basically it would mean that electrical energy could be generated without having to expend energy - ie. no user-provided work would be required - because ambient heat which exists all around us, indoors and out (and waste heat from other machines) could be used as input to a negative resistance system to provide 'free' electrical energy as output - one of the few genuine 'negative resistance' components (based on carbon fibre material) was recently discovered in the US (by another lady researcher, Deborah Chung)
NR is not to be confused with negative differential resistance (NDR) where the component does exhibit the inverse Volts/Amps relation to usual Ohms Law, but there is still a positive DC offset, so in this case we are still expending energy as work to drive the system - so - the links quoted previously describe the parasitic oscillation area of the MOSFET characteristic graphs as exhibiting 'negative resistance' - but i didn't see them clarify if it is NDR - or if it is true NR
Also very interesting. I also saw some hint at a potential excess energy in links to those parasitic oscillations. Terms such as Negative Resistance and Negative Differential Resistance just confuse the hell out of me. What I can just manage to get my head around are terms such as negative and positive voltage - this because they represent two entirely different directions in consequent current flow. And, in effect, it seems that regardless of the inductance on any one component - it is possible to induce that negative voltage to some considerable improvement in energy efficiencies.
So. nul-points. Not much to do with negative or positive resistance. Or I can't get there. Perhaps you can manage a correspondence. Otherwise I think your summary was impeccable.
Kindest regards,
Rosemary
Guys, nul-point - whoever reads here - I've taken this as an opportunity to explain this with the caveat that this is simply my own eccentric thinking and you are free to dismiss it as required. But it's also why we put that circuit together in the first instance.
The proposal is that the atom comprises a nucleus at the centre and electrons that orbit the nucleus. These are evident. What is not evident is the proposal that there are the atomic energy levels comprising two dimensional magnet fields. These trap the atom's electrons in their orbits around the nucleus. The atom is inviolate. The valence condition of atoms can be varied. This predisposes it to molecular bonding which bonding can then partially or completely balance that atomic valence condition.
BUT. The actual bonding of those atoms is managed by discrete packages of one directional magnetic fields. These are extraneous to the atom. These can orbit either in a circle with a fixed direction or justification. Then one half of any orbit will oppose the other half - thereby having an potential to interact with any two unlike charges, positive or negative. Or it can orbit in the figure '8' - thereby having the potential to interact with any two 'like' charges, positive to positive and negative to negative.
The atom's outer energy levels determine the valence condition of the atom. With these three potentials then these discrete fields are then able to interact with the outer energy levels of ALL atoms. The proposal is that they interact with the atom's energy levels very much as does a small gear interacting with a larger gear, the smaller - those discrete binding fields - operating at a velocity that exceeds light speed. This renders them invisible.
Then. The current flow from the source voltage 'breaks' those orbits. Here's why. The quantum value of all those discrete binding orbits will be some combination of positive and negative - regardless of the bound atomic valence condition. Current flow has a single direction - therefore a single charge. It will, therefore, repel precisely one half of all the charge from those discrete binding fields - that it comes into contact with. The source voltage is, by definition greater than the resistance in that bound material. It therefore repels those same charges. In doing so, the repelled charge is forced outside the body of the material. It 'lurks'. It congregates as a field and circles that component material and is measured as voltage imbalance or potential difference. This voltage has a single direction or justification. But it is 'open ended' or 'imbalanced'.
The remaining circle - that half that was not 'expelled' by that current flow - has nothing to orbit and nothing to attach to. It loses it's orbital velocity and becomes as 'hot and as slow and as big' as it was 'cold and fast and small' - in its previous 'field condition'. This then is measured as heat. It results in the immediate compromise of the bound condition of material that it was - previously - binding. It also results in the partial expansion of that material - BOTH conditions depending on the degree or number of these orbital symmetries that were broken by the force of the current flow. Nothing is changed in the atomic state. Only the bound condition is now varied.
When the source voltage is interrupted - then those extruded fields, that voltage imbalance - can now generate a current flow. But it moves in an opposite direction to the initial flow of current. It moves, not unlike a 'spring' releasing. And it moves around the circuit components to return to its source. If it can get back to the source then it will again separate into discrete packages and re-unite with those 'broken fields' - that hot unhappy 'other half' that remains in the material. Given enough time then it will regroup and then it will again be able to continue binding that material in their field condition as 'fast, cold, small' fields. In effect it will simply reconstitute their previously binding field condition.
That parasitic oscillation is then, according to this analysis - the result of a perpetuating an imbalance where the satisfied potential difference of the battery supply induces potential difference in the circuit material. And, in turn, which, induces a second cycle where the satisfied potential difference in the circuit material then enduces a potential difference in the supply. That 'equivalence' is determined by the circuit itself and it's a potential in all electric circuits. This, because the electromagnetic interaction is enabled by inductive conductive material.
And traditionally this has not been exposed because the required path for both current cycles has not been provided as this relates to returning or negative current cycle. Put a whole lot of FET's together and the road is then wide - the path is big enough and there's nothing to stop that negative current flowing from all that induced negative voltage. And proof that this may be correct is in the fact that the heat over the resistor element is retained through that entire cycle of oscillation.
Which is just my explanation guys. Do with it what you can, or want. It does seem to have some kind of correspondence to what we're seeing. But it also depends on the fundamental principle that a magnetic field comprises particles or tachyons which would, here, need to be magnetic dipoles.
Kindest regards,
Rosemary
Hi all .It is interesting that Ismael Aviso with his self charging electric car claims to use custom made transistors . These are not specifically referred to as Mosfets , but it does make you wonder .We have established that there are two types of negative resistance . The commonest is differential negative resistance . My understanding of this is as follows . Normally , if you increase the voltage across a resistor , the current flow increases .Pure ohms law .However in a negative type resistor , an increase in voltage can be accompanied by a fall in current .This is not , however , the type of negative resistance we are seeing here
Regarding mosfet failures . If it is the zener diode that carries the battery chargeing current , why not have just two mosfets , and many external zener diodes connected externally . Zeners are cheaper than mosfets .
hi Rosemary
glad you've been able to replace the MOSFETS
i seem to remember that you mentioned recently that you'd measured around 5W getting returned to the SigGen?
if this is correct, then it is certainly possible that you also have a problem with that equipment now - the SG output stage may not be designed to cope with power getting returned in opposition to its usual current flow!
Hi Neptune
extra external reversed diodes across the MOSFETs are always a possibility - but i have a feeling that those links we all looked at were saying that the parasitic oscillation should be avoided because it caused excessive feedback from the output to the gate (hence the possible energy return to the SigGen too)
i'm not sure if adding external diodes across Source & Drain will diminish the gate overdirve, if it does then its likely to be because its also stopped the parasitic oscillation!
it might be necessary to find a compromise with the gate series input impedance - ie. try & find a value which is high enough still to just causes oscillation at a negative drive level, but low enough to limit the gate overdrive voltage which can develop due to the oscillation
could get interesting ;)
np
http://docsfreelunch.blogspot.com (http://docsfreelunch.blogspot.com)
Rosemary,
I see good applications with this technology in heating of air and water do you have any plans to use this technology for those applications? Or is there a better way to apply this technology I know you have stated led lighting. Do you have any circuits prefabbed up for sale in lighting or heating I would like to test the tech in real world situations not do math or theories if it lights up a light or heats whatever for the average life of the battery we have a real life application sounds simple enough to me ...
What is the real challenge of putting this device into a real life application other then yourself holding yourself back you are not seeking a patent this circuit is open and free as you said. If you build it people will buy it if it works as promised.
Quote from: cHeeseburger on April 01, 2011, 03:56:45 AM
The approach and technique you are discovering and exploring has been used in switch-mode power supplies for almost fifty years, so your discovery is not new but it's very cool knowledge that lots of other smart circuit guys use all the time. I really enjoyed the the last few sentences in the Personal Anecdote section. Good advice! :)
As I said before,
simulations in this case do not apply, because the new physics is not yet programmed into them.
The ou effect comes inside the battery as in Bedinis devices.
Quote from: hartiberlin on April 03, 2011, 10:11:25 AM
As I said before,
simulations in this case do not apply, because the new physics is not yet programmed into them.
The ou effect comes inside the battery as in Bedinis devices.
Then would you agree
Stefan that it is imperative to obtain an accurate measurement of INPUT power from the battery?
Here is a method that appears to work well, without the need for an oscilloscope:
http://www.overunity.com/index.php?topic=10564.msg280282#msg280282
.99
poynt, thanks for your continued efforts. re: this method you propose, have you 'provided this works in all cases and is not erroneous'?
Quote from: WilbyInebriated on April 03, 2011, 04:09:34 PM
poynt, thanks for your continued efforts. re: this method you propose, have you 'provided this works in all cases and is not erroneous'?
Other than in the sim, I have not.
An important caveat, and this applies even with scope probes, the leads should be kept "normal" to any current-carrying wiring so as to minimize induced voltage. Also, it would be of benefit to provide some Faraday shielding around the bulk of the apparatus to minimize EMI.
I will have to bring out the old "switching device" from a couple years back and try this. If I can get close correlation between a scope measurement and the proposed meter measurement, I think we're good to go.
.99
Hey Rose
Here is a link location of 3 posts in a row that you may want to see.
I show that I start with a 10uf cap at 1000v, and only make 2 conversions and end up with a 10uf cap at 1001.25v !!!
Its very simple. And Im tired. ;]
http://www.overunity.com/index.php?topic=8841.msg280380#msg280380
Mags loop+
Hi all. So nice to get back here. I couldn't get any connectivity since Saturday. Don't ask why. It's an endless - endless battle all of which simply adds more 'scope' to my general complaint against whoever it is that wants this technology silenced. But we're battling on. And right now we're connected.
I'll answer your posts individually.
Kindest regards,
Rosemary
Quote from: infringer on April 02, 2011, 05:01:57 PM
Rosemary,
I see good applications with this technology in heating of air and water do you have any plans to use this technology for those applications? Or is there a better way to apply this technology I know you have stated led lighting. Do you have any circuits prefabbed up for sale in lighting or heating I would like to test the tech in real world situations not do math or theories if it lights up a light or heats whatever for the average life of the battery we have a real life application sounds simple enough to me ...
What is the real challenge of putting this device into a real life application other then yourself holding yourself back you are not seeking a patent this circuit is open and free as you said. If you build it people will buy it if it works as promised.
Hi infringer. Not sure of the question. There is indeed no patent - and the entire impossibility of ever applying a patent - is the first point. Even if it were a 'novel' appliction of using the heat produced from parastic oscillations - the fact is that the knowledge of this potential use is now PUBLIC KNOWLEDGE. It's published in the public domain - on my blog. So. Unfortunately, it seems that I've shot myself in the foot - if my intention was EVER to patent any part of this technology.
Then. I most certainly want to get this to APPLICATION phase. It would be nice if we all worked towards this. It's no good knowing of an economical means of generating electricity without also exploring all possible ways of applying it. Specifically what's holding me back is that I want to advance the 'concepts' related to the thesis. I am of the opinion that when the 'thinking' is better understood then the applications will be less 'haphazard' based, as they are at present - on a mishmash of thinking and mainstream concepts. I will take the liberty of again pointing to my blog post related to this. But I also see, from the lack of comments related to my explanation that it's still as clear as mud. LOL. I'm going to work on a series of diagrams that I hope will make that explanation clearer. In fact - I've started on this already. As they say. A picture is worth a thousand words.
I've also been given to understand that it's possible to generate motorised energy from heat. That's another string to this bow. It's also feasible to generate steam from this application. Either way - presumably those type of applicaions can also be considered.
But to get back to my point. We also need to get some kind of academic evaluation of these anomalies. Because without this any applications may be considered fraudulent - or intended to fraudulently misrepresent the benefits in this technology. That's an ongoing battle. Right now I need to change out my functions generator because it's simply not working. Not corrupted - as nul-point thinks - as it was brand new out the box and has simply NEVER worked. That's a quick exercise and should be completed before the day is finished. But when I've got the circuit operational then I intend doing some more demos - this time with our EXPERTS in attendance - as no single Electrical Engineering expert attended our previous public demo. But I shall be taking the precaution of insisting on approval of the measurement protocols prior to that meeting. That way - the argument will be settled in advance and the evidence evaluated on the merits of that argument. This is one way of avoiding the advantage that our detractors enjoy - by raising an endless stream of objections - regardless of the evidence - but always AFTER the event. An example is that we now USE a functions generator as previously required by Poynty et al. But we are now told that we MUST RATHER USE A 555. Or, another example - measurements must be AVERAGED - and that it is incorrect to apply integrated power analysis. Which diametrically opposes all previous advises and, indeed, some lengthy debates on the subject. Or as another example until we eliminate ALL INDUCTANCE on the circuit ALL OUR MEASUREMENTS ARE ERRONEOUS - as Humbugger tries to imply. All nonsense. But they'll use those excuses forever. We need EXPERTS. Not these amateurish excusions by some dedicated detractors.
Which does not imply that we've got sufficient proof of infinite COP. But we certainly have unequivocal proof of COP>1.
GOOD LUCK infringer - if you're going to test this and if you find an application. There's nothing to stop you - legally - or in any way at all.
Kindest regards
Rosemary
http://newlightondarkenergy.blogspot.com/2011/04/101-repost-of-8-inconvenient-truth.html
And lest any readers of this think that I"m entirely impartial - here's my apologia
http://newlightondarkenergy.blogspot.com/2010/11/belated-tribute-to-our-scientists.html
;D
Actually Guys, that's it. I certainly won't comment on Humbugger's input until it becomes appropriate. And nor will I reply to Poynty's points until he re-establishes my right to read his forum. Not that I want to be registered please note. He has denied me the right to READ his forum by the simple expediency of blocking my IP address. And he knew of this ONLY because I had previously registered and then de-registered from OUR.com. Which I still maintain is an abuse of that knowledge. I joined the forum and gave that address in good faith. One must wonder at that need to refuse me access to my work or rights to see where and if this technology is still being discussed. And IF IT IS NOT being discussed then WHY BLOCK ACCESS AT ALL? What level of small minded spite is coming into play here? Very strange. One could almost think that he doesn't like me. Golly. Not sure that presonal preferences matter. And not sure that he should be allowed to continue with his comments here - unless this is resolved.
Right now I can't even read all the work that I've done there. It's all barred to me. I don't think I've ever come across this level of pettiness. The only good news is that he's 'locked' that thread. But they're free to discuss me as they do - all over the place. And apparently it's vitally important that I NEVER SEE THOSE COMMENTS. Actually there's NO justification for this. Just excessive spite and petty mindedness. Hopefully Poynty will see this for himself and LOSE THAT BLOCK.
Just to let you all know about this malice and - just to let you know that clearly I must be some kind of a threat to his forum bias. Strange. When they also state that I'm rather presumptuous to even consider myself an idiot. LOL. I would almost be inclined to think that they're trying to equate this technology with Lawrence's. Clearly the two have NOTHING IN COMMON.
Kindest regards,
Rosemary.
Mags - I've only just got my connectivity back. I'll try and go through your argument later today and by tomorrow morning at the latest. Thanks for the added info.
Kindest regards,
Rosemary
Infringer talks about applications .This is something we would all like to see . However , I personally feel that this will not happen in the immediate future , until a little bit more experimental work is done . There are two kinds of people into technology . We have the theoreticians and the practical engineers . Both are essential to the advancement of technology . But they tend to look at the world in two separate ways . I personally am more of an engineering mindset . To Rosemary , her thesis is everything , and rightly so .To me and perhaps a lot of other people , getting a predictable controllable reliable device is what matters .I would be wonderful if the Academics embrace this . But to arrange that will not be easy . The alternative as I have said before , is to follow the same path as Rossi [he of the cold Fusion device] and show some thing working , thus making the views of the academics irrelevant .
Quote from: neptune on April 04, 2011, 01:59:57 PM
Infringer talks about applications .This is something we would all like to see . However , I personally feel that this will not happen in the immediate future , until a little bit more experimental work is done . There are two kinds of people into technology . We have the theoreticians and the practical engineers . Both are essential to the advancement of technology . But they tend to look at the world in two separate ways . I personally am more of an engineering mindset . To Rosemary , her thesis is everything , and rightly so .To me and perhaps a lot of other people , getting a predictable controllable reliable device is what matters .I would be wonderful if the Academics embrace this . But to arrange that will not be easy . The alternative as I have said before , is to follow the same path as Rossi [he of the cold Fusion device] and show some thing working , thus making the views of the academics irrelevant .
Neptune, those are good points. My problem is not so much that I'm not interested in applications - but that it's just WAY outside my competence. You guys probably don't realise it. I have never even changed a plug. Truly a self-confessed clutz. I say this with a certain amount of reluctance as the Our.com detractors will, no doubt, use this to deny that I have any competence at all. But when it comes to technical - then you guys are MUCH NEEDED. But I also know that when you can wrap your minds around some REALLY SIMPLE concepts then - what I've been pointing to - you guys will be able to FULLY unfold. Again. Outside my competence. I just - so badly - want those concepts to be understood. The more so as they're simple. But by the same token - they will make a world of difference and an entirely different world. And we need that difference.
Take care Neptune. And so grateful that we've got your moderate reasonable sensible input. It's a required balance to my own enthusiasm. ALSO. Your argument also carried with the Wright bros and - many similar. So. Go for it. And frankly, I think the cost of developing an application won't be much different to the cost related to more testing of this circuit. That's been done to death. I think so - anyway. Let's measure it in the real world. That would be so, so nice.
Kindest regards,
Rosie
Rosemary,
I stand behind you in the fact that you show an anomaly. But I do think there should be a simplistic way of putting this into an application it would easily show weather results are skewed or not.
I am not sure of the scopes in general but I do know that all electronics are subject to power glitching of some sort whether it is a faster cycle or low voltage or what have you even stuff with watch dog timers, anti glitching measures and so forth has been glitched for different reasons many times it is done intentionally to defeat security measures on electronic devices but I am not hip to the hardware in a scope or a meter for that matter to know that they are not prone to these fluctuations in power causing the erratic readings its not entirely an impossibility in my mind but my mind is less educated then your own.
Oddly it appears you may be on to something your theory was interesting on why it works talking about the atom and then shortly after I read something about an test they did with the LHC showing there may be another particle due to the fact that where two particles hit the ejection direction is predictable with in an error tolerance of 0.07% which is rather stunning it made me think of your theory with slight correlation to it.
I guess I wish you the best and would like to see something running a cop>1 is free energy and could be applied to generate energy if you had made a larger unit the COE should remain the same but you should get more excess energy thus providing an application for energy generation I would assume anyways.
Forgive me for my ramblings no I really do not wish to create your device or patent any portion of your device it is not my style I guess I was looking for a silencer for you and probably talked a bit to sharply.
Quote from: infringer on April 04, 2011, 07:36:03 PM
Rosemary,
... I guess I was looking for a silencer for you and probably talked a bit too sharply.
LOL. I suspect there's some truth in the complaint that I 'talk' or 'write' far too much. Just make allowances Infringer. I am most anxious to share something. Rightly or wrongly I feel I'm in the same kind of position as Christopher Columbus - when he pointed to the vast American continent. He must have been pretty 'gob smacked'. And I'm trying to point to something much, much bigger.
I've just read another analolgy to this. If we took all the particles out of all the atoms of everyone alive today - we'd make a brick the size of your average sugar cube. Approximately 1/2" x 1/2" x 1/2". That points to an awful lot of so called empty space. I've simply proposed that all that space? - it's 'chock-a-block' filled with magnetic fields. And that's important - in a way. Because IF it's right - then it also means we've rather 'under used' all that potential. But for all that it sounds simple - it's actually mind bendingly subtle. Bubbles within bubbles. Anyway. I'll spare you the details. But in the wild hope that there are any still interested in this, and in the equally wild hope that anyone may yet read this - here's my blog link to the thesis. A work in progress - but it's getting there. Sorry if this appears to be 'off topic'. It actually does have some residual relevance to this thread.
Kindest regards,
Rosemary
http://newlightondarkenergy.blogspot.com/2011/03/98-model.html
edited typos
Hello Magzy - I've still not managed to understand your argument. But the fault is mine. I don't know anything about those capacitors. I definitely see an increase in voltage across the 2nd cap - presumably having been fed to it by the first cap. And am I right in saying that the first cap was charged from a battery to a max of 10 volts? So. If the second cap is in excess of 100 volts - then, to my mind that's unequivocal proof. But I've also read nul-point's measurement and I simply don't know enough about this to measure it.
What i would say is this. If you and woopy can get some work out of the second cap that exceeds the energy 'in' then no-one could complain. Quite apart from which - what I do know is that we have to challenge all mainstream predictions if we're ever going to get through on these arguments. And for that you get 10 out of 10. Well done Mags. Keep up the good work and let's see that WORK number. I know that you two work as a neat team.
Sorry it took me so long and then I could do so little with the information. I was absolutely locked out of internet access through the weekend.
Take care Mags. I've written you while I was down. I'll see if I can find that draft and send it along.
Kindest as ever,
Rosie
Hey Rose
No worries. I believe we have it. We start by charging a 10uf cap to 1000v. We run it through the circuit 2 times and we end up with 1001.25v on the 10 uf cap. Thats all we need to know. We only use outside source 1 time to get the 1000v.. So when we run it through again, we should end up with more each cycle. =] Self runner. We just have to work it out in an automatic circuit. I worked on this last night, and half of it is complete. =]
Hey I know your busy, we will chat soon. ;]
Mags
Mags the Self runner man ;D
now that's what Rosie needs ;D the whole world needs,
no one can argue with a Self runner, it's either runs or it doesn't ;D
very exciting ;D
Quote from: Magluvin on April 05, 2011, 07:55:17 AM
Hey Rose
No worries. I believe we have it. We start by charging a 10uf cap to 1000v. We run it through the circuit 2 times and we end up with 1001.25v on the 10 uf cap. Thats all we need to know. We only use outside source 1 time to get the 1000v.. So when we run it through again, we should end up with more each cycle. =] Self runner. We just have to work it out in an automatic circuit. I worked on this last night, and half of it is complete. =]
Hey I know your busy, we will chat soon. ;]
Mags
Really good stuff Magsy. To me that's definitive. And as Wilby keeps reminding us
illigitimi non carborundum - or as I'd love to say 'basia culos meos'.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pSo-_TavE1U
I'm taking a leaf out of Cat's book here. Enjoy.
Rosie
Guys - it seems that I've been locked out of commenting on Poynty's thread where he's trying to get averaging accepted for input measurement. Not sure if this is a general prelude to a banning - but I certainly think it speaks to Poynty's inability to tackle any argument without gagging the counter argument. I have lost all respect for the man - if such he is. And then he's got the unspeakable arrogance to demand that my input be ignored - and that it's mere 'babble'? Golly.
Would you lose your financial support base if you lost that averaging argument Poynty Point? You're that frantic one could almost think that your livelihood depends on it. And it's simply a repeat of the argument that you advanced on your own forum. If you don't want us members to comment then perhaps you should just have told us that it's a monologue. And that you 'brook no argument'. Good heavens. You've already settled your argument. You're just advising us that this is now to be considered to be correct - as per POYNTY's REQUIRED LAW OF AVERAGING. Science by Edict. Where will we go next?
The sad news is that it's wrong. But it's also irrelevant. It's been used in the wild hope that this will then negate our own measurements. Far from it. We're happy with averaging. It still indicates a COP Infinity. That was not the point of the demonstration. You just don't get it. Or if you do, you're hoping no-one else does.
If you think my writing is nonsensical babble - then know this. It it my opinion that you have rather squandered your own intellectual muscle to the need to be right. And then you've managed to immerse yourself in irrelevancies. Which is shame. Either way. You've certainly invested way more emotion in this debate - if such it is - than intellect.
Kindest regards nonetheless
Rosemary
edited. sorry I wrote forum.
hey Rose
Welp, we now have a new high score.
Start with a 10uf cap at 1000v, and we end up with 10uf at 1320v!!
I ran through 3 stages. 4 stages should bring about 2kv in a 10 uf cap. Just from that 1000v 10uf cap.
Its just ridiculous. ;D
I need a drink. ;)
Mags
Mags:
Excellent work!!! Will we be able to see this in a video sometime soon? That would be great.
Bill
Quote from: Magluvin on April 05, 2011, 07:56:15 PM
hey Rose
Welp, we now have a new high score.
Start with a 10uf cap at 1000v, and we end up with 10uf at 1320v!!
I ran through 3 stages. 4 stages should bring about 2kv in a 10 uf cap. Just from that 1000v 10uf cap.
Its just ridiculous. ;D
I need a drink. ;)
Mags
Magluvin,
You should know as it appears you are unaware, that not only are you off-topic, but the topic of capacitor energy transfer and the so-called "discovery" has been covered a number of times elsewhere in this forum. What you really need before you get that drink, is to obtain a clear understanding of capacitors, capacitor voltage, and the energy stored in them. THEN you will know why and how you are able to charge up these capacitors to higher voltages.
Here are a few links to get you started in your quest:
http://www.overunity.com/index.php?topic=8334.msg210138#msg210138
http://www.overunity.com/index.php?topic=8334.msg210142#msg210142 (read the attached file carefully)
http://www.overunity.com/index.php?topic=6090.msg143812#msg143812
http://www.overunity.com/index.php?topic=4419.msg148098#msg148098
http://hyperphysics.phy-astr.gsu.edu/hbase/electric/capeng.html (play with the values and see the effects)
So you may see that you are not the first to have fallen into the trap involving capacitor energy transfer, and likely you won't be the last.
.99
Quote from: poynt99 on April 05, 2011, 08:55:09 PM
Magluvin,
You should know as it appears you are unaware, that not only are you off-topic, but the topic of capacitor energy transfer and the so-called "discovery" has been covered a number of times elsewhere in this forum. What you really need before you get that drink, is to obtain a clear understanding of capacitors, capacitor voltage, and the energy stored in them. THEN you will know why and how you are able to charge up these capacitors to higher voltages.
Here are a few links to get you started in your quest:
http://www.overunity.com/index.php?topic=8334.msg210138#msg210138
http://www.overunity.com/index.php?topic=8334.msg210142#msg210142 (read this file carefully)
http://www.overunity.com/index.php?topic=6090.msg143812#msg143812
http://www.overunity.com/index.php?topic=4419.msg148098#msg148098
So you may see that you are not the first to have fallen into the trap involving capacitor energy transfer, and likely you won't be the last.
.99
Hey point
Actually Rose had asked me to post results here, and there are some others paying close attn also. =]
It appears you havnt been paying much attn. ;) But how could I convince you otherwise, you wont build it.
If you keep believing the formula are correct, then you are doomed.
Let me ask you something.
If you have a 10uf cap at 10v
How much energy does that cap hold? An ideal cap for simplicity.
Now connect that cap to another empty 10uf cap so that each has 5v.
Now you have 2 10uf caps at 5v = 20uf cap at 5v.
How much energy is in a 20uf cap at 5v?
If you have calculated anything less than 100% you are wrong. They are wrong. He is out of order, your all out of order!! lol
Seriously. I know ya think Im a freak. I dig it. Im Magfreakinluvin.
Now tell me how much energy is in the 10uf 10v vs 20uf 5v.
After you tell me 50% loss, I will spit on my shoe and shine it with pride, that I know what is what, and you do not.
Run some tests, spice or on the bench, tell me what you see in these questions I propose to you Point. If you dont you will never know. ;]
Run the 10uf 10v cap through a 100ohm resistor
Then the 20uf 5v cap through a 50ohm resistor
Each will start out at 1A and descending till drained. Tell me how long it took for each instance Point.
I dont know you Point. But I am just showing you the same respect you had just shown me, and I may have learned ya sumthin. ;]
Buld it, then you can tell me otherwise. Does anyone agree? Anyone?
Be cordial and so will I. We can be friends and learn new things.
It wont take you long to become a Believer when you try. I have done all the work to get you to the objective. Convert a 10uf at 10v to a 10uf cap at 13v, energy used to do the switching has not been taken from the circuit to keep the ideal function pure, so we know exactly what is in and out through the process. It is done this way all the time.
Point, if you know about what Ive been doing here the last couple weeks, Ive gone through several pains of saying, na, cant be, its all wrong. Then I climb out of the box for some fresh air, and it is all too clear. Crystal. ;) You may have to empty your cup for this one. ;]
Its easy. No complex waveforms to debate, no disrespect Rose ;], no measurements that could be denied, just what was in vs what was out. The text books will have you climbing the walls Point as you see what is going on in this circuit. Once you see that we can take a 10uf cap at 10v and end up with a 10uf cap at 13-14v, will you still question me? For what? I told ya that was the objective. Where will I have been wrong then, in any way?
We can be cool about this. Its up to you. ;]
Mags
Quote from: Magluvin on April 05, 2011, 09:34:58 PM
Its easy. No complex waveforms to debate, no disrespect Rose ;], no measurements that could be denied, just what was in vs what was out.
Mags
???
That's all people have been asking for since day one... still waiting... lots of diversions and misdirections... but no honest answers...
RM :)
hey Pirate
Im working on it. The way you lay out circuits means a lot when considering options. ;] But have come up with a way by just having 3 circuits in a row. When the first cap is loaded to say 1000v, that is all the energy that will be transferred from beginning to end, no other outside input. Each stage will lower the source caps voltage down to about .7 of the source, and the flywheel takes care of filling the receiver to the same voltage as the source. Now we have 2 caps at .7 of the source. Double the capacitance for the next stage source.
The rest is in my last couple posts in the igniter thread. I should have something this week. =]
Thanks Evolvingape. I hope that was a positive post. ;]
Mags
There is no need to apply perceived polarisation to my post.
Quote from: Magluvin on April 05, 2011, 09:34:58 PM
Its easy. No complex waveforms to debate, no disrespect Rose ;], no measurements that could be denied, just what was in vs what was out.
Mags
Your words speak for themselves to my satisfaction, on topic of course :)
RM :)
Golly Magsy - I've just woken up to all this. Really great stuff. I'm just going to get back there and read it all again.
WELL DONE MAGSY. It's looking good.
Rosie
Hi Magsy - indeed this is very good news. Even I can understand it. VERY VERY WELL DONE. And don't be too put off by any negativity my friend - because that will follow as day follows night.
Really good stuff. I don't actually drink as a rule, but I'll raise a glass to you with my supper this evening.
I think we may yet win this argument. Here's hoping.
;D
Rosie
thanks Rose
Im beddyby. ;] Im glad you see it also. I have improvements coming tomorrow. ;D
Night Rose
Mags
Quote from: Magluvin on April 06, 2011, 01:59:16 AM
thanks Rose
Im beddyby. ;] Im glad you see it also. I have improvements coming tomorrow. ;D
Night Rose
Mags
I believe in what caps tell us. Way more than a battery. Very excellent work man, this is really great.
Bill
Guys - my circuit is STILL down. We've changed the functions generator and we've bought and replaced 2 FETS. I've had no less than 3 people trouble shoot and - right now - no-one has resolved the problem. We hopefully, have a really competent guy coming on Friday afternoon to look at what gives. We are absolutely not able to get any energy onto the element. Everything's flatlined except for the switch. That's now working like an angel. Which is why I'm STILL not able to report here. Apologies. There's a gremlin in the works. We worked on this for 4 hours - again - last night - and still nothing. Very odd and very frustrating. The circuit is so simple. The connections easily tested. Everything seems as usual. Yet we can't get anything to work - except now we can get that switch at full volume. Definitely something was wrong with the previous functions generator as we could not get any significant voltage across the switch.
meanwhile all I can do is wait.
Rosemary
Magsy - which is why I'm looking forward to - at least - getting some upbeat news from you. I get it that the 'real life' applications of that circuit do not perform as expected by the sim. Stefan's been saying this since the start of this thread. All I know is that if you apply 'x' and then end up with 'x' plus anything at all - then that's unequivocally - from the system and not from the supply. The argument is elegant. And I'm not sure that anyone can contradict it.
What intrigues me is that your claim was immediately followed by a disclaimer. Never missed a heartbeat. And - predictably - it was from Poynty. I'm of the opinion that there's a certain urgency creeping into this subject as OU evidence is becoming rather commonplace. It's still being argued that the evidence is always based on poor measurement - and incompetent experimenters. But in your case you can show the gain with a simple mulitmeter. And I may be rightly described as an experimental clutz - but those that built and demonstrated this circuit - certainly are not.
But what really intrigues me is this. Poynty denies that there is any oscillation through the battery. This is why I'm committed to showing a waveform with the probes directly across those terminals. Yet his own simulations show this exact waveform. How can it be that my own waveforms are wrong yet the sim waveforms are right? I just can't get my head around this. In fact, from what I can see - the sim and real life experiment can both duplicate that wild and extended parasitic oscillation. And that, really, was the object of that demonstration. There is no question we showed a gain - even based on Poynt's need for AVERAGING - and even on really high wattage dissipation at the load. But that oscillation results in two diametrically opposed waveforms - and when that is evident then the advantage is always to a level of energy efficiency that at it's least - exceeds classical allowance.
Anyway. I'll need to get my setup set up. Then I'll get back here. And Magsy - yet again - I do not think that anyone will be able to contradict YOUR evidence. At least we've got that. I think we'd all enjoy seeing a video on this - but I know that it's time consuming and I also know that you guys fit in these experiments when and as you can. So. Again. Very well done. And, as ever, I'd be awfully grateful if you'd keep us posted here.
Kindest,
Rosemary
Hi guys,
Just had a brief excursion into OUR.com where sundry members are rollicking through post after post with the characteristic wild and ever urgent denial of any evidence of overunity on our circuit. I see that the audience applaud all that really bad, psuedo scientific, argument. And there's a general sense of hysteria as one after the other try one argument after another - to deny all our evidence.
At the moment they're rather pinning their hopes on the Poynt's call to average. You can certainly average the results if you did not also switch that current. And to refer to it as 'reflected' voltage - or anything at all - does not lessen the energy in that voltage. But. I keep advising them and they keep ignoring that advice. GUYS - EVEN IF WE APPLY AND AVERAGE we get INFINITE COP.
In any event. They're unquestionably right.
IF we had used less sophisticated DSO's - then there would have been strong argument against the evidence. As it is we use very sophisticated DSO's and that's now the basis of their denial.
IF we had averaged - then there would have been strong argument against the evidence. As it is we did not use averages and yet that's the basis of their denial.
IF we had factored in inductance and reactance - then there would have been an even stronger basis for their denial as the numbers become even more beneficial. And as we did not factor this in then that's become the basis of their denial.
If we had only got a benefit from low wattage dissipation then that would have been the basis of their denial. As it is we get benefit - infinite COP at both high and low wattage dissipation and yet this is the basis of that denial.
This result will only ever be considered valid IF - we eliminate all inductive/conductive material on the circuit - IF we do away with a battery supply source and ONLY use capacitors - and then ONLY AND IF we then measure something that conforms to classical prediction.
I suppose that's fair. Or maybe not so much 'fair'. Just COMPREHENSIVE. Golly.
Kindest regards,
Rosemary
Quote from: Doctor No on April 07, 2011, 09:53:26 AM
Don^t worry meine liebe Rose.
;D
I'm a bit of a socialist myself. LOL.
How do You think, when people come to the mind: 1. 10y. after last drop of oil will be pumped out 2. Barrel oil 》300 USD (next year) 3. After we drop 1 MT device on Fukushit (October). Yours Dr Adolf
Hi again Magsy. It seems that there was an error in your calculations. It's disappointing - but we're depending on your resilience and that all energetic intellect. As woopy says - it's almost proof of OU all on its own. I think we're all rather relying on you to find that invincible argument. So. Don't give up that elusive design. It seems that our own is simply never going to cut it - certainly not on these forums.
And this is for Dr No. The good news is that the price of petrol just keeps going north. That's catalyst enough to change our dependencies. It's not only toxic for the environment - but I think Nature Herself is working to put it out of reach. I am reasonably certain that it's a simple thing to get energy back to the battery on motors - which means that it should be feasible to apply this to our electric cars. In theory it would result in less battery weight to more energy out - and a longer duration of those batteries notwithstanding.
Until a day or so ago - I've rather tried to encourage others to think applications. I sort of saw my own input as being restricted to my very limited knowledge. But I've been discussing a very simple design configuration with a friend. I'll sketch it and then photograph it and then see if I can manage to upload it here. But it's a design I've referred to before. And until I do this, here's a description - for those who care tp wrap their minds around it.
Two batteries in series - negative to positive and positive to negative. Battery one has our circuit leading to the negative of battery two. Battery two has our circuit leading to the positive of battery one. Switches need to work in antiphase - and since it is evident that these oscillations do not depend on switching frequencies - then - also theoretically - it may work with a reed switch - and diodes across those switches. Then. As I see it - the one battery will also - always - discharge into the second to recharge it. Surely that's a closed system? Something like that. Perhaps Magsy can see what he can do with this on a simulator.
Also. I've now taken the trouble - yesterday - to inform an influential scientist at local government level - here in Cape Town. A surprising level of interest. Also surprising to me is that he had never even heard of our efforts here. I forget that our contributions on the internet are still very much a minority thing and that the general public are ENTIRELY unaware of it. It will be interesting to see where that discussion goes. A lot of questions - a discussion spanning over an hour - and - dare I say it - a sense that there was enough residual interest to actually explore these claims of ours. We'll see. In the face of repeated disappointments - then I'm not sure I can invest in too much hope. But without some hope I think that all our efforts here would be a complete waste of time.
Anyway. That's the best I can manage for now. Hopefully it's something to keep some heart and hope in these extraordinary reaches of ours.
Kindest regards,
Rosemary
Hey Rose
Its weird. A couple days ago I could wake up and knew that i had it.
Now, hmmm. hmmmm. but Im bouncing back.
We still gained positive ideas that is not widely known to all.
I see it has all been done before. Maybe not all. ;]
As for your setup, there will be many that want to see those batteries charging. Its common simple proving grounds. Like Steorn, even when some of the projects even worked at all, there was no real convincing.
Perhaps if you concentrated on getting enough charge back to the batteries, to say get each one to be above 13v when the circuit is running, this would be a sure winner for you. Im not sure what you think on that kind of plan.
Small amounts of energy can be produced with a radiant energy charger ir a crystal radio. But most really want the beef.
So if we have an amplifier of the 3rd kind, the crystal radio can then be the source, because the amplifier of the 3rd kind has beef. Its the 3rd kind that will get quick notice.;]
Heck, I thought I might have had it. If the circuit used low inductance, the freq of operation with skimming, that would be impressive. lol I think I worried more about MORE and neglected important things.
But in your setup, now your at the point of more is better planning. ;]
My real issue was thinking my stages, by the 3rd stage took me over the top more than 2nd. But what was happening is, I got stuck in to the habit of, when I only had to put 2 caps during testing in series, the outcome WAS 10uf to 5uf, divided by 2. So when I got to the 3rd and 4th stages, instead of dividing how many caps,as there were more than 2, I relied on my habit of divide the total capacitance by 2. ::)
The sim acts up with too much going on, switches open and closed everywhere and the sim doesnt like open ended diodes in the circuit with big things happening in connection with them. So I was doing stages independently. Ant least we didnt waste months on it and still have more to do. ;)
Lol when point had posted that he saw 5uf and I saw 20uf, I drew it on papaer and bam, I new I was wrong. So I thought quickly if I still had gain with 2 stages(4 caps to series), I made the same golly ;] mistake I had been making and quickly posted that I would post a solution at lunch. Went home and spent 40min finding I was in
Disney Land from hell. I was all day, what was I thinking!!! Stupid mistake. Should have put it together to make sure, but I was running the stages as a single stage in the sim, and just making my own conversions, with mistakes. Thats a sad story. lol
Thanks for everything Rose =]
Im not goin anywhere. ;]
Mags
Hi Magsy. I had a bad night. But I've got through it. I can't run that test on batteries unless I buy another set - and I simply cna't afford it Mags. And the batteries that were donated will take WAY too long to drain - if ever. I haven't got the patience or the time or the interest to prove it that way. My experience is that when we did give this as proof we weren't allowed to pubish the data. So. I've given up on using that argument. But it SHOULD NOT BE REQUIRED. The waveforms, the numbers, the evidence is absolutely as dependable as is required. It's just that the facts are unpopular and therefore are being contended. And that they're not even using valid argument is entirely lost on their readers. It's all a bit disheartening and intellectually disgusting. Still there's possibly some good financial compensation to wallow in all that disgusting intellectual abuse.
I know you'll bounce back Mags. There's just way too much interest there. Maybe you can try out that circuit I mentioned on your sim. And please - DON'T ask for battery voltage to climb. It's diametrically opposed to the thesis. I just can't see how this can happen. I can see it climbing fractionally - to its full potential. But if a 12 volt battery climbed to 14 or 17 volts - as I've seen from a recharge - and it did it from our circuit - then it would also disprove the thesis at a very fundamental level. It would be very bad news. If that's the data that you guys are looking for - then it would be really bad news for me.
Anyway. Take good care. Hopefully you're already asleep and will read here when you wake up.
Kindest as ever,
Rosie
I've sort of found my way to a really exciting thread guys. Life may yet be worth living. I'll post a link here if I can manage it. Anyway it's that thread on cold fusion.
GREAT NEWS
Rosmary
http://www.overunity.com/index.php?topic=10230.msg280805#msg280805
Quote from: Rosemary Ainslie on April 08, 2011, 02:21:13 AM
I've sort of found my way to a really exciting thread guys. Life may yet be worth living. I'll post a link here if I can manage it. Anyway it's that thread on cold fusion.
GREAT NEWS
Rosmary
http://www.overunity.com/index.php?topic=10230.msg280805#msg280805
When you finalise the open source of your project, you will post full schematics of the invention here.. right?
Quote from: Poit on April 08, 2011, 02:45:23 AM
When you finalise the open source of your project, you will post full schematics of the invention here.. right?
Poit? Not sure which circuit you want. I've always made full disclosure. If you're talking about the one I outlined for Magsy - then I still need to sketch that and get some way to upload it here. But the schematic is described. Just two of those circuits of mine but two systems feeding - back to back - into two separate supplies. I sort of see it as a closed system - and - just maybe - the principle will then be better explained.
Let me know. I'm not sure what you're asking.
Kindest,
Rosemary
Quote from: Rosemary Ainslie on April 07, 2011, 09:42:53 PM
…
Also. I've now taken the trouble - yesterday - to inform an influential scientist at local government level - here in Cape Town. A surprising level of interest. Also surprising to me is that he had never even heard of our efforts here. I forget that our contributions on the internet are still very much a minority thing and that the general public are ENTIRELY unaware of it ...
Hi Rosemary,
You could not have put it any better! As good as nobody reads on these forums. Nothing changed, you still get the ‘weird’ looks if you talk about even the ‘distant’ possibility of free energy. Even worse, suppose I could build a free energy device put it into my car and drive to work with it. None of my colleagues would believe me if I proudly showed my special car to them …
By the way, did you had any reporting in the newspapers in Cape Town after your demonstration?
Anyway, I keep up hope and maybe one day it will finally happen that we use the technology we already seem to have for a rather long time iso hiding it!
Best regards, B
Hello B. So nice to see you around. I have NOT managed to get any kind of newspaper report on this. But there's some outside chance that there could be a program depending on the advices of just two experts. If I can show them - and IF they see an anomaly - THEN... MAYBE. It's all up in the air and I'm tired of living in the stratosphere. But I'm pressing on pressing on. Something's got to give - eventually.
Take good care B.
Kindest as ever,
Rosie
Well Guys - we're up. AT LAST. Now I'll be able to get some decent arguments against Poynt's 'averaging' requirements - AND we'll be able to demonstrate this to our experts. WHAT A PLEASURE.
I'll post plenty here later today and tomorrow.
Kindest as ever,
Rosemary
Hi Rosemary .You are in the middle of a difficult time .Just remember that the darkest hour is just before the dawn .I feel that if you still can not get your device working , the problem could still be in the Mosfets as not all mosfets are the same even if they are supposed to be . I was going to say that extraordinary claims need extraordinary proof , but I have been well and truly reprimanded by Wilby for saying that ! So unpopular claims will need extraordinary proof . I know how you like to stand on your own two feet ,but if you decide to start a collection for some smaller batteries , I hereby pledge £20 . It is funny you should mention cold fusion because I believe that is what will cause a massive shift in peoples perception .And that by the years end . Hows this for irony .Rolls Royce are building a massive new factory in the UK to manufacture parts for our new nukes .Hopefully it will be finished in time to make Rossi Nickel reactors!Rosie , above all keep the faith and be happy .
Thanks for the support there Neptune. It's been a hellish week - ending with The Boss's call for some public attack on my work. What's new? I think he's either Mookie - whose got his own reach for OU and is simply hopelessly jealous. Or it's our friend the cheesy Hamburger - who must be well compensated for those extraordinary efforts to destroy my reputation and our work along with it. Or it's Harvey - who's that anxious to detract from the model that I suspect he wants it for himself. LOL. Extraordinary. I've said it before guys. When the average person comes up with any kind of OU claim there's immediate support. I see it all over the place. Lasersaber - Magsy, Lawrence, the Joule thief - cold fusion - and on and on. And on our work - from the get go I've had a level of attack that has been unprecedented on these forums and on the internet. It started with TK and has simply never stopped. One could almost think that these results really, really matter.
Anyway. The good news is that I also know the most of you - at its least - tolerate these huge efforts of mine. So. Who cares? It seems to come with the territory. It would have been better to have had a disputable low wattage value that was poorly measured. Then I'm reasonably sure no-one would have minded my ramblings.
Anyway - to get back on topic - I've already got some interesting results. I've let it run now for the last 3 hours just to see if there's a trend. I'll post here later tonight. Looking good. Which means that some of you will be quite pleased and Poynty et all will have to fill their quivers and get ready for another barrage of barbed comments.
Oh well.
Kindest regards,
Rosemary
Ok Guys. I'm exhausted. I'll do the upload tomorrow. But Poynty's right. The probes across directly across the battery definitely reduce the battery voltage - by quite a bit. But no ripples. The same basic shape - as before with the same antiphase relationship to the shunt voltage.
Math trace still negative. Actually what I'm hoping is that with the reduced battery voltage we'll get something closer to the fact. The previous left us with a HUGE surplus that I simply could not reconcile with the wattage dissipated. I didn't have time to fine tune and just settled for the first waveform that I found. So it's not optimised. But it's still interesting. I also kept it on that LONG cycle - just to remind you all about it. Very chuffed with this result. Seems like we may have lost that embarrassment of riches and have something approximating the actual wattage delivered/dissipated. Be nice if we can get these two numbers to tally.
But the voltage definitely does not 'flatline' with small ripples as Poynty predicted. In fact it's EXACTLY the same shape as before.
I'll also do a dump and give you those results. I'll factor in the inductance/impedance and I'll do one without. You'll see a marked improvement in performance when we compensate for this.
Anyway. That's just about depleted my own energy levels.
Rosemary
Quote from: Rosemary Ainslie on April 08, 2011, 04:08:23 PM
Ok Guys. I'm exhausted. I'll do the upload tomorrow. But Poynty's right. The probes across directly across the battery definitely reduce the battery voltage - by quite a bit. But no ripples. The same basic shape - as before with the same antiphase relationship to the shunt voltage.
Math trace still negative. Actually what I'm hoping is that with the reduced battery voltage we'll get something closer to the fact. The previous left us with a HUGE surplus that I simply could not reconcile with the wattage dissipated. I didn't have time to fine tune and just settled for the first waveform that I found. So it's not optimised. But it's still interesting. I also kept it on that LONG cycle - just to remind you all about it. Very chuffed with this result. Seems like we may have lost that embarrassment of riches and have something approximating the actual wattage delivered/dissipated. Be nice if we can get these two numbers to tally.
But the voltage definitely does not 'flatline' with small ripples as Poynty predicted. In fact it's EXACTLY the same shape as before.
I'll also do a dump and give you those results. I'll factor in the inductance/impedance and I'll do one without. You'll see a marked improvement in performance when we compensate for this.
Anyway. That's just about depleted my own energy levels.
Rosemary
Nice work, Rosemary. So what turned out to be the elusive problem that took days to find? Just curious. Also, a few observations/questions:
1) I assume you still have a hefty length of wiring in between the batteries. Two things might interest you here. First, find the ratio of how much the battery voltage measurement was reduced in peak amplitude by putting the probes at the end battery terminals. Then compare that ratio (maybe 1/2 or 1/3) to the ratio between the total wire length and the wire length of what remains between the batteries. I believe you'll find a strong if not exact correlation there.
Next, take your scope and look directly across the terminals of ANY ONE battery excluding ALL battery wiring. I believe you'll see that there is only a very small ripple left.
2) Please describe exactly how you will "factor in the inductance/impedance" when you do your "dump".
Thank you,
Cheeseburger
A direct measurement across the terminal pairs of each battery will produce very little ripple.
"RIPPLE" is anything other than the expected DC voltage. The ripple in the current Ainslie circuit will of course always have the same "shape" no matter where it is measured in the battery line, but the ripple amplitude will diminish in accordance with how close the measurement is taken to the battery terminals.
The difference being, 60VDC with ~200V of ripple, vs. 12VDC (each battery) with perhaps 350mV of "ripple".
.99
Quote from: poynt99 on April 08, 2011, 08:29:41 PM
A direct measurement across the terminal pairs of each battery will produce very little ripple.
"RIPPLE" is anything other than the expected DC voltage. The ripple in the current Ainslie circuit will of course always have the same "shape" no matter where it is measured in the battery line, but the ripple amplitude will diminish in accordance with how close the measurement is taken to the battery terminals.
The difference being, 60VDC with ~200V of ripple, vs. 12VDC (each battery) with perhaps 350mV of "ripple".
.99
In general, this is correct, that the "ripple" will vanish down to the true ripple resulting from current flowing through the batteries and the battery internal resistance. Technically and specifically, though, the true battery ripple voltage is just like the voltage on a shunt resistor and can be predicted by Ohm's Law and will be exactly in phase (ripple peak at current minumum and vice versa).
The so-called "ripple" voltage that appears across the inductance of the wires, however, is not a function of Ohm's Law and is purely a function of the di/dt rate of change of current...NOT the magnitude or direction of the current itself and NOT the actual battery voltage, either..
It is therefore nonsensical to feed any of that signal into the scope as a power input voltage argument to be multiplied in real time with the equally and oppositely skewed di/dt signals coming from the inductive shunt.
I sure wish Rosemary would take my advice and consult with her Tektronix Applications engineer on this whole matter. Maybe his or her advice would be accepted.
Humbugger
Quote from: poynt99 on April 08, 2011, 08:29:41 PM
A direct measurement across the terminal pairs of each battery will produce very little ripple.
"RIPPLE" is anything other than the expected DC voltage. The ripple in the current Ainslie circuit will of course always have the same "shape" no matter where it is measured in the battery line, but the ripple amplitude will diminish in accordance with how close the measurement is taken to the battery terminals.
The difference being, 60VDC with ~200V of ripple, vs. 12VDC (each battery) with perhaps 350mV of "ripple".
.99
I must say I wondered at this Poynty. Your first depiction of a 'ripple' is the kind of waveform that I've seen on one of those really sophisticated 'clamp amp' meters where one can do a spreadsheet dump. This pretty well flatlines at battery averge, but has a kind of really small hiccup at the switching transitions.
Yet more evidence that one cannot apply 'AVERAGING' as that, effectively is what that ameter does. You actually showed this from one of your sims. At that stage of your argument, you also stated that the kind of oscillation we're seeing is ENTIRELY due to the inductance on the wire. You see if, by 'ripple' you also meant that really robust oscillation across the battery then this is definitely NOT the classical use of the term. I'll post a Wiki definition hereunder. But I do concede that you subsequently posted a sim showing - more or less - what we're seeing now. But as this is also more or less what I've always been seeing - then I'm also happy that
current definitely IS going through the battery as you ALSO at first denied. And that's the WHOLE of my point.
So. Let's try this AGAIN. It is NOW evident that the battery voltage is indeed both returning
current to and being delivered from the battery. What this indicates - at the risk of stating the bleeding obvious - is that the battery is also DISCHARGING and then RE-CHARGING. This voltage is at 180 degrees anti phase to the voltage across the current sensing resistor. It is the explicit advantage of that phase shift that INVARIABLY brings the instantaneous analysis of power delivered/dissipated - to COP something far, far, greater than 1.
I'm curious to know when you and your 'dogs' get to address this point - Poynty. Because when you do - then, and only then, will I be inclined to believe there's some integrity left in your ENDLESS DENIAL of these results.
Rosemary
WIKI DEFINITION OF RIPPLE - somewhat at variance with your own.
The most common meaning of ripple in electrical science, is the small unwanted residual periodic variation of the direct current (dc) output of a power supply which has been derived from an alternating current (ac) source. This ripple is due to incomplete suppression of the alternating waveform within the power supply.
ADDEDanother edit. included the word 'current' or Poynty et al would accuse me, yet again, of not knowing whereof I speak. Golly. I need to be really, really, careful.
Quote from: poynt99 on April 08, 2011, 08:29:41 PM
The difference being, 60VDC with ~200V of ripple, vs. 12VDC (each battery) with perhaps 350mV of "ripple".
.99
NO POYNTY. NEVER HAVE I SEEN 350mV of ripple. Admittedly I'm restricted to measuring 2 - THEREFORE 24 volts - AT LEAST - else the probes don't span that battery width - but there's CLEAR SCALABLE value here and there it's ALWAYS SOMETHING CONSIDERABLY MORE THAN milivolts. Try DOUBLE the battery supply voltage with a reduction to 1/3 the battery voltage. At 12 volts supply that would result in a range of plus/minus 24 to 8 volts. At 24 volts it would be between 48 and 16. And so it goes.
NO RIPPLE - NO mV OSCILLATIONS. What's happened to all that integrity? It's a sad day when you have to invent facts to duck an open admission of error.
Again,
Rosemary
PS
BTW - I'm definitely getting onto a better ratio between dissipated and delivered. DEFINITELY that probe positioning is more accurate. BUT we're still at COP INFINITY. That's going to be a hard one to 'crack'. :)
So Guys - to get back to this point. You will recall that my advices were to change the probe positioning. Neptune - I think it was - told me how to do this. Much needed as I'm VERY SLOW on the uptake. In any event. I've now done this. Recall too, how Poynty said that this result would then be 'DEFINITIVE'. He was denying that the current flow from the shunt even REACHED the battery - let alone moved through it to recharge it. All that energy was claimed to be the result of 'spurious' measurements of inductance on the wires. They were right - in part. There's a definite drop in voltage. And frankly this is a welcome result. I could not get near to balancing that wattage dissipated/delivered number that I was looking for. In fact, so embarrassed was I by these results that I simply omitted them from my report. So. For that I am MOST grateful. I think Harti also endorsed this requirement. Most grateful guys.
BUT. And this is the point. We still have that really robust oscillation. We also now KNOW that it is recharging the battery. Therefore CORRECTLY the amount of energy that is delivered to the battery is still GREATER than the amount of energy first delivered BY the battery. And that's EXACTLY what's needed to prove that we can 'recycle' a current.
This - for those of you who are still wondering - is EXACTLY THE POINT where we deviate from classical prediction. The assumption has always been that the actual energy delivered from a supply is PRECISELY the same energy that this then DISSIPATED as heat or work. It's expected to be LOST. Where my thesis is at variance is RIGHT HERE. The thesis requires that the energy delivered from a supply returns to the supply. That energy is measured as imbalance or potential difference. It results in a depletion of that imbalance or that potential difference. By the same token - the energy that is then induced on the circuit components is also POTENTIAL DIFFERENCE. That too needs to return to it's source to deplete that imbalance or that potential difference. But they're two different energy supplies returning to their own energy supply sources. In effect, inductive and resistive components have the material properties required to become energy supply sources - all on their own. And this potential is actually endorsed in Einstein's mass/energy equivalences. It's just that on inductive/conductive material that energy potential is also electromagnetic energy.
The fact that this is right is also WHY my threads and my thesis are invariably 'attacked'. Because once this fact is understood - widely - then you will also ALL realise how easy it is to defeat those thermodynamic laws as it relates to the transfer of electric energy. And that is actually the object of ALL THAT CRITICISM against me, our technology here - and our hopes to getting this accepted by mainstream. It's going to put paid to the need for all that grid power. And God alone knows how they'll justify the use of petrol driven cars - when an electric car can also enjoy precisely this advantage. So. Day and night - certainly for as long as they can - the Cheeseburgers and their kind will try and silence us - or embarrass me - or whatever they can manage to avoid the general spread of these truths.
Luckily - I'm still hanging in here. Just wish more of you would see this. I assure you that Hamburger et al - MOST CERTAINLY DO.
Kindest regards,
Rosemary
Why not do a science experiment Rosie? Try measuring the voltage right across one of the interconnecting wires between your batteries. Don't even include a single battery, just look at the voltage across the wire itself. You'll be amazed to find that pure AC voltage (resulting from di/dt) is the same peak to peak amplitude as the AC part of the voltage you get when you look across a single pair of batteries with that very same wire between them. Plus 24 Volts DC.
Humbugger
P.S. You seem to think I'm against free energy, Rosemary. You might be surprised to learn I use an electric car (100% not hybrid) that gets most of its charging from solar panels on my roof for getting around town. I love the idea of free energy and have done lots of work to help bring free energy to remote locations in India for pumping deep-well water with solar panels.
The little beach-house I'm putting together down in Mexico will be entirely off-grid and use wind plus solar and maybe even tidal currents to produce energy. The roof will collect warm rainwater from the daily downpour that lasts about an hour most every day. I'm working on the details of an all-electric boat as well, for getting free nutritional energy from fish and spiny lobster...every day.
Believe me, I'm all for ditching big oil, big nuclear, big pharma, big agra...all of it. I hate the system of slavery that takes us all away from nature and satisfying our needs as directly and self-reliantly as possible.
golly guys. I've just had the batteries catch fire. Connecting leads vaporised. How's that for proof of energy. I was careless with one of those connections - I think. Not actually sure what happened. I'll test their voltage again when I've settled my nerves a bit.
Good heavens. I've heard about this happening. Never actually seen it.
Regards,
Rosemary
Quote from: Rosemary Ainslie on April 09, 2011, 02:37:37 AM
golly guys. I've just had the batteries catch fire. Connecting leads vaporised. How's that for proof of energy. I was careless with one of those connections - I think. Not actually sure what happened. I'll test their voltage again when I've settled my nerves a bit.
Good heavens. I've heard about this happening. Never actually seen it.
Regards,
Rosemary
You might want to throw in a few well-placed fuses, maybe 10 Amps rated, in your battery wiring there Rosemary. DC arcing can be very dangerous and your batteries hold enough juice to do some real damage.
Humbugger
hi Rosemary
...battery caught fire?
no - you must be imagining it**!!!! ;) LOL
hope you & equipment all ok!
(** Poynt99 will simulate your circuit again later... i'm sure he'll be able to assure you that your battery could not possibly catch fire)
thought you might be interested in the following link about recent discoveries relating to magnetic 'current' (if you haven't already seen it):
http://www.sciencenews.org/view/generic/id/69822/title/Magnetricity_behaves_like_electricity
PS it would be helpful (and responsible!) to people attempting replications of your system to make them aware of any other issues which you've found which have resulted in damage to components and/or equipment
kind regards
np
http://docsfreelunch.blogspot.com (http://docsfreelunch.blogspot.com)
Hi Rosemary,
I can't remember if you were using vented or sealed batteries, but let me share a little insight. I have a 640W solar array on my roof. It charges 1600Ah of vented lead acid L-16 batteries. Once a month, the charge controller will bump up the voltage and boil the batteries a little bit, cleaning sulfation off the plates in the process. Consequently, once a month, I need to add a total of a gallon or so of distilled water to the 24 individual cells.
This was designed to run a specially optimized computer network in off-grid situations. There is a little headroom left after the load is applied... 2A of continuous use worth, on average. When I started building pulse motors and other aetheric based power devices, I used this free source of energy as my dipole to work from. After about a year of such research, I am noticing that I need 2 gallons per month to top off the batteries. Further, I am noticing that battery voltage stays higher than ever after sundown, and for longer. Mind you, these batteries are pushing 6 years old, and I have never configured them to be charged by the radiant pulses... only to supply the source dipole.
One of my pulse motors in particular can push the voltage of smaller batteries too high. If you leave a small SLA on for too long... bye bye battery. I suspect the same "boiling" is happening until there is no viable electrolyte left.
What really tipped me off to what was happening, and what is obviously happening with your circuit was when I paralleled a 20V 1F capacitor with the 12V bus on my bench, which is paralleled by 30 feet or so of #14 AWG to the battery bank described above. This particular cap was made for car audio, and has a digital voltmeter built into it. I also have a remote display for the solar charge controller, that shows the voltage at the battery terminals. To my surprise, with several pulse motors running, the cap showed a higher voltage than the batteries. It occured to me that energy was essentially radiating in all directions possible out of those circuits, including back into the source dipole. It took some head scratching to figure out just what was going on. Now, I just smile, and add that extra gallon of water to the batteries every month. I hope that helps;)
Cheers,
Twinbeard.
Quote from: Rosemary Ainslie on April 09, 2011, 02:37:37 AM
golly guys. I've just had the batteries catch fire. Connecting leads vaporised. How's that for proof of energy. I was careless with one of those connections - I think. Not actually sure what happened. e I'll test their voltage again when I've settled my nerves a bit.
Good heavens. I've heard about this happening. Never actually seen it.
Regards,
Rosemary
Quote from: Rosemary Ainslie on April 09, 2011, 12:39:11 AM
I could not get near to balancing that wattage dissipated/delivered number that I was looking for. In fact, so embarrassed was I by these results that I simply omitted them from my report.
Well right there is a damning statement direct from your own lips. You could not get the number you were looking for from the results so you omitted those "spurious" results from your report. This is generally considered amongst scientists with integrity to be "rigging the results to fit an agenda". Now we have proof you were knowingly and deliberately engaged in this. Thankyou.
Quote from: Rosemary Ainslie on April 08, 2011, 11:44:20 PM
What's happened to all that integrity? It's a sad day when you have to invent facts to duck an open admission of error.
Quote from: Rosemary Ainslie on April 09, 2011, 02:37:37 AM
golly guys. I've just had the batteries catch fire. Connecting leads vaporised. How's that for proof of energy. I was careless with one of those connections - I think. Not actually sure what happened. I'll test their voltage again when I've settled my nerves a bit.
Good heavens. I've heard about this happening. Never actually seen it.
OK... So your using the fact that your sealed maintenance free silver calcium batteries caught fire as "proof of energy". Yes Rosemary, a battery contains energy ;)
I have seen this lots of times in these types of batteries, it is not uncommon. Normally it is not caused by incompetent wiring, as the people who work on these batteries know what they are doing, as it's dangerous! These batteries are perfectly capable of catching fire in a standard DC circuit that is COP<1.
So what "proof of energy" are you implying ?
Oh yeah, you have typed lots of words and completely ignored Cheeseburgers perfectly valid questions in reply #527. Why ?
RM :)
Quote from: nul-points on April 09, 2011, 04:24:41 AM
hi Rosemary
(** Poynt99 will simulate your circuit again later... i'm sure he'll be able to assure you that your battery could not possibly catch fire)
thought you might be interested in the following link about recent discoveries relating to magnetic 'current' (if you haven't already seen it):
http://www.sciencenews.org/view/generic/id/69822/title/Magnetricity_behaves_like_electricity
PS it would be helpful (and responsible!) to people attempting replications of your system to make them aware of any other issues which you've found which have resulted in damage to components and/or equipment
kind regards
np
http://docsfreelunch.blogspot.com (http://docsfreelunch.blogspot.com)
Hello nul-points. I'm going to photograph the damage to my crocodile clips. It's wild. Gave me a bit of a heart attack.
I've read that article. But thanks for reminding me. Magnetic fields are the entire foundation of the thesis. But - theory is not of much interest here. But nor does it matter. Just as long as the experimental evidence is taken into account.
The thought of Poynty duplicating my test is laughable. I'm inclined to predict he'll possibly find a loss. Curious to see what scope he uses - or if he's going to measure everything with a DMM. Anyway - we'll see.
It seems that Hamburger did NOT put up that blogspot to invite comments against me. Greatly encouraged. I know that he always tells the truth. If I can find a link about this I'll repost it. His general integrity and honesty is something I've dealt with in the past. I am now getting the general impression that he actually rather likes me. He just hides it well. Golly. What a relief. :o ::)
Take care nul-points
Kindest regards,
;D
Rosemary
btw - regarding a list of the possible dangers in this apparatus of ours. The biggest hazard is leaving me alone with all those switches. Fortunately I'd just disconnected the scope probe. and the lead to the apparatus. I think I must have disconnected something wrongly - or touched something. Just don't know. BUT I'll see if I can prepare a schedule of what to look out for. Just know it's pretty comprehensive list because I'm hopelessly myopic.
Quote from: twinbeard on April 09, 2011, 04:54:09 AM
Hi Rosemary,
I can't remember if you were using vented or sealed batteries, but let me share a little insight. I have a 640W solar array on my roof. It charges 1600Ah of vented lead acid L-16 batteries. Once a month, the charge controller will bump up the voltage and boil the batteries a little bit, cleaning sulfation off the plates in the process. Consequently, once a month, I need to add a total of a gallon or so of distilled water to the 24 individual cells.
This was designed to run a specially optimized computer network in off-grid situations. There is a little headroom left after the load is applied... 2A of continuous use worth, on average. When I started building pulse motors and other aetheric based power devices, I used this free source of energy as my dipole to work from. After about a year of such research, I am noticing that I need 2 gallons per month to top off the batteries. Further, I am noticing that battery voltage stays higher than ever after sundown, and for longer. Mind you, these batteries are pushing 6 years old, and I have never configured them to be charged by the radiant pulses... only to supply the source dipole.
One of my pulse motors in particular can push the voltage of smaller batteries too high. If you leave a small SLA on for too long... bye bye battery. I suspect the same "boiling" is happening until there is no viable electrolyte left.
What really tipped me off to what was happening, and what is obviously happening with your circuit was when I paralleled a 20V 1F capacitor with the 12V bus on my bench, which is paralleled by 30 feet or so of #14 AWG to the battery bank described above. This particular cap was made for car audio, and has a digital voltmeter built into it. I also have a remote display for the solar charge controller, that shows the voltage at the battery terminals. To my surprise, with several pulse motors running, the cap showed a higher voltage than the batteries. It occured to me that energy was essentially radiating in all directions possible out of those circuits, including back into the source dipole. It took some head scratching to figure out just what was going on. Now, I just smile, and add that extra gallon of water to the batteries every month. I hope that helps;)
Cheers,
Twinbeard.
Hi Twin. So IMPRESSED. I never realised you'd had the good sense to disconnect from the grid. I will follow in your footsteps when we can get our appliance onto our hot water requirements. Can't wait. But I'm miles away from that. SO NICE TO READ THIS. Well done.
We've got those sealed battery numbers. I'm just hoping against hope that we haven't buckled the plates. It maybe ok as the plastic covers seem OK. Just liberally impregnated with molten metal from our crocodile clips. That was a wild 30 seconds or so.
Take care and always a pleasure to see you around.
Kindest regards,
Rosemary
Hello evolvingape. I trust your general reach towards an evolutionary excellence is still on the cards?
I don't think I have EVER misrepresented our data. But if I do - then I'm sure you'll tell me about it. And I can rest easy here because you're prepared to tell us that we've misrepresented things EVEN when we HAVEN'T. So. I'll leave all this in your capable hands.
Look after yourself evolvingape. We need your caliber of posting. Reminds us all how far we've come in this long walk from the primitive to the rational mind. Not sure which of the two you exemplify. But either way - it's always a timely reminder of how far we still have to go.
Kindest regards,
Rosemary
;D :o
Quote from: Rosemary Ainslie on April 09, 2011, 12:39:11 AM
I could not get near to balancing that wattage dissipated/delivered number that I was looking for. In fact, so embarrassed was I by these results that I simply omitted them from my report.
If you think that a deliberate and knowing omission of results in a published report intended to provide evidence to support a claim is not a misrepresentation of the facts then you do not understand the meaning of the word.
http://www.thefreedictionary.com/misrepresent
1. To give an incorrect or misleading representation of.As a result of this deliberate omission of fact it has taken over 500 replies in this thread, and a considerable amount of peoples time, to resolve the matter and establish it was an artifact of the measurement process.
Furthermore, I notice you have resorted completely to personal attacks on myself and my avatar, yet again. No attempt to resolve issues, or honestly answer legitimate questions. Why ?
RM :)
Hello again evolvingape.
I am not sure that I'm under any obligation anywhere at all to answer yours or anyone's posts. Nor will I.
Rosemary
Quote from: nul-points on April 09, 2011, 04:24:41 AM
...battery caught fire?
no - you must be imagining it**!!!! ;) LOL
hope you & equipment all ok!
(** Poynt99 will simulate your circuit again later... i'm sure he'll be able to assure you that your battery could not possibly catch fire)
hi Rosemary, glad to hear you didn't get burned
that was just a good-natured 'poke' at Poynt99 - imagining him trying to simulate your battery on fire
thanks for letting us know that the recent problem with the system isn't likely to be a component or equipment hazard for replicators
regards
np
http://docsfreelunch.blogspot.com (http://docsfreelunch.blogspot.com)
Quote from: nul-points on April 09, 2011, 09:24:54 AM
thanks for letting us know that the recent problem with the system isn't likely to be a component or equipment hazard for replicators
regards
np
http://docsfreelunch.blogspot.com (http://docsfreelunch.blogspot.com)
Hi np,
In my opinion it is not guaranteed that there is not a danger from this circuit being used with these types of battery.
If the claims to battery recharging are proven to be correct then this charging is also
unregulated and could prove dangerous after extended periods of time.
I have personally seen, on more than one occasion, sealed maintenance free batteries that have
EXPLODED shedding the casing and electrolyte everywhere. I have seen this because I was the engineer sent to clean up the mess and fix it.
This happened in regulated DC circuits under normal use.
So just be mindfull that these batteries are in no ways considered 100% safe, especially with an unregulated charging circuit operational.
RM :)
Ok guys. The following two downloads show the two different probe positions. The one on the battery and the other on the breadboard. I'll download and then point out which is which - if it's not obvious already.
PLEASE NOTE - both waveforms substantially the same. Just a variation in volume, so to speak.
Strange little variation of the usual waveform. I didn't bother to tune it. I just took the first evidence of that extended oscillation. So. It's NOT optimised. I'll fine tune it all again, when and if my batteries are tested. Feeling a bit too nervous to use them at the moment because I'm not sure if the plates have been damaged.
Kindest regards,
Rosemary
Ok - peak to peak on the first is plus/minus 200 volts and the second is plus/minus 100 volts. That's a pretty large difference. I'll get back here with the spreadsheet data when I've done this.
RESULTS on first - 22.692908 watts (NOT SURE HOW TO SHOW A NEGATIVE WATTAGE) :o
RESULTS on second - 14.514204 watts (STILL NOT SURE HOW TO SHOW THAT 'n' WORD.)
Heat dissipated on both tests show plus/minus 7 watts - but there's enough enough heat on the FET's and the heat sinks to possibly add another 7 watts. So. NEARLY THERE.
AND FINALLY - AS EVER
A channel 1 - CSR
B channel 2 - VBATT
C channel 3 - GATE
D channel 4 - DRAIN (here used for the math trace. Math trace is product of CHANNEL 1 AND 2)
Quote from: nul-points on April 09, 2011, 09:24:54 AM
hi Rosemary, glad to hear you didn't get burned
that was just a good-natured 'poke' at Poynt99 - imagining him trying to simulate your battery on fire
thanks for letting us know that the recent problem with the system isn't likely to be a component or equipment hazard for replicators
regards
np
http://docsfreelunch.blogspot.com (http://docsfreelunch.blogspot.com)
Hi again NP. I actually thought you were alerting me to an intended replication by Poynty Point. ::) I'm slow nul-points. Really slow. LOL.
Take care. I've gone through that link again. Very interesting. Looking forward to the time when it's seen as the WHOLE of the evidence. There's absolutely NO evidence of electrons forming current flow - anywhere.
Kindest as ever,
Rosemary.
Okay...two different tests, two radically different input power reports, same output heat in load. Only difference in the two tests is where the probes were placed.
As a scientist, what does this tell you, Rosemary? The probe placement is certainly not changing the performance of the actual circuit, is it? Only changes the measurement. Which of the two measurements is correct? Both? Neither?
You should really think hard about this essential question. It is extremely key to solving the mystery here. Far more important than any of the more detailed questions below.
There are three other questions that arise in my mind from looking at the scope pictures and the numbers you present.
1) How do the wattage numbers you give relate to any of the numbers shown on the scope face? Can you explain how the numbers are derived. They don't seem to be related to the scope's reported numbers in any way I can see.
2) I notice that the VV red multiply trace seems to never go above the zero line, yet the "battery" trace is always above zero and the other argument of the multiply, the shunt trace, goes both above and below zero. So there are clearly times when both numbers being multiplied are positive, yet the product is always negative. This doesn't make any sense.
3) Is there a reason you are using Cycle Mean instead of Mean on the current shunt trace? What is that reason?
Humbugger
Rose:
Yes, it is spam and has been reported to Stefan. It will be taken care of in due course. I have deleted these posts in the areas that I can. Stefan has been pretty busy as of late but, he will take care of it.
Bill
Hi all. Hope I got it. The fire dragon bit the croc.
Quote from: cHeeseburger on April 09, 2011, 02:40:31 PM
2) I notice that the VV red multiply trace seems to never go above the zero line, yet the "battery" trace is always above zero and the other argument of the multiply, the shunt trace, goes both above and below zero. So there are clearly times when both numbers being multiplied are positive, yet the product is always negative. This doesn't make any sense.
Yes, looks like the scope is set wrongly or is broken.
The red line should also go symmetrically around the zero line as the
orange shunt voltage line.
So the Multiplication channel is displaying wrong values.
Quote from: hartiberlin on April 10, 2011, 04:38:57 PM
Yes, looks like the scope is set wrongly or is broken.
The red line should also go symmetrically around the zero line as the
orange shunt voltage line.
So the Multiplication channel is displaying wrong values.
Stefan - WHAT are you trying to say? The math trace is the PRODUCT OF THE CSR AND THE BATTERY VOLTAGE. It is showing that product over a 500 000 sample range. It is absolutely consistent with the graph off the spreadsheet. I have NO IDEA what you're objecting to. Perhaps I should have shown the math trace more enlarged. It most certainly 'goes around' the zero crossing if that's what's worrying you.
Why do I get the impression that you're supporting the vapid objections that Cheeseburger keeps posing? The settings on the scope meter are ASBSOLUTELY CORRECT. Rather ask what they are than STATE that they're wrong. Next time I'll take the trouble to down load all those settings and show them to you. Good gracious. It's one thing to check if they're right or wrong. It's an entirely different thing to STATE that they're wrong. If you know this much then you must state WHERE they're wrong. It's Poynty's and Cheeseburgers enduring hope that there's a fault with the measurements. Do you share this hope? If so, as mentioned - I be very happy to disabuse you of any such hopes. It's very easy to show all the settings on that little scopemeter. When I've had those batteries checked out I will do so.
Again.
Rosemary
Added.
And may I add that IF they are WRONG then the TEKTRONIX is ALSO ALWAYS WRONG. Its numbers were always consistent with the LeCroy. And I doubt that either company would then be quite so ready to offer the guarantees of accuracy - if they could so easily be WRONG. It seems that all measurements are WRONG and ONLY your 'impressions' are right? It's curious.
Yet again
Rosemary
And may I remind you that the whole purpose of that exercise was to PROVE that the voltage across the battery retains that same really robust oscillation that Poynty and you and Humbugger and just about all the detractors ASSURED the readers here - would - IN FACT - FLATLINE?? I think Poynty's term was 'ripple' which was, at best, a rather inadequate euphemism. It most certainly DOES NOT FLATLINE and there is NO EVIDENT RIPPLE.
I'm rather looking forward to an acknowledgement of this fact. And I'm rather disappointed that it's not been forthcoming. I've always claimed a real danger in posting on these forums. One hopes for an impartial evaluation. What I see is anxious denial wherever you so called experts can manage it and then - based statements that are really easy to disprove. This claim of a 'ripple' is just one example.
May I again draw your attention to the phase angles of those voltages. If you dig deep you'll resolve that 'zero crossing' at that point.
Rosemary
Guys - I get it that we're all looking to find some means to defeat this energy crisis. We're looking to the final depletion of all that oil that's fuelled our 1st world countries - certainly since the Industrial Revolution. Its been the abundant source of energy that's provided our middle classes, globally with a rich and profligate excess of energy and wealth. And without all that cheap fuel then we're looking to face up to certain really unwelcome austerities. It will certainly introduce some chaotic instability in our financial and - probably also - in our social structures.
That's what these forums are all about - I would have thought. That's on one level. On the other level is the 'gathering' of some really good minds to see where and if we can exceed all those traditional constraints. We all sort of share a quest to test some fundamental restrictions on the transfer of energy.
Then too we've also assumed that our forum owners are equally anxious to find such solutions. Energetic Forum have dedicated whole chapters to this, as has Overunity Research and here on Stefan's forum. But I wonder too - at the sincerity of that reach. Does energetic forum simply advance the sale of some really bad science dressed up as some kind of esoteric answers to satisfy an eccentric fringe of society - and then enjoy that revenue? And could it be that OUR.com is simply dedicated to denying the evidence of overunity - because that, in truth - is all it ever does? And how committed is Stefan to finding solutions - when he too is so quick to deny the evidence on really, really thin grounds. I think what I'm asking is this. Stefan enjoys advertising revenues. Would there be a continuing need for these or any forums if Overunity was proved? Done and dusted? I'm not so sure.
So. I think the time has come that we put this sincerity to the test. IF we are to take Stefan's credentials at face value then I'm entirely satisfied that he would be well able to measure and assess just about any experiment in order to evaluate its efficiency. And IF he then finds any value that is, indeed, in excess of unity - then he would also be well able to promote some kind of application to capitalise on that technology. More to the point. One would expect him to bend over backwards to advance the use of that technology. And in the light of the dire need for cheap and clean and green - then he would also be strongly committed to doing his damndest to make very sure that everyone within reach would hear of this.
Therefore - this is a public CHALLENGE to him to get into a plane and come to Cape Town South Africa - and CHECK OUT OUR EXPERIMENTAL EVIDENCE. The cost of that plane ticket will be a drop in the ocean compared to the potential return he should be able to make if there is even a 'grain' of truth in our claims. As it is we've waived any rights to any kind of 'reward'. Perhaps he can fund this from this budget. This offer is made on the full understanding that he is free to progress this technology in any way he requires and that no-one on our team will challenge this right. On the contrary. We're rather anxious to promote it. In the event that he takes this trip and then discovers that there is NO TRUTH in our evidence - then I will personally, here, undertake to refund him the cost of the plane trip.
So. Stefan Hartman - that's my offer. It is all here for the viewing. Come and see it. What I've reported on these threads and on ALL these forums - IS PRECISELY THAT WE HAVE GOT INFINITE COP and that it is experimentally measurable and repeatable. All you need to do is check out if we're telling the truth. And if you are sincerely interested in advancing 'clean green' then I'm reasonably certain that you'd want to check out the facts.
May I remind you. We are not talking about little dribbles of wattage. It is EASILY able to produce enough energy to make applications immediately viable. And you can come out ANY TIME YOU LIKE. I would be able to accommodate you and your girlfriend - most comfortably - and you would then be able to spend as long as you want over that apparatus to determine its efficiency for yourself.
What I find absolutely reprehensible is that you continue with this DENIAL where you affront - not only my own veracity - but the competence of our team members.
Rosemary
Quote from: Rosemary Ainslie on April 10, 2011, 05:34:44 PM
And may I remind you that the whole purpose of that exercise was to PROVE that the voltage across the battery retains that same really robust oscillation that Poynty and you and Humbugger and just about all the detractors ASSURED the readers here - would - IN FACT - FLATLINE?? I think Poynty's term was 'ripple' which was, at best, a rather inadequate euphemism. It most certainly DOES NOT FLATLINE and there is NO EVIDENT RIPPLE.
I'm rather looking forward to an acknowledgement of this fact. And I'm rather disappointed that it's not been forthcoming. I've always claimed a real danger in posting on these forums. One hopes for an impartial evaluation. What I see is anxious denial wherever you so called experts can manage it and then - based statements that are really easy to disprove. This claim of a 'ripple' is just one example.
May I again draw your attention to the phase angles of those voltages. If you dig deep you'll resolve that 'zero crossing' at that point.
Rosemary
Please go back and read my posts again. It has been acknowledged and your tests clearly show it, that the AC voltage you see on your battery measurement is a direct function of how much total wiring length is included in the loop. When you removed 1/2 of the wiring, the AC voltage reduced in half. I have suggested two ways to prove to yourself that essentially all of the AC voltage you see is across the wires and not across the batteries themselves.
You have not tried those tests or have not reported on them if you have. Nor have you answered any of the straightforward questions I have asked. Stefan and I have simply noticed that your multiply trace is showing negative results when both inputs are positive samples. Does this not seem wrong to you?
Doesn't that fact that you get entirely different input power results when you move the scope probes around cause you to wonder which set of results, if either, is correct? None of these observations is "vapid". On the contrary, they are key observations that any scientist would need to address satisfactorily before basing conclusions thereon.
Humbugger
Quote from: hartiberlin on April 10, 2011, 04:38:57 PM
Yes, looks like the scope is set wrongly or is broken.
The red line should also go symmetrically around the zero line as the
orange shunt voltage line.
So the Multiplication channel is displaying wrong values.
IMHO the scope shots and measurement values seem fine. What is happening here is that there is limited display area reserved for each trace and what we see here is just clipping of the graphics. If you look at it closely, there is this boundary clipping line present in other traces as well not just the red one...
Well - I've not lost sleep over it - but I'm wondering if I'll ever get an answer to that challenge. If I don't then WHAT can we conclude? I would have thought that it's a relatively easy thing to determine whether or not our claim is valid - whether or not the measurements are consistent with that claim - and whether or not those measurements are an accurate reflection of what is happening. And in the light of all this INTEREST in over unity - I would have thought that Harti would be most anxious to confirm this - one way or another. Surely it's not every day that experimenters can show COP infinity?
So Harti. How about it? Surely the ONLY way forward now would be to see this for yourself. That way you can put paid to our evidence - OR NOT. Whichever becomes evident. Just know that you will not be allowed to impose non classical assumptions. We're depending on standard protocols for measurement. Else like Poynty et al - you're just moving the goal posts.
And guys - Poynty has, indeed, done some tests. What a joke. Still not sure if it's a simulated test or a real bench test - but he's showing NOTHING. Just claiming preliminary results which, predictably - are based on AVERAGING. I wonder if anyone is ever going to advise him that NO self-respecting scientist would be prepared to base his reputation on averaging results from a switching circuit. GROSSLY erroneous and yet drawing endless applause from his acolytes. What's new?
Rosemary
And may I add - I'm now becoming seriously concerned that these forums are NOT intended to promote but rather to frustrate over unity claims - under the banner excuse of 'extraordinary proof' required for 'extraordinary claim's. I am entirely satisfied that Poynty's mission in life is to deny this on any and every basis that he wants and that MileHigh and Humbugger are equally well motivated.
Also Harti - you stated that our MEASUREMENTS ARE WRONG. Kindly advise me WHERE they're wrong. That's a strong statement. I just wonder that you can make it without some kind of ligitimate REASON. One hopes that all this hard work of ours is not DIMINISHED on these forums by the careless or reckless assessment of respected members - without first ensuring some reasonable level of due diligence. I hope that your intention is not to do this. We who are honestly sharing our knowledge through open source - would be ill advised to publish any results here if we thought, for ONE MINUTE, that you were oblivious to the harm you could do us by such unprofessional and unsubstantiated statements. One could almost think that you WANTED the math trace to remain below zero. That you were looking for a reason to dismiss these results. Surely not? You always seem to want to explore all possible solutions to resolve our energy crisis.
ALSO - you seem to dispense with any attempt at politeness when you answer my posts. I would have to first be entirely insensitive not to notice the RUDENESS of your address. And it certinly is NOT just you manner - as I see you bend over backwards to extend a polite address to others. Is there some justification to this? I would have thought that my efforts would - at it's least - deserve something more thorough than that supeficial assessment followed by that complete dismissal?
So. Let me - for now - assume that you're just inclined to be rather blunt - and let me see if I can emulate you. If you think I'm lying then COME AND CHECK OUT THE FACTS FOR YOURSELF. It'll cost you a plane ticket. If you're wrong then you can make up the cost of that air ticket in promoting applications. If you're right I'll refund you that cost. I can't be fairer than that.
Rosemary
I don't see any rudeness at all, not from Stefan, not from me, not from anyone. All of us are just being factual and pointing out things that don't add up or make sense. Everyone who has made comments critical of the measurements has given their reasoning and asked you to address specific questions, which you have ignored.
I have repeatedly suggested that you consult with a LeCroy or Tektronix Applications Engineer regarding your use of the scopes. You ignore that advice. What has been shown here lately is that the numbers you are getting for input power are hugely dependent on where you place your probes. This should be a big red flag to you that tells you the measurements and results are not trustworthy.
Now you seem to be exploding into a tirade of rage and insults against Stefan just because he agreed with my observation that the scope math trace is clearly producing negative numbers when multiplying two positive samples. That obviously is impossible and represents a gross error. We don't know why that is happening but anyone who took second grade arithmetic knows that two positive numbers multiplied together cannot produce a negative product.
It would behoove you to talk to your oscilloscope manufacturer until the solution to this gross and obvious error is found and corrected.
Regarding using averages, you keep screaming that no scientist uses averages in switching circuits, yet every one of your scope traces is set up to report an average or "mean" of some type. They always have been. Your extensive spreadsheet math is also entirely intended to obtain an average value.
The only legitimate question is whether the averaging should be done before or after the multiplying. In the case where the supply voltage is a fixed steady DC number as in your case using batteries, the question is moot. You have just witnessed the fact that the AC voltage you are seeing "on the batteries" is directly proportional to the length of the battery wiring you include in the measurement. That AC voltage is not part of the battery voltage and is entirely due to di/dt in the battery wiring itself. It has no bearing on input power.
Don't keep killing the messengers, Rosemary. The messages are what's important and they are real and true and quite valid. Your measurements and results are not representing the actual power input of your setup. Period. You need to correct that if you are to attain any valid test results.
Humbugger
Dear Rosemary,
Do not get frustrated. You are working on resonance circuits which are difficult to understand and reproduce. There will be unfamiliar waveforms. Poynt99 and MileHigh totally dismissed my FLEET waveforms also - claiming that those are wrong and worthless. They are NOT qualified and WRONG.
Posting on the Internet is different from submitting to established academic journals. In established academic journals, they have qualified reviewers. Just ignore the comments on the Internet and continue your good work with your team.
The TRUTH cannot be suppressed forever. You can check the Lee-Tseung Lead-out/bring-in energy theory thread at energetic forum for the detailed theory on LCR circuit resonance. There is
no mystery in your resonance circuit bringing-in electron motion energy.
Lawrence
Quote from: ltseung888;136963 Quick Summary of the three Divine Revelations
Revelation 1 â€" Bringing-in kinetic energy of air molecules. This is the simplest of all the experiments and such experiments have been done thousands of times already. Strike one tuning fork. One or more identical tuning forks nearby will go into sympathetic vibrations. The resulting sound is louder and last longer. The extra sound energy comes from the kinetic energy of air molecules. Resonance condition is required. At present, this Revelation is used for theoretical understanding. No product based on this Revelation is planned.
Revelation 2 â€" Bringing-in gravitational or magnetic energy. A horizontally pulse-pushed pendulum can bring-in gravitation energy. The COP for small angles is approximately 1.5. So long as there is tension in the string, gravitational energy can be brought-in. If we replace the pendulum bob with a magnet and place other magnets around, we can bring-in magnetic energy. Magnetic energy is better because it can be greater, have different directions and can be turned on or off. The oscillation can be replaced by pulsed rotation (resonance pulsing). The secret is in the exact turning on and off of the pulsing that depends on the load. Precision engineering and computer programming is needed for best results. Examples include Tong, Newman, Bedini, Adams, Wang, Liang, 225 HP wheels, etc.
Revelation 3 â€" Bringing-in Electron Motion Energy. We can use LCR circuits to produce resonance or oscillation circuits. A LCR circuit can be thought of as a tuning fork. We can have multiple LCR circuits in resonance and electron motion energy can be brought-in. The use of two oscilloscopes to display Input and Output waveforms and Power simultaneously is best. Examples include FLEET, Joule Ringer, Steven Mark Device, Stan Meyer HHO generator, Rosemary Circuit etc. This line of products is expected to mushroom quickly as it has no moving parts and the size can be much smaller.:cheers:
With the three Divine Revelations, the mystery of Bring-in Energy devices is clarified. The water has been turned into wine. We just need more servers to interpret and produce products for the Masses. Amen.
Lawrence. Thank you for your encouragement - but please do NOT assume that there is any similarity between your thinking and the thinking behind this circuit of ours. They are diametrically opposed. And I do not have the benefit of God's personal endorsement as you seem to enjoy. For now the thesis is based on logical argument and NONE OF IT MINE. I have just introduced some minor variations to a 'field' - that can, perhaps be considered non classical.
So. I'm genuinely delighted to have your words of encouragement. By the same token I am alarmed to think that you assume this is all intended show whatever it is that you think is responsible for whatever over untiy your own circuit may have shown. I absolutely do not agree that electrons have anything whatsoever to do with current flow. For you to promote your own thinking here shows an entire disrespect for the work that I've done and the circuit that we've used to prove this.
Nor am I about to get into a dialogue with you on this. It is entirely irrelevant to the interests of our forum members and - right now - I am trying to promote results that defy classical restraints. That's hard enough to do - all on its own. I've told you all this before. Perhaps you could take the trouble to get more familiar with my own thinking here - starting with the attached.
Thank you
Rosemary
http://newlightondarkenergy.blogspot.com/2011/04/101-repost-of-8-inconvenient-truth.html
and here's another that may be more to the point
http://newlightondarkenergy.blogspot.com/2011/01/33-in-general-and-in-particular.html
And lest any of you read these links and think that I'm not a classicist - here's yet another.
http://newlightondarkenergy.blogspot.com/2010/11/belated-tribute-to-our-scientists.html
From Rose's blog:
"2 - I will not filter anything. It will interfere with that required oscillation. I realise that's what you and Poynty et al - require. I'm not about to oblige you."
Once again, solid technical advice is misinterpreted. Inserting a simple RC filtering circuit either off the battery voltage or CSR voltage measuring points will have very little effect, if any, on the circuit's oscillations.
To prove the point while monitoring with the scope probe, insert a RC network, and begin with a 10M resistor value. Incrementally decrease the value of the resistor say from 10M, 1M, 100k, 10k, 1k. Do the oscillations change at all?
.99
Quote from: Rosemary Ainslie on April 11, 2011, 07:41:51 AM
I absolutely do not agree that electrons have anything whatsoever to do with current flow.
This part blows my mind a little bit. I sort of figure that the entire reason we can even have this discussion on the Internet is that scientists have figured out how to properly control electrons in integrated circuits. They are making circuits about 10 atoms wide and so I think they must have a pretty good idea of what's going on, since CPUs and other micro circuits work pretty much as expected.
If electricity is not the flow of electrons, what do you propose it is? This really does blow my mind and if you could point to some research you have done establishing this I would greatly appreciate it.
Quote from: utilitarian on April 11, 2011, 10:41:34 AM
This part blows my mind a little bit. I sort of figure that the entire reason we can even have this discussion on the Internet is that scientists have figured out how to properly control electrons in integrated circuits. They are making circuits about 10 atoms wide and so I think they must have a pretty good idea of what's going on, since CPUs and other micro circuits work pretty much as expected.
If electricity is not the flow of electrons, what do you propose it is? This really does blow my mind and if you could point to some research you have done establishing this I would greatly appreciate it.
Utilitarian - AT LAST A GOOD QUESTION. Thank you. I keep pointing to my links and to my blog. If you're really interested then it's all there. I'll take the liberty of reposting those links. I assure you that there's nothing wrong with what scientists know and measure as electrons. I am NOT disputing their existence - as has been widely assumed. I am just disputing that they're the carrier particle of electromagnetic forces. Believe it or not - there's a respectable school of theoreticians that deny that electrons can be the material property of current flow. It's just that they do not, as a rule, speak up that loudly - and they're very much in a minority. I can give you two names - at least - where it's acknowledged that the use of this is simply to assist in conceptual grasps of the general concepts related to current flow.
Here's my own discourse on this - again
http://newlightondarkenergy.blogspot.com/2011/04/101-repost-of-8-inconvenient-truth.html
And if you're up for it - here's the thesis - or possibly better described as the concepts related to the field model.
http://newlightondarkenergy.blogspot.com/2011/03/98-model.html
I might add that Poynty et al rely on this refutation to remind all and sundry that I must be both deluded and dimwitted. Little do they realise that to support the concept of electron current flow is to support something that has absolutely NO logical foundation. It's just one of those many aspects of physics that have been brushed under the carpet - not by our theoreticians so much - but by our electrical engineers. And I am not sure that their skills are theoretical - as a rule. The fact is that no-one has ever been able to determine what material is responsible for current flow. It's possibly best referred to as 'charge'. Or safest to refer to it as charge. My own take is that it's magnetic dipolar tachyons. But I'm in a minority of possible 6 at the most.
It's a comfort to think that most new ideas were considered mad - together with their proponents. And not all new ideas were defeated by the then 'popular opinion'. So there's hope. And I think that the field model at least proposes a solution that is both self consistent and logical. But no-one's under any obligations to 'buy in'. I just offer it for consideration. Just - once you wrap your mind around this - then it's likely to point to some abundant energy sources that - thus far - have been studiously ignored. LOL
Kindest regards,
Rosemary
Quote from: hartiberlin on April 10, 2011, 04:38:57 PM
Yes, looks like the scope is set wrongly or is broken.
The red line should also go symmetrically around the zero line as the
orange shunt voltage line.
So the Multiplication channel is displaying wrong values.
And the following is to answer Harti's points here which are quite simply wrong. The fault was mine in that I did not 'extend' the math trace waveform. But it is always some compromise between the voltages of the battery and the shunt. The results here are different as they've been better tuned.
NOTE. The setting still at 50 sec's per graticule (I hope that's the term) - to show the extended duration of that parasitic oscillation in each cycle.
Kindest regards,
Rosemary
A = CHANNEL 1 - CSR CYCLE MEAN
B = CHANNEL 2 - BATTERY (DIRECTLY ACROSS THE TWO TERMINALS)
C = CHANNEL 1 - CSR MEAN AVERAGE (the question was asked)
D = MATH TRACE - PRODUCT OF VOLTAGES CSR AND BATTERY
Quote from: ltseung888 on April 11, 2011, 06:43:12 AM
Dear Rosemary,
Do not get frustrated. You are working on resonance circuits which are difficult to understand and reproduce. There will be unfamiliar waveforms. Poynt99 and MileHigh totally dismissed my FLEET waveforms also - claiming that those are wrong and worthless. They are NOT qualified and WRONG.
....
Lawrence
@ Lawrence Tseung
You are not just wrong but DELUSION-ALLY WRONG. Don't try to take credit from Rosie's 'discovery', even that is not yet conclusive. Is that why that professor of physics you so quickly vouched he will prove your COP > 200 is shying away from associating with you? He's still learning to use a DSO and to understand some electronics! His knowledge is definitely superior to your delusional talk.
@ Rosie
You've been through hundreds of posts and hitting a brick wall. Surely if you are a 100% sure, why not invite some EE department heads of good reputation universities in Cape Town to verify your results? Surely, if it was O.U by this large amount, you would have thought reputable magazines like New Scientist or Scientific American would be contacting you by now? Why not try to contact them.
cheers
chrisC
Suddenly the battery voltage has dropped by 10 Volts, the shunt trace averages are all negative now where they used to be positive and the red trace now looks somewhat more believable. Such vastly changing results...remarkable! Never the same twice...hmmm.
This shows what kinds of cherry-picked numbers can be obtained with a little tweaking when YOU ARE UNDERSAMPLING YOUR 1.5MHz BASIC WAVEFORM BY 1500x.
Notice the sampling rate is 1000 samples per second, with 500 seconds being the screen extent. 500,000 samples being taken. So ONE SINGLE SAMPLE IS BEING TAKEN ONCE EVERY 1500 CYCLES OF THE PRIMARY WAVEFORM!
You cannot measure a signal consisting of 1.5MHz oscillations by sampling at a 1kHz rate and expect an accurate measurement. Unless you are Rosemary, that is. ;D
Humbugger
Hi Rose,
I didn´t say that your system does not work.
I only said, that your multiplication scope trace seems to be wrongly
set or is set differently than we think it is set.
As I don´t know, what the scope exactly does there,
just from multiplying, it should look different.
But maybe it is also integrating any samples, so does it
do any additions over time of the sample values ?
P.S. I don´t like to fly nowadays...so I will probably don´t visit you.
P-P-S Undersampling gives wrong results.
Regards, Stefan.
Good Grief!
You're right Hum, and I've had this under-sampling go-around with Rose many moons ago. She didn't grasp the concept of the problem then, and I have my doubts she will now. The numbers are all over the place, and the poor scope doesn't have a chance at those settings. What the heck is with the perceived need to slow the PRR to 100's of seconds. ???
Here's an offer for Rose:
I will pay for you to ship your apparatus (minus the batteries and function generator) to me, at which time I will conduct proper testing of the apparatus with the proper equipment, the proper settings, and the proper change of probes if necessary.
If the apparatus proves to be OU, then I will also pay to ship it back to you. If it proves to be UU however, then you can pick up the tab for return shipment.
.99
Wow, it looks like someone was busy tonight. ::)
So Rose deleted her 3 recent posts that were chastising Hum, myself, and Stefan. ???
I hope that is a good sign. :D
.99
Quote from: poynt99 on April 11, 2011, 11:12:18 PM
Wow, it looks like someone was busy tonight. ::)
So Rose deleted her 3 recent posts that were chastising Hum, myself, and Stefan. ???
I hope that is a good sign. :D
.99
So she now understands what undersampling is?
cheers
chrisC
Quote from: utilitarian on April 11, 2011, 10:41:34 AM
snip.....
If electricity is not the flow of electrons, what do you propose it is? This really does blow my mind and if you could point to some research you have done establishing this I would greatly appreciate it.
The flow of phonons ??
A very good question really, that reveals the age old dilemna of Apollo the Greek God/Deity who thought that by giving something a name he would define it's essence.(and thus give him control over anything he defined)
Does naming something really define it's essence?
A question best answered by a poet and author such as shakespeare, with "a rose by any other name, is a rose just the same". Just substitute rose with any noun. :P
Still, even though the notion of electric current as moving electrons, has been derived from the huge amount of prior experimental observations and data, and conforms to a classical model of energy exchange, modern physics favors the notion of electricity as the motional exchange of quantum charge betweens electrons, not necessarily the motion of electrons themselves.
Me..... well, I'll keep musing on shakespeares words .. LOL
Cheers.
Quote from: hoptoad on April 11, 2011, 11:50:03 PM
The flow of phonons ??
A very good question really, that reveals the age old dilemna of Apollo the Greek God/Deity who thought that by giving something a name he would define it's essence.(and thus give him control over anything he defined)
Does naming something really define it's essence?
A question best answered by a poet and author such as shakespeare, with "a rose by any other name, is a rose just the same". Just substitute rose with any noun. :P
Still, even though the notion of electric current as moving electrons, has been derived from the huge amount of prior experimental observations and data, and conforms to a classical model of energy exchange, modern physics favors the notion of electricity as the motional exchange of quantum charge betweens electrons, not necessarily the motion of electrons themselves.
Me..... well, I'll keep musing on shakespeares words .. LOL
Cheers.
Well hoptoad.
Delighted that there are those readers here who still refer to some decent physics theory. It's been largely lost to our engineering fraternity. Just a small correction on your quote.
"What's in a name? that which we call a rose
By any other name would smell as sweet;"
And I'm not sure that the concept of current flow as the flow electrons has ever been RESOLVED experimentally. Just really widely used. But really nice to know that there are still some readers who are prepared to expose these little known truths.
Regards,
Rosemary
Guys - the following REALLY long post - possibly series of posts, (I"ll see how they pan) is to educate Poynty - Stefan and the inimitable Cheesy Hamburger - Humbugger - the cool Hot Dog, in short - also better identified as the 'Pickle' variant. He's possibly still in search of an identity - or as FuzzyTomCat refers to it - a 'screen name'. ::) ;D
This first is, (I hope) a picture of the math trace that is intended to explain that 'contracted' display that I first showed. Had I known how little these things were understood I'd have done better. Hopefully the illustrations are self explanatory. But for those who struggle - especially Poynty's dogs - including "'Pickle'" - just concentrate on the number on the bottom right hand corner. It'll show you the contraction/expansion of the same waveform - enabled by the LeCroy scope function. All that - at the turn of a button. Golly. ::)
Then - in the hopes that that lesson was understood - let me now presume to educate them on the real meaning of the term 'UNDER SAMPLE'. It'll hopefully then also serve a dual benefit of highlighting the miracle of that REALLY EXTENDED 'self-reinforced' negatively triggered and much extended oscillating waveform - NOT TO BE CONFUSED WITH A RIPPLE as Poynty needs to refer to it. So two lessons in one - so to speak.
You will notice that the this first scope shot has '50 seconds' indicated in the top left hand corner. That relates to the time in each graticule. Therefore the LeCroy has taken 4 cycles (as shown) over a total of 500 seconds - or, 500/60 8.3 minutes. 8.3 minutes / 4 cycles = 2.08 minutes per cycle. that is the absolute outside limit of the switching cycle offered by our functions generator.
This means that - it takes 2.08 minutes to complete ONE CYCLE between the 'off' and the 'on' of each switching cycle.
You will notice that the cycle and the cycle mean over the SHUNT or CSR are the same values. This because that scope shot is showing the FULL CYCLES. If it were only one partial cycle and one full cycle then the cycle mean and the mean average would have varied one from the other.
You'll also notice that the mean average voltage across the shunt as well as the cycle mean average - indicate a NEGATIVE VOLTAGE. This is because the machine, which is absolutely NOT trying to misrepresent the fact - has determined that the sum of all those voltages above and below zero - HAVE COME OUT NEGATIVE. This also means that the machine has either shared the team's delusions that more energy is being returned to the battery than delivered by the battery. Or it means that it is not deluded and that IN FACT more energy is being returned than delivered. Poynty et 'pack' - just take your pick. I'm rather indifferent to which option you all choose. If the Le Croy is sharing our delusions or even if it's reflecting the facts - either way it's a small miracle. Because it would either mean that we can telemetrically influence that machine through the function of our minds OR - DARE I SAY IT - THERMODYNAMIC LAWS HAVE BEEN DEFEATED. This because, the second law of thermodynamics STIPULATES THAT IT IS IMPOSSIBLE TO RETURN MORE ENERGY TO THE SUPPLY THAN WAS FIRST DELIVERED.
Added. Actually there's a third option. The machine may be calculating wrongly. Then - IF IT IS - it has, co-incidentally INFECTED the Tektronix that CONSISTENTLY DISPLAYED THE SAME VALUES. So. Both may be wrong. Which is not only unlikely - but it would exceed the error margin performance of both machines. THEY BOTH HAVE FULL CALIBRATION CERTIFICATION.
Here's that scope shot. It hopefully looks familiar. And hopefully I've covered the first stage of this argument.
Now. Poynty, your acolytes and Stefan, Here's the second sample. Here you'll notice that the time base has changed. Look again at the top left hand corner showing 20 S'econds'. And now you'll see that we have one complete cycle and one incomplete cycle. In other words we are now beginning to verge on an UNDER SAMPLING. Bear in mind that it takes not less than 2.08 minutes on this particular switching cycle to complete an entire cycle - this determined by the limit of the functions generator that we're now using. I hope you can manage to keep all this in mind - and that 'Pickle' is not also rather short on memory and attention span.
So. Here we have 20 seconds per graticule X 10 graticules = 200 seconds / 60 = 3.33 minutes. Each cycle takes 2.08 minutes - therefore 3.33/2.08 - 1.6 complete cycles. ONLY 1 FULL SAMPLE. The second cycle has been truncated. IT has been UNDERSAMPLED. Hopefully you're beginning to get the picture.
added
I had better point this out or there will again be a HOWL OF DENIAL. Neither sample is here, shown as being complete. But hopefully you'll understand that the sum of both will still represent one full cycle and one partial cycle.
And so it goes - until we ONLY get partial cycles. That will be when the sum of all the graticules in the display are anything at all short of 125 seconds or 2.08 minutes.
THAT'S UNDERSAMPLING. FROM THERE ONWARDS THE NUMBERS IN THE DISPLAY ONLY RELATE TO THE WAVEFORM DISPLAYED. THE FULL CYCLE MEASUREMENT IS NO LONGER RELEVANT. I'm finding this entire argument boring in the extreme so will simply post the balance of my samples. If there is any confusion that persists after this then I must forever give up on the expectation of any kind of expertise for these so called experts. PLEASE BEAR IN MIND that those such as Neptune and others FULLY UNDESTAND ALL THIS. WHAT IS WRONG WITH YOU POYNTY?? Are you just pretending to not understand. Or is it just a wild hope that you can convince our readers here that our results are faulted simply because they've been UNDERSAMPLED? OR. Do you even understand the term?
So Guys
How does one deal with this load of doggy doo? How does one get rid of all the excrement that results from this barrage of misinformation that you all are subjected to. How does one HIGHLIGHT the propaganda that is actually behind all this? All they do is hope against hope that perhaps - JUST PERHAPS - sooner or later either Pickle the SHORT on IQ or Poynty the Utterly Poyntless - will stumble on the right excuse to dismiss our results. Here's how I see that thinking progress - from a feeble, unsubstantiated and ENTIRELY incorrect premise to a complete conviction - in a few easy steps. And they - as a pack, Poynty and his yappers - are widely on record as stating that it's I who am delusional. Either they are - or they're hoping against hope that all the readers here are.
Quote from: poynt99 on April 11, 2011, 07:38:11 PM
Good Grief!
Here's the machinations of what is loosely referred to as his mind. You will no doubt all see the point of both surprise and delight - AT LAST - A POSSIBLE REASON TO DISMISS THIS.
'Good Grief! or Good Heavens! or Of course! Here's a reason. Maybe THE reason. Maybe they're undersampled. No. No need to check on this. They ARE UNDER SAMPLED. VERY NICE. In fact. Let me pretend that I've stumbled on this before and SPOKEN ABOUT IT ALL OVER THE PLACE. Good IDEA. Really good idea. Just hope they don't prove that I've never mentioned this before. So Here goes. Onwards and upwards so to speak. In for a penny in for pound. Fingers crossed.Then. Step 2.
Quote from: poynt99 on April 11, 2011, 07:38:11 PMYou're right Hum,
At this point the question is resolved. It's clearly the best excuse yet.
'You're right Hum, my old friend - my valiant comrade in arms against this overunity fiasco. Humby Bumby. My old Pickle - my short fuse, my diminutive friend - my friend in need and a friend in deed. And INDEED. So. My not so humble Humby Bumby you old Humbugger of noteworthy remarkably inspirational misinformation - YOU'RE RIGHT - ON THE MONEY. WELL DONE.' Here all residual doubts have been dispensed with and Poynty ploughs on with some semblance of believing his own thin argument.
Quote from: poynt99 on April 11, 2011, 07:38:11 PMand I've had this under-sampling go-around with Rose many moons ago.
THERE it is. That attitude of exasperation. And here's more on that thinking. '
All helps to emphasise Rose's recalcitrance. Not only is she moronic - but she's stubborn to boot. I'll just imply that it's the SAME AGE OLD PROBLEM. Actually I have NEVER raised this issue before with her. But what the hell. Who'll EVER FIND OUT? No-one cares enough. And just saying it will give the right impression. And when it comes to propoganda - then the truth is NEVER the issue. Just let me deal with generalisations. All that's needed. As ever. In for a penny in for a pound. Fingers crossed.'
And so the plot thickens.
Quote from: poynt99 on April 11, 2011, 07:38:11 PMShe didn't grasp the concept of the problem then, and I have my doubts she will now.
You see the problem here? It's not the fact that we've shown overunity results. It's my stupidity that is getting in the way of this well orchestrated propaganda. Clearly UNTEACHABE.
And still thickening
Quote from: poynt99 on April 11, 2011, 07:38:11 PMThe numbers are all over the place, and the poor scope doesn't have a chance at those settings.
WHAT SETTINGS? I'VE SHOWN THEM ALL. But here Poynty is hoping that no-one reading here understands the settings. If they did they'd KNOW that there's nothing wrong. And what alarms me is that there are enough who really are that unfamiliar with this that they'll BELIEVE him. It's a tragedy unfolding.
Regards guys - and just note that there's not an ounce of truth in any of Poynty's post - not this far and not ever. I'll deal with the balance of his post hereunder.
Rosemary
Quote from: poynt99 on April 11, 2011, 07:38:11 PMThe numbers are all over the place, and the poor scope doesn't have a chance at those settings. What the heck is with the perceived need to slow the PRR to 100's of seconds. ???
Not sure if I'm expected to answer this or even that you'll like the answer. But I'll give it a go.
We have a result that defies all known thermodynamic laws related to the transfer of electric energy. We have clear evidence of heat being dissipated at a load resistor with NO evident and measurable discharge of energy from the battery supply source. The measurements are taken from the most sophisticated measuring instruments available. There are NO INCORRECT SETTINGS. And the instruments themselves are perfectly calibrated and operate within known error margin ratings. Nor is there any evident undersampling as has been claimed. Proof of there being no undersampling is evident in a slew of screen shot downloads that preceded this post and entirely support this claim of infinite COP. And the Le Cory Wavejet 324 is well able to perform those measurements as required. And more to the point is that the circuit is shown to achieve a self oscillating waveform that is able to persist for extended periods without any evident decay or apparent tendancy to decay. Such self-oscillation is clearly exploitable to further enhance these remarkable results. Quote from: poynt99 on April 11, 2011, 07:38:11 PMHere's an offer for Rose:
I will pay for you to ship your apparatus (minus the batteries and function generator) to me, at which time I will conduct proper testing of the apparatus with the proper equipment, the proper settings, and the proper change of probes if necessary.
If the apparatus proves to be OU, then I will also pay to ship it back to you. If it proves to be UU however, then you can pick up the tab for return shipment.
.99
Golly. You'd at least need to understand what is meant by undersampling. And you'd need to know that you CANNOT average your voltages Poynty point. That's not good measurement protocols. LOL. And in any event, I think I'd sooner trust Lucifer than you. So. I'll pass on this offer of yours. You may have noticed that I'm rather more than a little concerned that you've got an agenda here. When you get rid of those threads on your forum that are dedicated to 'trashing me and my work' then I might think differently.
For now I strongly suspect that there is a commitment to denial that far exceeds any required impartial assessment of anything at all.
Rosemary
And Stefan - if you want to moderate me in my defense against all this propaganda - may I impose on you to prevent that propaganda in the first instance. Else it will seem that all may say and imply what they like and that I may not then defend myself. Then this young and fragile technology will be defeated. I'm sure you would not like that to happen. We all know how anxious you are to promote technologies that promote clean green. Our technology CERTAINLY does just this.
Rosemary
Quote from: Rosemary Ainslie on April 12, 2011, 12:58:55 AM
snip....
Just a small correction on your quote.
"What's in a name? that which we call a rose
By any other name would smell as sweet;"
Quite a large correction actually, (LOL - sorry shakespeare, I'll repent for eternity for such a monolithic misquote), but I see by your reply that you got my point, as the intent of the words was the same.
Trouble is, my grandpa used to say that the path to hell was full of good intentions! :P
Oh my ! :'(
Cheers
Quote from: hoptoad on April 11, 2011, 11:50:03 PM
Still, even though the notion of electric current as moving electrons, has been derived from the huge amount of prior experimental observations and data, and conforms to a classical model of energy exchange, modern physics favors the notion of electricity as the motional exchange of quantum charge betweens electrons, not necessarily the motion of electrons themselves.
P.S. - Modern physics allows for
1. the motion of electrons,or
2 the motion of their quantum charge exchange, or
3 both at the same time, depending on the medium and source of the potential difference that is forcing the energy exchange.
In solid metal conductors for example, electron flow may be better characterised as the flow of exchange of phonons between the valence electrons of the conductor. In essence, the transmission of energy by electron wavelength "sound". A compression and expansion of the valence electron's total field energy and volume, due to the exchange of quantized packets of energy, passing from electron to electron, in a similar (but not same) way to that of ordinary sound propagation.
Cheers
It's a crying pity that you went through all that trouble Rose, as not only have you simply dug yourself in deeper than ever, but you've proven what I was saying about your lack of understanding about the concept of sampling and under-sampling in terms of data acquisition.
I would encourage the readers here to wash their brains of what they just read above, and get a "sample" of the correct facts here regarding digital oscilloscope sampling and record length.
http://cp.literature.agilent.com/litweb/pdf/5989-5732EN.pdf
http://www.rocketroberts.com/techart/sigproc.htm
There is more out there, just search for it.
.99
Quote from: poynt99 on April 12, 2011, 08:51:08 AM
It's a crying pity that you went through all that trouble Rose, as not only have you simply dug yourself in deeper than ever, but you've proven what I was saying about your lack of understanding about the concept of sampling and under-sampling in terms of data acquisition.
I would encourage the readers here to wash their brains of what they just read above, and get a "sample" of the correct facts here regarding digital oscilloscope sampling and record length.
http://cp.literature.agilent.com/litweb/pdf/5989-5732EN.pdf
http://www.rocketroberts.com/techart/sigproc.htm
There is more out there, just search for it.
.99
My dear Poynty Point
Either your conceptual knowledge is weak - or you assume our own is. You are cluttering the argument with irrelevanceis. IF we are to measure that waveform - either from a data dump of the waveform onto our spreadsheets - or if we exploit those exceptional functions of the LeCroy that first show us a negative or positive 'trend' - we will ALWAYS need to include a full cycle. Anything less than this and we're into UNDERSAMPLING terrority. A full cycle on this functions generator is not as extreme as our previous. But this still manages 2.08 minutes. Nothing more complicated than that. Unfortunately. And because of the exceptional LENGTH of our own cycle here - then we need to capture - at least - a full 2.08 minutes - else we do not incorporate ALL those samples. We would then be UNDERSAMPLING. And it most CERTAINLY IS NOT UNDERSAMPLED.
When are you going to lose some of that intellectual pretension - Poynty Point? Isn't it long overdue now that you stop assuming that we're all the fools you take us for - and get back on topic? And on this issue you are rather overplaying your hand. Your extreme partiality is just way, way too evident. Golly. People will start thinking your dislike of me is enough to put you against our discovery? Not a good thing Poynty Point. You need to do better.
Kindest regards as ever
Rosie
added :)
Quote from: hoptoad on April 12, 2011, 08:13:57 AM
P.S. - Modern physics allows for 1. the motion of electrons,or 2 the motion of their quantum charge exchange, or 3 both at the same time, depending on the medium and source of the potential difference that is forcing the energy exchange.
In solid metal conductors for example, electron flow may be better characterised as the flow of exchange of phonons between the valence electrons of the conductor. In essence, the transmission of energy by electron wavelength "sound". A compression and expansion of the valence electron's total field energy and volume, due to the exchange of quantized packets of energy, passing from electron to electron, in a similar (but not same) way to that of ordinary sound propagation.
Cheers
Golly Hoptoad. That's really way out. I had no idea. I first thought you meant to write photons. I see now that you really didn't. This is all way out of my league.
Very impressed.
Rosemary
Finally,
Two scope shots worth looking at and investigating:
SCRN0313.jpg
SCRN0315.jpg
.99
Quote from: poynt99 on April 12, 2011, 10:00:13 AM
Finally,
Two scope shots worth looking at and investigating:
SCRN0313.jpg
SCRN0315.jpg
.99
No Poynty. They're NOT right. They're undersampled. They are not the whole of the cycle. I'm well aware of the fact that they give a very favourable result - especially in terms of our argument. But they do not give the full picture. They are UNDERSAMPLED. TRULY UNDERSAMPLED. Is that you you meant? You WANT us to undersample? In which case - that would certainly put paid to any acceptance of any of the results that we present. VERY strange you are Poynty. I'd be inclined to think that you want us to disgrace ourselves with the wrong presentation. You really do take us all for fools.
Rosemary
Quote from: poynt99 on April 12, 2011, 10:00:13 AM
Finally,
Two scope shots worth looking at and investigating:
SCRN0313.jpg
SCRN0315.jpg
.99
Rose, do you know why the burst envelope now has three distinct portions instead of just the two? Seems like when the oscillations begin, they are rather large for about 30 seconds and then they abruptly fall off to a steady but much lower level. Is this something to do with the driving waveform or just another unsolved mystery? Seem like it started acting like this after whatever that problem was that took days to fix got mended. Just curious.
Does the new tri-state burst envelope improve the performance or is it still the same?
By the way...
The accepted definition of undersampling per Nyquist is when there are less than two evenly-spaced samples taken during the period of the
highest frequency of interest.
Humbugger
Quote from: poynt99 on April 12, 2011, 10:00:13 AM
Finally,
Two scope shots worth looking at and investigating:
SCRN0313.jpg
SCRN0315.jpg
.99
I really hate to butt into this pissing match but I agree with you Poynt99. These are the actual waveforms that need to be seen. However, I really don't think you'll ever get Rosemary to see it that way.
It's like turning on a light switch for 2.08 minutes. I can look at the whole on/off cycle on my scope but it doesn't really tell me whats going on in the circuit. I really need to see only 2 to 4 cycles on my scope to see whats going on.
Quote from: MrMag on April 12, 2011, 11:13:10 AM
I really hate to butt into this pissing match but I agree with you Poynt99. These are the actual waveforms that need to be seen. However, I really don't think you'll ever get Rosemary to see it that way.
It's like turning on a light switch for 2.08 minutes. I can look at the whole on/off cycle on my scope but it doesn't really tell me whats going on in the circuit. I really need to see only 2 to 4 cycles on my scope to see whats going on.
And the irony here MrMag is that I ALSO agree with you. It is - indeed - the only way to look up close. But it is, nonetheless NOT the full cycle. Which also makes it undersampled. IF they required this then ask for it. Don't accuse us of UNDERSAMPLING.
Rosemary
Before anyone gets too serious here about analyzing waveforms, I'd like to remind folks about the three really big problems I have long ago pointed out and yet another one which is likely new.
1) The shunt inductance has a reactance of several times the value of the shunt resistance, so the signal being fed to the scope that is supposed to represent the instantaneous current value is indeed not representative of the instantaneous current value but far more representative of the rate of change of the current...a quantity that is unrelated to input power.
2) The wiring inductance inbetween the batteries appears to be about equal to the wiring inductance from the batteries to the benchtop (the effects of the latter which I presume have been eliminated by probing at the batteruy end terminals). So about half of that huge error signal has been eliminated. The AC voltage that is still being fed into the scope as "battery voltage" is indeed not representative of the battery voltage but rather represents the battery voltage PLUS a huge amount of rate of change of current information (di/dt) that again, has no bearing on input power.
3) Rosemary has reported that about 5 Watts of circulating power at 1.5MHz is present in the gate circuit flowing in the wiring between the signal generator and the MOSFET gates. This shows up in the shunt and is inseperably mixed in with the battery current due to the shunt's position in the circuit (inside the gate drive loop).
4) If indeed the scope probe for the "battery voltage" is now placed at the battery terminal end of the wiring over to the bench, the I assume the scope ground clip is also placed over there at the battery negative terminal and no longer at the "holy point" ground on the experiment board. The ground clip for the shunt probe, on the other hand, is still located at the "holy point". What this means is that there are now two current paths for the negative battery wiring from the battery to the bench and one of those paths is right through the scope grounds.
The large distortion this causes in the current measurement can be seen easily in Rosemary's post #549 http://www.overunity.com/index.php?topic=10407.msg280993#msg280993 (http://www.overunity.com/index.php?topic=10407.msg280993#msg280993). I noticed this long ago but didn't mention it before now.
So, in conclusion, whether over-sampled or undersampled and regardless of whether we are viewing a few cycles of 1.5MHz or five minutes worth across the screen, the signals being fed into the scope are NOT representative of the input battery voltage and current in the first place. They are hopelessly polluted with other information that has no bearing on the power into or out of the batteries. Unless and until these problems are resolved, the entire oscilloscope exercise is meaningless.
Humbugger
Quote from: Rosemary Ainslie on April 12, 2011, 10:33:17 AM
No Poynty. They're NOT right. They're undersampled. They are not the whole of the cycle. I'm well aware of the fact that they give a very favourable result - especially in terms of our argument. But they do not give the full picture. They are UNDERSAMPLED. TRULY UNDERSAMPLED. Is that you you meant? You WANT us to undersample? In which case - that would certainly put paid to any acceptance of any of the results that we present. VERY strange you are Poynty. I'd be inclined to think that you want us to disgrace ourselves with the wrong presentation. You really do take us all for fools.
Rosemary
The area of interest is for the most part when the oscillation is present. When the oscillation is not present there is essentially no power being dissipated in the load (according to the wave forms), and the ratio in time between these two phases represents the power duty-cycle.
You seem quite confused as to the what the terms "sample rate" and "undersampling" mean. I would suggest you educate yourself about this before trying to educate anyone else on this important issue. Reading the links I provided should help you understand.
.99
There are two separate "cycles" at play here, and this is part of your confusion.
The first cycle is that determined by the function generator. Let's call it "cycle1". The period and duty cycle of the function generator determines the period of time that the circuit is oscillating, and the period of time that it is not.
The second cycle is that determined by the period or frequency of the oscillation itself. Let's call it "cycle2".
You are concentrating on capturing multiple cycles of cycle1. This is not 100% correct and not necessary in this case. If in fact there is no power dissipation during the "dead" times, then you should try to achieve either constant oscillation, or adjust the cycle1 to be much much shorter in time, perhaps 10 or 100 times longer than the cycle2 cycle time. This way you are able to adjust the scope to capture sufficient cycles of both cycles (or just the one in the case of constant oscillation), and adjust for sufficient sampling to avoid aliasing errors.
When the oscilloscope time base is set to capture a number of cycles of cycle1, when cycle1 is on the order of 100's of seconds, the sample rate is then insufficient to properly capture the much higher frequency cycle2 wave form. This is undersampling, i.e. information is missing.
Imagine a standard movie film that runs at about 25 frames per second. Now imagine that the projector bulb only turns on for one frame out of every 5000 frames that run across the lens. What do you suppose the movie will look like in such a case?
The mechanism turning the bulb on and off is analogous to your sample rate when the time base is set for 100's of seconds, and the running 25 frames per second is analogous to the 1.5MHz oscillation signal.
.99
Poynty - I'm going to give this one last effort. Thereafter you can post whatever it is that you require to salvage some of that bruised ego.
Under USUAL conditions it is enough to extrapolate any part of any waveform and magnify it to determine its value. Under such circumstances then LESS IS MORE. 10 samples preferred or 4 preferred - it makes no difference. But those waveforms are then REQUIRED TO BE PRECISELY PERIODIC. And then, that reduction in the number taken as a representative sample range cannot be considered UNDERSAMPLED as each waveform is precisely the same as the next.
THEREFORE UNDERSAMPLING first and foremost relates to ANY ATTEMPT to isolate any part of a complex waveform and then INFER OR DETERMINE that it can be ENTIRELY REPRESENTATIVE OF ALL THE WAVEFORMS OVER AN ENTIRE CYCLE.
Where you Stefan and All ERRED - was to assume that you can isolate a few waveform samples on a COMPLEX CYCLE. Correctly speaking the first 20% or so, of each cycle of oscillation - on this particular waveform shows RADICAL APERIODICITY. It ramps UP. And then it ramps DOWN. NOW. And remember that representative 20% also lasts for a commensurate 20% period of time over 2.08 minutes.
1 - Now. Let's - for the purposes of this argument - say that the switch is ON for 20% of each cycle. FOR SOME REASON THERE IS NO DELIVERY OF ENERGY FROM THE BATTERY DURING THIS TIME EVIDDENT ACROSS THE SHUNT. But let's ignore that question for now. (I've done some serious deletions and editing here. This point is very interesting and I'll get back here one day IF I can get past this obsessive interest in UNDERSAMPLING)
2 - THEN. FOR the next 20% of 2.08 minutes of that cycle - there is a variation to the waveform that EXCEEDS that required periodicity - BECAUSE THE WAVEFORM FIRST RAMPS UP AND THEN RAMPS DOWN. And that variation is evident over the battery and the shunt. Correctly we now need each and every sample over that entire period - else any attempt to isolate a mere 4 waveforms absolutely WILL NOT BE REPRESENTATIVE. IT WILL BE UNDERSAMPLED. Here we would need to look at each and every one of thoe 500 000 points of data capture related to these samples over 20% of that ENTIRE cycle.
3 - THEN only do we get back to that 60% of the time when the oscillation becomes TRULY PERIODIC. Then is the ONLY time that we can infer any kind of power analysis from studying an isolated 4 or 5 detailed waveforms. And having done that study we would still need to factor it in to a precise quotient of time during which this oscillation was evident.
4 - NOW - to get back to the point. Your's, Humbugger's and Stefan's CLAIM was that we were DELIBERATELY UNDERSAMPLING TO ADD TO THE ARGUMENT. I hope I've FINALLY EXPLAINED THIS. I know why you claimed this. Your ASSUMPTION - shared by your cronies - was that if you actually LOOKED at a few of those samples rather than at MANY - then - not only would you see a positive mean and cycle mean average across the shunt but that the math trace would also default to positive. Herein lay your hopes. But look back at my posts. I AM ON RECORD. I assured you all that a detailed analysis of those waveforms indicates an EVER LARGER GAIN to the system delivered to the battery. A full sample across an entire cycle is the MOST CONSERVATIVE VALUE that we can manage. For Heaven's sake POYNTY. Just take a look at those values. IF you think I isolated them then I'll take a series of consecutive downloads. NEVER DOES THE CYCLE MEAN - THE MEAN OR THE MATH TRACE DEFAULT TO ANY POSTIVE VOLTAGES EVER - on that particular waveform. WAKE UP AND SMELL THE COFFEE. AT it's VERY LEAST - this is ANOMOLOUS.
So. Just to conclude this ridiculous debate. IF you require isolated waveform samples - then I asure you - there is every indication that our efficiency is elevated to values that are entirely inappropriate to what is also actually evident. I am, therefore, not prepared to evaluate this power analysis on isolated samples. Because if we did, or had we done so, then you would and could have all accused us of UNDERSAMPLING. And ONLY under those circumstances would you have been RIGHT.
Kindest regards,
Rosemary
Added the word 'us'.
Perhaps rather than arguing of measuring techniques a practical demonstration could be devised that either a small load could be supported while maintain the batteries or something continuously heated while maintaining the batteries. Without a practicle application or use it will remain just an academic argument.
Have the latest tests or Hypothesis been accepted for peer review in any publication or by ay institution? This is an honest question out of ignorance.
PS Hi Bill and Chris....I got sick of waiting up to three days to have posts approved so this is the new me.
Kind Regards
Karm
And this post just highlights my concerns.
Quote from: poynt99 on April 12, 2011, 07:34:06 PM
There are two separate "cycles" at play here, and this is part of your confusion.
The first cycle is that determined by the function generator. Let's call it "cycle1". The period and duty cycle of the function generator determines the period of time that the circuit is oscillating, and the period of time that it is not.
The second cycle is that determined by the period or frequency of the oscillation itself. Let's call it "cycle2".
You are concentrating on capturing multiple cycles of cycle1. This is not 100% correct and not necessary in this case. If in fact there is no power dissipation during the "dead" times, then you should try to achieve either constant oscillation, or adjust the cycle1 to be much much shorter in time, perhaps 10 or 100 times longer than the cycle2 cycle time. This way you are able to adjust the scope to capture sufficient cycles of both cycles (or just the one in the case of constant oscillation), and adjust for sufficient sampling to avoid aliasing errors.
When the oscilloscope time base is set to capture a number of cycles of cycle1, when cycle1 is on the order of 100's of seconds, the sample rate is then insufficient to properly capture the much higher frequency cycle2 wave form. This is undersampling, i.e. information is missing.
Imagine a standard movie film that runs at about 25 frames per second. Now imagine that the projector bulb only turns on for one frame out of every 5000 frames that run across the lens. What do you suppose the movie will look like in such a case?
The mechanism turning the bulb on and off is analogous to your sample rate when the time base is set for 100's of seconds, and the running 25 frames per second is analogous to the 1.5MHz oscillation signal.
Actually Poynty - I'm beginning to see the problem. You have COMPLETELY missed the point. Now. Just empty your mind for a minute and READ CAREFULLY or LISTEN CLOSELY.
The gate signal turns 'on' - a positive charge applied to the gate by the functions generator. This allows delivery of energy from the battery supply. Purely conventional standard switching function. BUT. Here's the thing. It turns ON - or it applies that signal - FOR let's say 20% of 2.08 minutes - being 2.08 minutes x 60 for seconds x 20% = 31.2 seconds. Therefore - for approximately 31 seconds - of each cycle lasting 2.08 minutes, THE SIGNAL AT THE GATE IS
'ON'.
During this time NO OSCILLATIONS ARE EVIDENT ANYWHERE, CERTAINLY NOT ACROSS THE SHUNT NOR ACROSS THE BATTERY. THEREFORE NO ENERGY EVIDENT TO HAVE BEEN DELIVERED FROM THE BATTERY. THE SHUNT 'FLATLINES'. YET THE SWITCH IS UNQUESTIONABLY 'ON'. And again. There are NO OSCILLATIONS ANYWHERE.
THEN. ONLY WHEN THE SWITCH AT THE GATE TURNS NEGATIVE - THEN ONLY DOES THE OSCILLATION START. It then ramps up and ramps down for another plus minus 31 seconds.
GROSS APERIODICITYTHEN. STILL WHILE THE SWITCH AT THE GATE IS NEGATIVE - THEN IT DEFAULTS TO A SMALLER OSCILLATION FOR APPROXIMATELY 60% OF THAT 2.08 minutes, being approximately 75 seconds. Now we have
PERFECT PERIODICITY for the first time.
THAT'S WHAT MAKES A FULL CYCLE.
Please get your mind around this Poynty. EACH CYCLE LASTS FOR 2.08 MINUTES. There are 5 distinct phases during each cycle because the initial phase 2 of each cycle has 3 implicit phases. It ramps up. It steadies. Then it ramps down. OSCILLATION ONLY OCCURS during 80% OF THAT TIME WHEN THE SWITCH IS
'OFF'And when you've managed that much then try this. How come the battery is not discharging energy during the 'on' time when the gate signal is set to allow a positive current flow? How come the battery CAN discharge energy when the gate signal is NEGATIVE?
I've got a sneaking suspicion that IF YOU GET HERE then you'll probably looking at the actual conditions on this circuit for the first time.
Now to tackle your request that we get rid of those oscillations? WHY? They're extremely beneficial.
Regards, again
Rosemary
@all:
Since Rose can't seem to grasp what I am saying, perhaps someone else would like to take a crack at explaining this to her. Furthermore, if I seem off-base, comment on that as well (not you Rose, you've clearly made your point on that issue).
@Rose:
You can bury your head in the sand Rose, but the truth of the matter will always prevail. You are extremely apt at misinterpreting a discussion, and putting your own words into people's mouths such as you have profusely done above. This makes it entirely impossible to get through to you, and it would seem that this is your preference, as it leaves you in the happy position that you appear to be more knowledgeable than those who actually have the background to comment. This, despite your repeated need to remind us all how inept you are at most things technical. Quite a dichotomy you have created within yourself.
What you are calling "undersampling" is not undersampling. You are confusing the concepts of "sampling", and "capturing" enough cycles; they are not nearly the same thing.
::)
.99
Pointy. I know exactly what you've been trying to say. I'm not that much of an idiot. I'm just using this to refute your IMPLICATIONS being that we're hiding behind averaging in order to promote the evidence.
You're trying to point out that 500 000 data samples over 2.08 minutes requires an averaging that 500 000 samples against 1 second - for instance - DOES NOT. It's a simple argument. You just didn't find the words. Strange. I wonder if it's because you struggle with concepts. I suspect that's the problem. Like most engineers you cannot put into words what I - with this 'idiot' mind - find relatively easy. LOL I guessed that your object was simply to cast those generalised aspersions. But since the subsequent two posts of yours I'm rather more inclined to give you the benefit of the doubt. You were genuinely trying to explain things. A noble effort - and a heartfelt appeal to the general public to come to your rescue. Good gracious Poynty Point. Even I was beginning to feel sorry for you. Whatever next?
However, it was an ill chosen complaint compounded with your coupling of that delivery with your characteristic flair for making an observation and a criticism in the same breath. In this instance it was also just SO out of line that I thought the time had come to show you that I am well able to fight my oorner.
In the first instance - you called it UNDERSAMPLED in order to imply that the Le Croy is not able to manage a correct caculation. Actually you didn't IMPLY it. You stated it as a FACT. BUT - IN FACT the machine is well able to give an accurate result over an extended timebase. Indeed, as an average it is, in fact, MORE dependable than otherwise. Therefore the result is NOT undersampled in the sense you were desperately trying to convey. It absolutely carries the manufacturer's warranty of accuracy. AND WHAT IS MORE it is recommended over 'small sample' values.
In the second instance you were assuming that if we were to look at the waveform detail - then you were hoping that we would thereby LOSE the advantage of that negative value over the cycle mean and the mean averages. These numbers are meaningless on their own. I'm well aware of that too. But what they DO indicate is that there is a MORE current being returned to the battery than was initially delivered by the battery. Your expectation was to find that that devil in the detail. A clear evidence of more energy in the delivery than the return. Well. I shall bore you with a series of posts when I've finished here - that will show you that those REPEATED AND DETAILED SCREEN SHOT DOWNLOADS - ALL STAY NEGATIVE. Our argument is greatly enhanced if we were to do our power calculations over such small evidence. But hang ten and I'll get back here.
FINALLY. I am sick to death of that attitude of SUPERIORITY where you just assume that you KNOW ALL and that I, be contrast KNOW NOTHING. Not only, by now, should it it rather evident that I'm well able to assess power measurements - but that I also know my way around the scope meter. If you therefore persist in these disgusting slurs against my competence then I will most certainly RETURN that attack with as much insult as you offer me. It is inappropriate to this forum - to our efforts in this promotion - to the general requirement for courtesy and good manners - and to the courtesy required in the discourse of science anywhere. It reflects VERY BADLY on your own integrity - and it is rather disgusting that you and your dogs should find the time and go to the trouble to slur me as you do. I am an old lady. I do no-one any harm. I have a passionate interest in physics. I do not need to have Grown Men try and orchestrate a baseless attack on me. It's a kind of thug like bullying by a little group of self-opinionated idiots - that is entirely INAPPROPRIATE. Do you really think that the most of our readers here approve it? I AM NOT DELUDED. I AM NOT INCOMPETENT. I AM NOT AN IDIOT. For you to persist in these efforts to try and show me up as such is DISGUSTING. And I think it would behoove you to bear this in mind when you discuss anything at all with me.
If I have a fault it is that I am most anxious to advise all and sundry that I am an amateur. And I do this for good reason. It is in the hopes that other amateurs that may read here may then be encouraged to realise that physics in general and electromagnetics in particular - are not the province of the super intelligent. It only needs an average competence to wrap one's mind around these concepts. You and your 'thugs' on the other hand - seem to need to complicate it out of mind. I suspect it's because you wrongly assume that everyone will then think that you're very clever. In fact - the more complicated you make things the more stupid you appear to be.
Regards,
Rosemary
I'll attach those downloads when I've done them. Just know - Poynty Point - THEY'LL ALL BE NEGATIVE. IT'S IN THE WAVEFORM. THE NATURE OF THE BEAST. SORRY. BUT THAT'S HOW IT IS. BUT YOU SHOULD BE GLAD TO SEE ALL THAT EVIDENCE.
Poynty this is for you. I've tried to get the shots at precisely their transition. So check the time of the downloads for an indication of their duration.
I may have to split this into at least 2 posts. Here goes.
And this is the smallest number I can show with two complete waveforms on the one and an incomplete on the other. Sorry about that.
Hope that puts this to bed FOREVER.
;D
These worthy posts from Hum have most likely been missed (due to a delay in the admin posting them), so I shall reference them here.
http://www.overunity.com/index.php?topic=10407.msg281320#msg281320
http://www.overunity.com/index.php?topic=10407.msg281327#msg281327
.99
And this is for Mookie, Pickle, MileHigh and those many others who share Poynty's mandate. When and If I see a public retraction of those allegations against my sanity and my competence - when the three of you desist from confusing science with its proponents - then, indeed, I will be very happy to enter into a dialogue and may even find the time to answer those irrelevant questions of yours.
Rosemary
can my alter ego and the others who without good reason have there status returned as well as being moderated sucks as it takes days sometimes for a post to appear.
Kind Regards
(It is ok Bill no need to look up my I.P, I admit who I am)
Guys - I see that there's some confusion with the terms 'a mouth full of teeth'. What's meant by this is that - if the mouth only has teeth then one has - by implication - lost the 'tongue'. God forbid - as has been implied - that I am 'combative'. That better describes the 'reach' of Pickle et al - who persistently 'hit' below the belt.
But to get back on topic - I really need to address the endless claim that I must replace the battery with capacitors. I would remind you all that I have never used capacitors and know nothing about them - other than it's essentially a two terminal device with two plates separated by a dialectric. That's Wiki's definition - or something along those lines. In any event - it is able to store charge - presumably by varying that dialectric. In this, it is also, essentially the same principle as a battery - I would have thought? If anyone can improve on this definition then I'd be glad to hear of it.
But here's the thing. What got me started on this circuit - was the need to prove the thesis - which means that I've got to get back there even if I simply do this is broad brush stroke. The idea is that we have an energy supply source - in this case, a battery - that has an innate voltage imbalance. In other words the electrolytic mix of the battery ensures that it does not lose that voltage imbalance until it has discharged sufficient current to vary the innate charge condition of that mix. It then discharges that potential difference in the form of current flow that is well able to move through the inductive/conductive circuit material. Which also means that without that circuit as a path for current flow then the battery retains its charge (losses through the air excepted as they're neglible).
But, in doing so, it also TRANSFERS that innate imbalance to inductive/conductive circuit components that - prior to that discharge WERE balanced. That's known. Nothing esoteric here. Now. The intention of the circuit is this. It applies a switch - so that the amount energy that is induced in the INDUCTIVE/CONDUCTIVE material - has the 'time' afforded it by that switch - to discharge that IMPOSED imbalance. And it can ONLY discharge this if there is a path made available for it to do so. That path is provided by the innate 'body diode' of the MOSFET transistor.
BUT - in discharging it's energy it is then again PERFECTLY BALANCED - in a way that battery never is. The battery can only become balanced when ALL it's molecules have been reordered. That takes considerably more time than is offered by the switch. Therefore we have two things happening. The imbalance is transferred to the circuit material through current flow. Then there is the required break in the delivery of that current. The circuit material then DISCHARGES that imbalance. In doing so it RECHARGES the battery thereby restoring the battery's imbalance. In the same way, a plug or grid supply would offer a continual voltage imbalance. But the induced voltage over the circuit and its sundry components is able to entirely discharge that induced voltage imbalance - given sufficient time at the switch - to do so.
Effectively one needs that relationship. One must be able to transfer that potential difference to an entirely 'balanced' inductive/coductive component - and then allow time for that inductive/conductive component to discharge that induced potential difference back to the supply. The supply NEVER entirely loses potential difference. In fact, when energy is routed back through the supply it restores that potential difference. But the circuit material DOES lose its potential difference to establish its prior 'balanced' condition.
My suspicion is that a cap would discharge to an entirely 'balanced' condition. In which case we would not be able to perpetuate the required voltage imbalance at the source. But I'm working in the dark as I've never tried it. If this is wrong - and if the cap NEVER discharges to zero - then it is feasible. What's needed is a supply that DOES NOT discharge to zero.
Anyway. I'm open to correction. But that's the reason I'm not sure that capacitors would work.
Kindest regards,
Rosemary
added.
I've just re-read this. Not sure if it's clear. Effectively one needs a continual imbalanced source and circuitry that is first balanced and then imbalanced. And balance here used in the sense that it's charge imbalance measured as potential difference.
And guys, this is that circuit that I referred to some time back. I have drawn it with a switch. It needs a transistor - ideally a MOSFET - but I have no idea how this is to be done - what supply to use - or where to establish the common ground for those switches.
But if anyone here is clever enough to put this together - then here's the thing. It would be a far better way to prove the principle that I'm trying to bring into focus. Effectively, in this arrangement - the one battery will always discharge to recharge either itself or the other battery.
If, as is claimed by the thesis, that charge is entirely retained, in other words, if current flow ONLY ever returns to the source and IF there is no material loss at that supply - then this would unarguably be a closed system.
And as a reminder. The idea is that in the transfer of energy through a circuit NO material is lost or gained by the suppy. In other words, current flow belongs to its source and only ever returns there. In the same way - current flow that is induced from the circuit material ALSO ony returns back to that material. The heat that is dissipated on circuit components is a different discussion. I'll get there.
Be very glad if someone can resolve the principles in the circuit. It's been something that I've been toying with for about 2 years.
Kindest regards,
Rosemary
Hope it's clear. I can't seem to resize my pictures any more.
I'm trying this again. I think I've resized it.
Quote from: Rosemary Ainslie on April 14, 2011, 10:17:58 PM
this is that circuit that I referred to some time back. I have drawn it with a switch. It needs a transistor - ideally a MOSFET - but I have no idea how this is to be done
...
It would be a far better way to prove the principle that I'm trying to bring into focus. Effectively, in this arrangement - the one battery will always discharge to recharge either itself or the other battery.
...
Be very glad if someone can resolve the principles in the circuit. It's been something that I've been toying with for about 2 years.
...
Rosemary
hi Rosemary
i don't think that your new circuit will operate as you expect
because the circuit is circular, the Diode/Switch pairs and the remaining individual components can be moved around the ring to any position and the circuit will still be exactly equivalent
therefore your circuit (on the left, below) can be arranged, for example, as the other two circuits below
it might be easier to see from the arrangement on the right:-
a) if the switches always operate in anti-phase, then the
only current which will ever flow is due to the combined voltage of the two cells (or batteries) flowing through the combined series resistance (R1 + R2 + reverse impedance of either D1 or D2) <<depending which switch is closed
ie. B1 & B2 will take a long time to discharge because basically the circuit is not doing a great deal (eg. the cells are merely discharging via diode leakage current, regardless of duty cycle or switch rate)
b) if the switches should ever be allowed to operate in-phase, then when both switches are
ON the current will be (V1+V2)/(R1+R2);
and when both switches are
OFF the current will be similar to (a) (except the diode leakage will be due to two diodes in series)
ie. the discharge behaviour of B1 & B2 will depend on the duty cycle and the switch rate
** ignoring milliohm resistance in the switch on-states in both (a) & (b)
hope this helps
np
http://docsfreelunch.blogspot.com (http://docsfreelunch.blogspot.com)
Hi Nul-Points. Many thanks for that - but I was hoping you or someone would design it with a transistor - something appropriate to allow that dual path. I agree it won't work with a reed switch or somesuch unless one can get a difference in the two battery supply voltages.
Can I impose on you to try a design on this principle? Is it even possible? I just don't know enough about switches to answer this myself.
But either way - many thanks for this work. I'll get back here and try and explain the point of it all - but it will be later today.
Kindest regards,
Rosemary
Quote from: Rosemary Ainslie on April 15, 2011, 01:09:35 AM
Hi Nul-Points. Many thanks for that - but I was hoping you or someone would design it with a transistor - something appropriate to allow that dual path.
...
I agree it won't work with a reed switch or somesuch unless one can get a difference in the two battery supply voltages.
...
Can I impose on you to try a design on this principle? Is it even possible? I just don't know enough about switches to answer this myself.
...
Rosemary
hi Rosemary
here's one possibility below (RA-2c)
i'm not sure why you think there will be any effective difference in behaviour between RA-2b and RA-2c ?
if i correctly understand the weight of all your previous explanations, so far, then the diodes provide the '2nd path' in your 'dual path' expectations of switched current
if that is so, then for your purposes, circuits RA-2b and RA-2c should effectively provide the same action
the net effect is the same - both B1 & B2 would discharge over time, regardless of what was happening at S1 & S2 - or Sig 1 & Sig 2
a "difference in the two battery supply voltages" is not relevant to the operation of your circuit (RA-2a), or the equivalents which i've shown (RA-2b & RA-2c), since the two cells ("batteries"), as you can see, effectively form one true battery of voltage (V1 + V2)
hope this helps
np
http://docsfreelunch.blogspot.com (http://docsfreelunch.blogspot.com)
Hi again nul-points. You've sort of put two batteries in series. And then given two loads with two switches. Is that all I've managed in that design? LOL. If so, let me try this again. I'll get back here when I've redrawn it.
Many thanks for your efforts there by the way. But I'm still trying to point to something. I think I must make a small adjustment there. I need to explain it more fully by getting it workable with those reed switches. Then - possibly you'll be able to put in the required transistors.
Hang ten. It takes me ages to draw - photo - then down load.
Kindest as ever,
Rosie
I had posted this in February. Maybe it's not what you had in mind.
.99
Quote from: Rosemary Ainslie on April 15, 2011, 08:17:24 AM
Hi again nul-points. You've sort of put two batteries in series. And then given two loads with two switches. Is that all I've managed in that design? LOL. If so, let me try this again. I'll get back here when I've redrawn it.
...
Rosie
hi Rosemary
yes, that's effectively what you drew above:
(hence my comment that your circuit may not operate as you expect)
two cells in series, two resistors in series, two switches in series
it doesn't matter what order these occur in the ring circuit
(the diodes across the switches always need to have the same polarity sense, of course)
you also indicated that you were looking for a solid-state solution - hence no relays in the equivalent circuit i posted
no worries
all the best
np
http://docsfreelunch.blogspot.com (http://docsfreelunch.blogspot.com)
Poynty - I'm not sure if that cuts it. I'll need to print it out. Can't quite read it off the computer. Unless you can do it a tad smaller. But I should be able to get it printed today. Meanwhile here's another shot at showing what I'm trying to get to.
Sorry about the smudges. I think this may just work with reed switchings and switching in antiphase. Anyway - it's what I'm trying to point to. Just think of the current switching around the middle like two inverted 's's or alternatively think of a swastika going first one way and the then the other.
Sorry about the smudges. Not the best drawing in the world.
Kindest regards,
Rosemary
Sorry about that drawing. Golly. It's now got HUGE. And it's so smudged. :o
Anyway. Here's what I'm trying to do. The positive current from either battery always first feeds into the positive terminal of the other then finds it way back to the negative terminal of the source. Then the negatively induced current during the 'off time' first gets routed to the negative terminal of the other battery before it returns to the positive terminal.
That way - as I see it - every 'on' will result in a recharge as will every 'off'. I'm open to correction here. And I have no idea if it's even feasible. It's just a principle that haunts me. It seems to answer that closed system that you all look for. I'm entirely satisfied that it will do no more nor less than our own circuit. But it answers the logic better. And then, only if it's doable at all.
Anyway. I'll await comments and see if I can wrap my head around Poynty's design. Thanks for that.
Kindest regards,
Rosie
Poynty - please get those fatuous and entirely erroneous comments of FuzzyTomCat off that thread. It's already been polluted out of mind.
Thanks
R
Quote from: Rosemary Ainslie on April 15, 2011, 09:48:23 AM
Here's what I'm trying to do. The positive current from either battery always first feeds into the positive terminal of the other then finds it way back to the negative terminal of the source. Then the negatively induced current during the 'off time' first gets routed to the negative terminal of the other battery before it returns to the positive terminal.
That way - as I see it - every 'on' will result in a recharge as will every 'off'. I'm open to correction here. And I have no idea if it's even feasible. It's just a principle that haunts me. It seems to answer that closed system that you all look for. I'm entirely satisfied that it will do no more nor less than our own circuit. But it answers the logic better.
...
Rosie
ah Rosemary - your previous circuit was better! ;o)
i believe that you have a clear goal in mind - but unfortunately not a clear path ahead as to how it might be achieved
current will flow through a circuit path only when there is a net potential difference applied across it
as an exercise in becoming more familiar with circuit design, i can recommend a next step for you, after an initial sketch attempt at expressing a new idea:
consider each source of energy in turn, and, with a few helpful example component values to make the maths go more smoothly, get a feel for the main current paths, values, and hence voltage drops around the various series & parallel paths between the +ve & -ve of that supply
this approach will help you develop a better 'feel' for how the various circuit elements are likely to work together - and hopefully save you wasting too much effort on the non-viable circuit ideas
all the best
np
http://docsfreelunch.blogspot.com (http://docsfreelunch.blogspot.com)
Quote from: nul-points on April 15, 2011, 12:18:31 PM
ah Rosemary - your previous circuit was better! ;o)
i believe that you have a clear goal in mind - but unfortunately not a clear path ahead as to how it might be achieved
current will flow through a circuit path only when a potential difference is applied across it
as an exercise in becoming more familiar with circuit design, i can recommend a next step for you, after an initial sketch attempt at expressing a new idea:
consider each source of energy in turn, and, with a few helpful example component values to make the maths go more smoothly, get a feel for the main current paths, values, and hence voltage drops around the various series & parallel paths between that supplies +ve & -ve
this approach will help you develop a better 'feel' for how the various circuit elements are likely to work together - and hopefully save you getting to the building stage more often with a non-viable circuit
all the best
np
http://docsfreelunch.blogspot.com (http://docsfreelunch.blogspot.com)
LOL I've also been trying to wrap my mind around this on a step by step basis. Half way through and I just want to start crying. It's just so mind boggling. ;D
Any way nul-points - thanks for the input. At least I tried. Hopefully the day will come when I can think clearly and sensibly from the get go.
Incidentally - a friend of mine is actually working on this design. :o But I'm entirely satisfied that it will be VASTLY altered - as required.
Take care nul-points - and many thanks for the input.
Kindest as ever,
Rosemary
Quote from: Rosemary Ainslie on April 15, 2011, 12:24:17 PM
LOL I've also been trying to wrap my mind around this on a step by step basis. Half way through and I just want to start crying. It's just so mind boggling.
...
Incidentally - a friend of mine is actually working on this design. :o But I'm entirely satisfied that it will be VASTLY altered - as required.
...
Rosemary
hi Rosemary
no problem
you might find it helpful to 'sit-in' with your friend, if possible, whilst they are reviewing this new design - it can be very helpful to ask questions about 'why' different aspects need to be added, altered or removed
all the best
np
http://docsfreelunch.blogspot.com (http://docsfreelunch.blogspot.com)
I think that the 'two supply sourced' closed circuit variant - has now been adequately covered here and on ALL these forums. Even in the unlikely event that there's any merit in any variation of this, - then the principle, at its least, is now fully in the public domain. That's the only thing I'm concerned about.
So. Moving on. What I'd be very glad to do - if readers here could bear with me - is to try and highlight some of the actual questions that are appropriate to these results that we're getting on this particular waveform. I'll do it in a series of posts. Hopefully they're understood.
That 'waveform' is fully described in the report and on all these preceding posts. I'll post a link to it hereunder. It results from a setting on the functions generator at the minimum 'on' duty cycle - with the amplitude set to maximum and the offset set to its shortest possible 'above zero' crossing signal. This, in turn, allows for the longest possible below zero crossing signal over the longest possible duration for each cycle. Each cycle on this particular functions generator allows a maximum of 2.08 minutes between each switching cycle.
We assume that voltage across the current sensing resistor - or shunt - is representative of current flow both to and from the battery supply. Therefore energy that is delivered during the 'on' period is that voltage that is measured 'above' zero divided by the resistive value of the shunt to determine the rate of amperage from the supply. And correspondingly, energy that is delivered during the 'off' period is that voltage that is measured below zero divided by the resistive value of the shunt to determine the rate of amperage flow back to the supply. The sum of those two phases of each switching cycle would therefore represent the net value of the current either discharged or recharged to the supply. Taking the rate of oscillation into account as this relates to the resulting impedance on that shunt - then at its highest frequencies the resistance on that shunt is here revised upwards from 0.25 Ohms to 0.9 Ohms.
Convention determines that the amount of energy that is dissipated by a work station or any load on a circuit cannot exceed the amount of energy first delivered by that supply. This rule is sacrosanct in scientific circles - based, as it is, on assumptions of equivalence in the transfer of energy variously defined in Thermodynamic laws and specifically in the Second Law of Thermodynamics. If 1 represents the input of energy then we can expect any co-efficient of performance (COP) to a maximum of 1. And by the same token and within the confines of this argument then we cannot therefore expect a COP greater than 1.
In the same way - in as much as current flow is assumed to result exclusively from the supply source - as the only source of energy to this circuit system - then we cannot expect to measure more current flow back to the supply than was first delivered.
But we do. Therefore our options are as follows. Either there is a second supply source - that accounts for that extra energy. Or there is a measurments error.
In terms of the alternate supply sources this can only possibly be attributed to the functions generator that is somehow supplying energy to the system through the gate of the MOSFET. Careful measurements taken of voltage across an entirely non-inductive current sensing resistor placed between the functions generator and the gate of the MOSFET, indicate that there is a measurable amperage at this point. But the sum of this current flow is seen to be returning to the functions generator and not emanating from it.
There is no other source of energy that could be adding to the system unless it is seen to be from the circuit material itself. Therefore the question is this. Is there, in fact, an energy supply source in the material of the circuit that is contributing to the 'pool' of energy - that can then account for the evident infinite co-efficient of performance?
Kindest regards
Rosemary
SORRY. I forgot to append the link to the report.
http://newlightondarkenergy.blogspot.com/2011/03/report.html
Sorry all. I know this is boring you to tears. The fact is that tempus is fugitting - as ever. I would hate to waste more time dealing with the inappropriate and endless mutterings and posings by Pickle et al - without first making due record of the facts. Their posts are designed to DETRACT and DELAY any progress in the understanding of this. And they DIMINISH the results and my competence along with it - in the process. All those delays. It's unconscionable. And wherever they can do so they will. And I grow no younger. And somehow - somewhere - I'd be very glad to post some appropriate comments on those remarkable results that we've managed to restore the focus to where it belongs. Perhaps - after this - I could actually relax. God knows that would be nice.
But I am relying on all of you to PLEASE POINT OUT ERRORS. I'm an amateur. And my knowledge of 'standard terms' is not good. I usually only know what I mean. It's way more important that this is in synch with your own understandings. And this is very important. WAY too important to make mistakes. So. PLEASE. I need any input you can manage to correct any statements that need it. And there's no EGO vested in this exercise. I am on record. Correct, fix, elaborate, explain. This all matters just far too much - in my humble opinion for sensitivity - where corrections are actually required.
I'll get back here later today and - hopefully - move on to the next question. Many to follow. It's the questions that matter - not those flippant badly considered answers and explanations that skid way off target. I would have thought we all need to learn things here. And answers don't cut it. Especially when they're speculative drivel.
Kindeest regards,
Rosie
Edited - with apologies. I've managed more typos than usual. Hopefully they're now corrected.
OK. Apparently a small correction. It's now been added. This, I trust is the only actual error in any of those statements.
"We assume that voltage across the current sensing resistor - or shunt - is representative of current flow both to and from the battery supply. Therefore energy that is delivered during the 'on' period is BASED ON that voltage that is measured 'above' zero divided by the resistive value of the shunt to determine the rate of amperage from the supply. And correspondingly, energy that is delivered during the 'off' period is BASED ON that voltage that is measured below zero divided by the resistive value of the shunt to determine the rate of amperage flow back to the supply. The sum of those two phases of each switching cycle would therefore represent the net value of the current either discharged or recharged to the supply. Taking the rate of oscillation into account as this relates to the resulting impedance on that shunt - then at its highest frequencies the resistance on that shunt is here revised upwards from 0.25 Ohms to 0.9 Ohms."
So Guys, the penultimate to this post concluded that more energy is delivered to the supply source than the energy first supplied. If the actual voltage measurements are correct then this result confronts conventional predictions related to a required equivalence in the transfer of energy. The instruments used to measure the voltages were both capable of measuring at the high oscillating frequencies that was induced over the circuit components. The actual voltage measurements therefore carry the warranty of both oscilloscopes, the LeCroy and the Tektronix - within certain error margins. And even with the application of those error margins this anomalous result persists. AT NO STAGE during an entire cycle - and on this particular setting - that then results in the oscillating waveform under discussion - does the cycle mean or the mean voltage across the shunt default to a positive voltage - not even during plus/minus 20% of each cycle when the applied gate signal is set to 'on'. Here, and under usual circumstances, one would expect to measure some discharge from the battery supply enabled by the applied signal at the gate - that is something greater than zero voltage. Therefore one may conclude that the voltage measurements are correct. And - at its least - these voltage measurements are anomalous.
One possibility - to account for this excess energy - is the proposal that there is a hidden source of energy supplied by the functions generator - as this is the only other component on the circuit that has an independent power supply. This too is discounted as the energy that is measured here indicates that energy is being RETURNED TO - rather than COMING FROM - the functions generator. As there is no other independent source of energy to the circuit then the only other conclusions are that convention errs in its assumption of energy equivalence being restricted to 1 as required by thermodynamic laws. OR there is a hidden supply of energy in the circuit material itself. OR both. All other options have now been discounted.
THEREFORE
We are here dealing with electric energy - based on what is understood of electromagnetic interactions. Which, in summation, indicates that the experimental evidence here provided - proves that the equivalence required by thermodynmic laws - ERRS as it relates to the assumption of a single supply source on this circuit or it ERRS as it relates to the assumption of equivalence in the first instance.
I'll move onto the next point. I just felt these points needed to be HEAVILY EMPHASISED.
Kindest regards
Rosemary
Poynty describes my my writing as 'blah'. If it is indeed 'blah' then that must be his new eumphemism for science. Either that or he is unable to make sense of simple English. Either way - I suspect that he's 'kicking the can' as FuzzyTomCat so well describes this reaction. I'd only be really concerned if he ever endorsed anything at all that I've ever written. :o
;D
So All - we have the really exciting evidence of NOT ONLY COP>1 BUT INFINITE COP. We have the irrefutable evidence that there is more energy returned to a battery than was first supplied. This, in terms of ALL CLASSICAL THEORY is IMPOSSIBLE. Yet. :o CLEARLY on the simplest of simple circuits - it is very much evident. YET AGAIN. We are measuring more current returned to a supply than was delivered by that supply. And we are, nonetheless, measuring between 4 and 7 watts dissipated as heat over the resistor element.
SO. That's some seriously good news. Certainly for anyone who hopes for some resolution to our pollutant excesses in our use of energy.
Kindest regards,
Rosemary
BTW I keep stressing this in the hopes that Poynty and his minions will get used to the term OVER UNITY and all the alarming extremes including INFINITE COP. That way, perhaps through pure repetition - we can diminish some of the harm that they've managed through pure repetition of the INCORRECT ASSUMPTIONS related to THERMODYNAMIC LAWS.
I will definitely move on from here at the next post - but am having difficulty in marshalling the full argument - and there are MANY QUESTIONS still to be addressed.
There is a lot of talk in this topic, yet I am missing a decent proof or demonstration. Please show something substantial.
Quote from: gauschor on April 17, 2011, 05:54:59 AM
There is a lot of talk in this topic, yet I am missing a decent proof or demonstration. Please show something substantial.
Indeed. Here are the links
http://newlightondarkenergy.blogspot.com/2011/03/dear-reader-finally-heres-our-video-on.html
http://newlightondarkenergy.blogspot.com/2011/03/report.html
I trust - that unlike Poynty - you may enjoy all this evidence. The first is the visual evidence. . The second is the details of WHAT WAS DEMONSTRATED.
Kindest regards Gauschor
Rosemary
Guys - that tireless misinformant on Poynty's 'TEAM VINCIBLE' widely identified as Pickle - has come up with an analogy. He claims that this 'discovery' if such it is - is to be seen as Rosemary's baby - but that - instead of a demon - I have given birth to an angel. And for some reason I'm not prepared to weigh it. The analogy is flawed on every possible level.
In the first instance the circuit is NOT MINE. It is a simple switching circuit. It is well known and widely used. It carries no exceptional components - and, notwithstanding the tedious insistance by some of Poynty's dogs - it has no 'tailor made' components. Everything off the shelf. In the second instance - nor have I discovered counter electromotive force - which has been widely understood many, many years before my interest in physics. In the third instance - nor have I discovered parasitic oscillations - another well known and well documented phenomenon. In the fourth instance - nor was I the discoverer of Inductive Laws. That was Faraday.
5. Nor did I discover how to measure them - as that was Maxwell. 6. Nor did I advance the concepts of energy in matter that resulted in our mass/energy equivalence principles - because that was Einstein. 7. Nor did I discover the dark energy that I think we're accessing - because that was our astrophysicists - from Zwicky - right up to Ellis et al at Caltech. 8 Nor did I discover hidden dimensions - because that was done and dusted by our string theorists.
So. In truth - there is not one aspect of this entire development that can be attributed to my skills. Rather - if there's any tribute to be given - it's to those tireless and patient guys who kept putting circuits up to show these principles. I could not even do that. And then, obviously, some considerable and heartfelt tribute needed to be paid to those actual giants in physics who are listed above.
In the unlikely event that anything at all can be attributed to my own skills it is that I took their theories way more to heart than the most of you electrical engineers and treated those miracles of conceptual insights with the respect that they deserve. I have also, I hope, had the courage to stand up to an unwavering attack by those dedicated bigots that polluted these forums in their concerted efforts to deny any possibility EVER of defeating our Thermodynamic Laws.
So Pickle. I would suggest that what you're actually promoting is the need for some incorrect measurements. I can understand that. It's the only way left to you, Poynty and that rather sad collective of thugs and lady bashers - to try and get these results refuted. And I fully appreciate the need. I'd venture a guess and go so far as to say that your livlihoods depend on it.
Golly.
Rosemary
And may I add. Nor did I discover how to measure this energy. That was mainstream and it's based on vi dt. You keep wanting this changed. Why? If you average anything at all then you are NOT measuring correctly. It wouldn't make a blind bit of difference if you averaged the results on this waveform in any event. But it would certainly manage to skew results for anyone who believes you here. It's just that whatever results they then come up with will be 'thrown out' by our learned and revered. And their opinion matters just so much more than your own. It is round about here that your own credentials become entirely compromised.
The blog and the video proves nothing. With something substantial I mean: attach a load to your COP 17 circuit, preferably a motor and let it run a long time - while on the same time the circuit charges up the batteries which power the motor. Should be easy with COP17, ain't it? Otherwise I don't know what all the fuss here is about.
Quote from: gauschor on April 17, 2011, 10:28:59 AM
The blog and the video proves nothing. With something substantial I mean: attach a load to your COP 17 circuit, preferably a motor and let it run a long time - while on the same time the circuit charges up the batteries which power the motor. Should be easy with COP17, ain't it? Otherwise I don't know what all the fuss here is about.
It's a heater circuit
As expected nothing of interest then, thanks.
Quote from: gauschor on April 17, 2011, 10:28:59 AM
The blog and the video proves nothing. With something substantial I mean: attach a load to your COP 17 circuit, preferably a motor and let it run a long time - while on the same time the circuit charges up the batteries which power the motor. Should be easy with COP17, ain't it? Otherwise I don't know what all the fuss here is about.
You ask some good questions and make the same observation made by many; there still has been no credible proof put forward to support any of the claims.
It is a heater circuit indeed, and part of the claim is that no net energy whatsoever is required of the source batteries. This is quite simple to prove, i.e. optimize the circuit for high power output (or whatever power is deemed optimum by the claimant) and allow it to run for several months or years if necessary to see if the batteries run down. [Wait to see what the excuse is on this one. ;)]
There have been a few other options offered as well, but all have been repeatedly dismissed out of hand by the claimant.
I would be interested in knowing what Stefan's (the site admin) opinion is on the current status of this project.
.99
Quote from: gauschor on April 17, 2011, 11:41:59 AM
As expected nothing of interest then, thanks.
Yes, excess heat is so terribly boring. It's not as if it can be used to heat water.
Quote from: gauschor on April 17, 2011, 10:28:59 AM
The blog and the video proves nothing. With something substantial I mean: attach a load to your COP 17 circuit, preferably a motor and let it run a long time - while on the same time the circuit charges up the batteries which power the motor. Should be easy with COP17, ain't it? Otherwise I don't know what all the fuss here is about.
Hello again gauschor - The circuit only dissipates heat. But it's no longer COP>17. By the last count it was COP infinity. But you're right. The most of you want to see it on battery durations. I'm just not up for those tests. I've explained this often and am rather too fatigued to find my post on this.
And Poynty - here's where I would like to take this thread. I want to detail those questions that you and yours seem to avoid like the plague. Then I want to post on those final demonstrations where we will be giving smaller demos to smaller audiences of experts. Then - when and if we ever get acknowledgement of anomalies - the hope is that we will then be able to get something published in a reviewed journal. These prior steps required - because right now - there is no acknowledged expert who has even seen these results - expert here defined as an electrical engineer with a doctorate or somesuch equivalent. We have every reason to believe that there are, indeed, those who are prepared to acknowledge anomalies - provided only that the measurements are as we've claimed. The protocols will be determined in advance of those demos.
And we have reason to believe that the acknowledgement of an anomaly as opposed to an outright endorsement of the claim - may encourage a wider investigation of this on academic forums. With the utmost respect I believe that your own involvement here is to 'quash' the claim using whatever methods you can manage - as urgently as possible. It's just that I'm not yet sure why there is all that urgency. I also know that its ONLY hope of progress is if and when this gets to our academic work benches as there is evidently NO impartiality available from the most of those who post on your forum and who also monopolise the postings on this thread.
Regards,
Rosemary
Quote from: happyfunball on April 17, 2011, 12:10:11 PM
Yes, excess heat is so terribly boring. It's not as if it can be used to heat water.
;D LOL.
Quote from: poynt99 on April 17, 2011, 11:54:47 AM
It is a heater circuit indeed, and part of the claim is that no net energy whatsoever is required of the source batteries. This is quite simple to prove, i.e. optimize the circuit for high power output (or whatever power is deemed optimum by the claimant) and allow it to run for several months or years if necessary to see if the batteries run down. [Wait to see what the excuse is on this one. ;)]
.99
We've done this Poynty Point. We've run this for plus/minus 5 hours a day over a 5 month period - on a variety of waveforms all indicating a net gain to the system and without any measurable loss of voltage to the batteries at all. How long would you need? Years?
It is no longer that cliched maxim that extraordinary claims require extraordinary proof. What's now required is that extraordinary claims require DISPROOF under any conditions at the whim of any person at all - and based on any required premise up to and including the removal of all inductive components on the circuit - as well as a deliberate avoidance of any oscillation at all. LOL. That would, indeed, work to defeat our claim. But I'm not about to indulge you.
Rosemary
Quote from: Rosemary Ainslie on April 17, 2011, 12:37:54 PM
We've done this Poynty Point. We've run this for plus/minus 5 hours a day over a 5 month period - on a variety of waveforms all indicating a net gain to the system and without any measurable loss of voltage to the batteries at all. How long would you need? Years?
It is no longer that cliched maxim that extraordinary claims require extraordinary proof. What's now required is that extraordinary claims require DISPROOF under any conditions at the whim of any person at all - and based on any required premise up to and including the removal of all inductive components on the circuit - as well as a deliberate avoidance of any oscillation at all. LOL. That would, indeed, work to defeat our claim. But I'm not about to indulge you.
Rosemary
All the readers here are fully aware that you are not about to indulge anyone or any notion that may threaten your claims.
First of all, 5 hours a day is not 24/7, which is what is required.
Second, "without any measurable loss of voltage to the batteries" does not cut it in terms of
knowing what the batteries' state of charge is over time.
Present something with "substance" please. These airy arguments of yours are becoming quite tedious and boring. ::)
.99
Oh I can also think of hot water and the use of steam turbines to produce electricity. But this obviously isn't it The Ainsle circuit was announced back in 2002 and 9 years have passed since then with "blabla", without practical demonstration nor use. I can guess why. Good luck, I'm out of here.
A net gain by applying pulses to dead battery make inverters work, that previously could not provide the working voltage to the connected various loads.
This (well known ) individual has proven it:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aqDS8QQ_9Z0&feature=related
Quote from: TheCell on April 17, 2011, 01:05:38 PM
A net gain by applying pulses to dead battery make inverters work, that previously could not provide the working voltage to the connected various loads.
This (well known ) individual has proven it:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aqDS8QQ_9Z0&feature=related
Please prove that he has proven it.
.99
Quote from: poynt99 on April 17, 2011, 01:02:56 PM
All the readers here are fully aware that you are not about to indulge anyone or any notion that may threaten your claims.
First of all, 5 hours a day is not 24/7, which is what is required.
Second, "without any measurable loss of voltage to the batteries" does not cut it in terms of knowing what the batteries' state of charge is over time.
Present something with "substance" please. These airy arguments of yours are becoming quite tedious and boring. ::)
.99
It seems Poynty Point that you are - indeed - prepared to hit below the belt. Gauschor may not have read my post related to this but you most certainly have. Do you really expect me to let you get away with this comment AGAIN?
Here's the thing. We can get VERY HIGH wattage dissipated at the load. It works like a 'booster converter' - delivering even more energy that is allowable in terms of resistance placed in series with a standard supply without an applied switching cycle. But - under those circumstances - there is just so much energy that the 'offset' setting slips ever higher and - the circuit then becomes hazardous. Therefore one needs to monitor that circuit on a full time basis. I do not have the time to do this monitoring - even if I could manage to stay awake for 24 hours of every day over an extended period of time. Nor can any other member of the team whose days are spent in trying to earn a living. So. Who do you propose will do the required monitoring?
But you know this. Why are you repeating the same old complaint? Is it in the hopes that I won't remind you of this? Perhaps? Surely you know me better.
Rosemary
Where there is a will, there is a way, and most certainly there is a way in this case. The will is what is sorely lacking.
You and your "experts" just need to put your thinking caps on for a moment and develop a simple scheme to prove this out by letting the circuit run continuously until it becomes exceedingly obvious and beyond a doubt (which you have not yet achieved) one way or the other if the batteries' capacity is declining.
.99
Quote from: poynt99 on April 17, 2011, 01:07:56 PM
Please prove that he has proven it.
.99
And here, guys, in a nutshell - is the final defense of the defenseless. Accurate reports - detailed screen downloads - repeated public demonstrations - youtube demonstrations - predicted results - proven theses - NOTHING will work. How much more PROOF is required. This right to denial is now getting to a level of absurdity that actually makes a mockery or a parody of science.
I have long been aware of the many evidences of overunity - even by those who don't even claim it. The Joule Thief is a case in point. It is stated that the energy comes from ground. Dear God - it doesn't matter WHERE the energy comes from provided that it's non pollutant. And what really gets me down is how Mags is browbeaten into submission with a really elegant arrangement. And even if they don't all work. SO WHAT? Isn't it a far, far better thing that we have done than we have ever done? - which is possibly hopelessly misquoted. Why must we feel ashamed of working towards such excellent goals? If we don't then - as sure as day follows night - we're dead in the water. We can kiss the human race - 'good bye'. Because that's where we're heading. And mainstream are not going to dip into this dialogue until they've been given a strong and concerted argument - not this fractured nonsense that comes from these threads. And Poynty et al - they KNOW this. And they make sure that it stays fractured.
And I sincerely believe that we have actually finally given the measurement proof that's required. And guess what? They're denying the measurements. They STILL want proof. I actually think that this clamorous denial has now had it's day. Let's move on. I think we need to be way more pro-active in our thinking. And all we're managing here is to go round and round in a circular argument that defeats our best efforts and fits in very comfortably with their agendas. Let's move on. I dream of the day when these threads are just wholly and completely dedicated to discovery and not to this hideous need to defend our interests our claims or even our evidence. Proof is proof. And right now there's a surfeit of it.
Most sincerely
Rosemary
So there it is folks, in classic form:
We are being asked to forget about the actual issues at hand, bury our heads in the sand along with Rose, and "move on". Move on and ignore the meat of the matter?
It's time to remove the rose-colored glasses and opt for a lens that allows for the true determination as to the validity of the claims.
Do the continuous test. Failing to do so will never get you beyond the "beyond a reasonable doubt" stage, and this nonsense will go on forever. ::)
.99
Quote from: poynt99 on April 17, 2011, 01:53:38 PM
So there it is folks, in classic form:
We are being asked to forget about the actual issues at hand, bury our heads in the sand along with Rose, and "move on". Move on and ignore the meat of the matter?
It's time to remove the rose-colored glasses and opt for a lens that allows for the true determination as to the validity of the claims.
Do the continuous test. Failing to do so will never get you beyond the "beyond a reasonable doubt" stage, and this nonsense will go on forever. ::)
.99
WHEN YOU HAVE THE WRITTEN GUARANTEE BY 5 OR MORE EXPERTS THAT IF WE OUTPERFORM THE BATTERY'S WATT HOUR RATING BY MORE THAN DOUBLE - THEN I WILL MOST CERTAINLY DO THOSE TESTS.
THAT GUARANTEE MUST BE UNEQUIVOCAL AND REPRESENT ABSOLUTE ACCEPTANCE OF THE EVIDENCE AND BE SUFFICIENT TO THEN ALSO CARRY THE ENDORSEMENT OF THE ENTIRE SCIENTIFIC COMMUNITY. WHEN YOU HAVE THAT GUARANTEE THEN I WILL CERTAINLY FIND THE TIME TO DO THOSE TESTS. INDEED IT WILL BE MY ENTIRE FOCUS.
ROSEMARY
ADDED
So Poynty Point. The onus is now on you. Prove to me that I won't be wasting my time. Under these circumstances I would LOVE to do those tests. See if you can find 5 or more experts who have Doctorate accreditation - who are expert at power analysis - and who are prepared to endorse ANY BATTERY RESULTS EVER - then I'm certainly game. But you wont find this. EVER. NO EXPERT WILL DEPEND ON ANY BATTERY RESULTS AT ALL UNLESS THEY ARE FIRST EXPERTS AT CHEMISTRY - is the first point. And then variables are such that multiple battery types would need to be tested. Then the actual chemical changes will need to be fully analysed over the duration. Then - at the end of this waste of time - they will find yet another required parameter to test. At least our power engineering experts still rely on measurement. That's because the WHOLE OF THE ARGUMENT IS IN THE MEASUREMENTS. You are SO hoping to steer us away from this.
God what an enormous waste of time you manage to engage us all in. Clearly an expert at your mandate of propaganda and denial.
Rosemary
You are engaging in logical fallacies. Clearly WilbyInebriated would have a field day with you if he so desired.
No experts of any kind are necessary to ably determine when and if a battery is clearly "dying" and losing it's charge. It doesn't take a rocket scientist to observe when a power source is clearly diminishing, and given a reasonable amount of time, say 1 month or 2 months, the evidence will be undeniable
Here is what's required (since you can't seem to muster a logical argument towards your fallacious detraction):
1) Set up the experiment to produce what you deem is the state where the load resistor is clearly heating substantially above T(ambient). In addition, ensure to your own satisfaction that the circuit is operating in a state where the battery is supplying no net energy to the production of heat in the load.
2) Turn off the system and take a baseline state of charge (SOC) check of the batteries using a hydrometer. As an added measure if you wish, take the temperature of the electrolyte.
3) Run the circuit continuously and perform this SOC check every 12 or 24 hours. Keep track of the day, hour, and hydrometer reading for each measurement.
4) Continue for 2 weeks or 1 month or 2 if necessary, at which time it is very likely the SOC trend will be clearly established. Most likely the trend will be evident within 72 hours so long as the heat being produced by the load is significant.
.99
Quote from: poynt99 on April 17, 2011, 02:49:30 PM
You are engaging in logical fallacies. Clearly WilbyInebriated would have a field day with you if he so desired.
No experts of any kind are necessary to ably determine when and if a battery is clearly "dying" and losing it's charge. It doesn't take a rocket scientist to observe when a power source is clearly diminishing, and given a reasonable amount of time, say 1 month or 2 months, the evidence will be undeniable
Here is what's required (since you can't seem to muster a logical argument towards your fallacious detraction):
1) Set up the experiment to produce what you deem is the state where the load resistor is clearly heating substantially above T(ambient). In addition, ensure to your own satisfaction that the circuit is operating in a state where the battery is supplying no net energy to the production of heat in the load.
2) Turn off the system and take a baseline state of charge (SOC) check of the batteries using a hydrometer. As an added measure if you wish, take the temperature of the electrolyte.
3) Run the circuit continuously and perform this SOC check every 12 or 24 hours. Keep track of the day, hour, and hydrometer reading for each measurement.
4) Continue for 2 weeks or 1 month or 2 if necessary, at which time it is very likely the SOC trend will be clearly established. Most likely the trend will be evident within 72 hours so long as the heat being produced by the load is significant.
.99
My dear Poynty Point.
Right now I don't even have the time to read this. But from a quick scan - I see you're still on about criteria for proof. Here's the thing. I'll do whatever it is that is required PROVIDED ONLY THAT THIS IS FIRST ENDORSED BY AT LEAST 5 EXPERTS AS BEING SUFFICIENT PROOF OF THE CLAIM. AND THEN THAT CLAIM MUST THEN BE SUFFICIENT TO BE ENDORSED BY THE ENTIRE SCIENTIFIC COMMUNITY. Otherwise, with respect - you're wasting my time. I have NO interest in satisfying your own arbitrary criteria. They're irrelevant and designed to confuse the facts with extraneous parameters that have NOTHING to do with the measurements.
Rosemary
Quote from: Rosemary Ainslie on April 17, 2011, 03:00:15 PM
Otherwise, with respect - you're wasting my time. I have NO interest in satisfying your own arbitrary criteria. They're irrelevant and designed to confuse the facts with extraneous parameters that have NOTHING to do with the measurements.
Rosemary
I think most of the readers would agree that it is quite the contrary, and that running a continuous test gets directly to the heart of the matter in terms of the claims.
Not running the continuous test and instead muttering on about irrelevant things is what wastes people's time.
Stefan should demand no less than a properly conducted continuous test before allowing more of the nonsense that appears in this thread.
.99
I totally agree .99 if there is more energy then why can't it run continuously ???
how about a comparison test heating the same amount of water with a fixed power supply and see if it runs any longer than a conventional circuit, or something like that.
It seems the arguments about measurements will continue on and on and on four ever >:(
and at some point in the future this thread will be replaced with a new one maybe on another forum,
and the needle returns to the start of the song and we all sing along like we did before
::)
http://www.youtube.com/results?search_type=videos&search_query=Rosemary+Ainslie+circuit&search_sort=video_date_uploaded&suggested_categories=28&uni=3
Quote from: Rosemary Ainslie on April 17, 2011, 03:00:15 PM
My dear Poynty Point.
Right now I don't even have the time to read this. But from a quick scan - I see you're still on about criteria for proof. Here's the thing. I'll do whatever it is that is required PROVIDED ONLY THAT THIS IS FIRST ENDORSED BY AT LEAST 5 EXPERTS AS BEING SUFFICIENT PROOF OF THE CLAIM. AND THEN THAT CLAIM MUST THEN BE SUFFICIENT TO BE ENDORSED BY THE ENTIRE SCIENTIFIC COMMUNITY. Otherwise, with respect - you're wasting my time. I have NO interest in satisfying your own arbitrary criteria. They're irrelevant and designed to confuse the facts with extraneous parameters that have NOTHING to do with the measurements.
Rosemary
Here is one thing you may or may not be aware of. The Randi Foundation has a standing offer of $1 Million to anyone able to demonstrate a paranormal claim. The definition of paranormal has been expanded to include a perpetual motion device, which is currently considered impossible under traditional science.
Here is a link: http://www.randi.org/site/index.php/1m-challenge.html (http://www.randi.org/site/index.php/1m-challenge.html)
So if you can make a self-runner, you can score an easy $1 Million. JREF does now require a media presence, so you would need to show a news story about yourself, but once you make your self-runner, it should be no trouble to get at least some local outlet to do a story.
Quote from: Rosemary Ainslie on April 17, 2011, 03:00:15 PM
My dear Poynty Point.
I'll do whatever it is that is required PROVIDED ONLY THAT THIS IS FIRST ENDORSED BY AT LEAST 5 EXPERTS AS BEING SUFFICIENT PROOF OF THE CLAIM. AND THEN THAT CLAIM MUST THEN BE SUFFICIENT TO BE ENDORSED BY THE ENTIRE SCIENTIFIC COMMUNITY.
Rosemary
You may or may not own and drive a petrol car, but I am going to assume you have some basic knowledge about them. With reference to the above:
Would you require the endorsement of 5 auto mechanics to assure you that a perfectly functional car with it's engine running will indeed stop running when the car uses up all of it's petrol? ???
Or closer to the point:
would you require the endorsement of 5 auto mechanics to assure you that as the engine runs and the fuel gauge indicates a decrease in fuel quantity over time, that the gauge is indeed working properly, and the engine is using up petrol? ???
.99
Quote from: poynt99 on April 17, 2011, 07:24:09 PM
You may or may not own and drive a petrol car, but I am going to assume you have some basic knowledge about them. With reference to the above:
Would you require the endorsement of 5 auto mechanics to assure you that a perfectly functional car with it's engine running will indeed stop running when the car uses up all of it's petrol? ???
Or closer to the point: would you require the endorsement of 5 auto mechanics to assure you that as the engine runs and the fuel gauge indicates a decrease in fuel quantity over time, that the gauge is indeed working properly, and the engine is using up petrol? ???
.99
No Poynty. Your grasp of the point is rather tenuous - as ever. I'm commenting on the fact that there is no consumption of petrol. On the contrary. Every time I run that car the tank fills up again. Not only that but the petrol gauge confirms this. I've already spoken to the guys who made that gauge and they've assured me that there's a warranty on it's accuracy. And I've also told and shown some really interested people about this on this thread and all over the place. But I've also, unwittingly, shown a mere handful of really nasty - ill qualified - small minded mechanics. This latter group - about a dozen or so disciples of yours in the art of disinformation and misinformation - earn their living from the sale of all that petrol. If there is no need for ample and excessive consumption of this then there will be no livelihood available to them. So they have rallied in earnest. They are now dedicated to destroying this claim. They're on record. They state that I must be mad to be reading this excess on the gauge. And when they say this they say it REALLY, loudly. They scream the facts across two public threads and an equally public blogspot - all run concurrently. This really noisy minority group of partially qualified and excessively partial group of mechanics make up for their minority representation - that minority quotient - through an anxious and mindless repetition of those shouts and screams to advise the world and its wife that my reading of the gauge is the result of delusions - incompetence - and general idiocy.
Since the petrol gauge shows 'full' and since this has now been seen by a sizeable percentage of internet browsers - related as it is to those who read here and to those who followed earlier evidence of this - then I have no actual quarrel with this little group - representing - as they do - a mere handful of ill qualified mechanics. In truth, I would first need to be as mad as they claim to even spend time speaking to them.
There is no question that the guage reads 'FULL'. And there is no question that the car has been beetling about the place with a seemingly endless appetite for movement - and this has been duly seen and approved by a whole slew of mechanics - who are ALL ON RECORD. That petrol gauge has been checked and re-checked. The 'logic' that it applies to that reading - to the calculation of that 'sum' has been checked and rechecked. There is no explanation for this. Either it is a miracle - or it is erroneous - or there is some principle that has been overlooked that allows for this reading.
So. I am modestly proposing that the best way to get this explained is to bypass those ill-qualified mechanics who are dedicated to wrecking this technology for their own nefarious purposes - and go to those real experts who are capable of evaluating this as is required. And so open handed am I in this exercise that I have recommended that those same people - that minority handfull of ill qualfied - nasty self-serving men - the term 'men' here used in its loosest sense - find their own 'experts'. The only criterion then - is that they are acknowledged experts and that they evaluate the evidence and not speculate on what they predict may be that evidence. Then. I will show them that evidence and hopefully all parties will then be satisfied.
Otherwise - I assure you - I am not about to get into my car and drive around in circles for another 5 months or more - to satisfy you or anyone else that I am that I am indeed that lunatic that I'll comply to any aribtrary requirement or request that you or yours stipulate.
Kindest regards
Rosemary
Quote from: utilitarian on April 17, 2011, 07:05:47 PM
Here is one thing you may or may not be aware of. The Randi Foundation has a standing offer of $1 Million to anyone able to demonstrate a paranormal claim. The definition of paranormal has been expanded to include a perpetual motion device, which is currently considered impossible under traditional science.
Here is a link: http://www.randi.org/site/index.php/1m-challenge.html (http://www.randi.org/site/index.php/1m-challenge.html)
So if you can make a self-runner, you can score an easy $1 Million. JREF does now require a media presence, so you would need to show a news story about yourself, but once you make your self-runner, it should be no trouble to get at least some local outlet to do a story.
Utiliarian - I am not about to try and impress anyone about anything at all. And as delectable as a million dollars may be - nor do I believe there is any sincere intention of proving anything at all. If it's perpetual motion that he wants to see - then properly it should have been paid out by now. There is at LEAST one working device on show that has been working perpetually for some many years now. I just, for the life of me, can't remember the man's name. If I do I'll append it here.
What I am anxiously trying to do - in fact what the entire team is trying to do - is to HIGHLIGHT QUESTIONS that this can get to the academic table. That's the only barrier that needs to fall. Once it's there then we can all rest easy. Because they certainly have the skills and the expertise to develop this argument and this technology to where it needs to go. What we represent is a fringe minority of dedicated researchers - who do NOT have the required academic recognition to progress this technology at all.
The sad truth is that until this gets academic recognition then it is dead in the waters. That's the only respectable arena that will satisfy our public and will justify the research funding required to get this all fully developed. Sad but true. And that's why my efforts are entirely in this direction.
Kindest regards,
Rosemary
Quote from: Rosemary Ainslie on April 18, 2011, 01:33:20 AM
Utiliarian - I am not about to try and impress anyone about anything at all. And as delectable as a million dollars may be - nor do I believe there is any sincere intention of proving anything at all. If it's perpetual motion that he wants to see - then properly it should have been paid out by now. There is at LEAST one working device on show that has been working perpetually for some many years now. I just, for the life of me, can't remember the man's name. If I do I'll append it here.
What I am anxiously trying to do - in fact what the entire team is trying to do - is to HIGHLIGHT QUESTIONS that this can get to the academic table. That's the only barrier that needs to fall. Once it's there then we can all rest easy. Because they certainly have the skills and the expertise to develop this argument and this technology to where it needs to go. What we represent is a fringe minority of dedicated researchers - who do NOT have the required academic recognition to progress this technology at all.
The sad truth is that until this gets academic recognition then it is dead in the waters. That's the only respectable arena that will satisfy our public and will justify the research funding required to get this all fully developed. Sad but true. And that's why my efforts are entirely in this direction.
Kindest regards,
Rosemary
The prize is awarded only to those who apply for it and where a mutual agreement is reached as to the testing procedure, so as to remove the possibility of fraud.
Currently, there are exactly zero functioning overunity devices in the world. Yours would be the first.
Guys - I need to explain something here. And you really ned to understand it. Proper measurement of electric energy is based on vi dt. This requires the calculation - the product - of volts and amps in real time. The minute one takes the average of the amperage over a certain period of time multiplied by the average of the voltage over a certain period of time - then one is actually only pointing to an average. It may very well be a fair reflection of the fact - very much as you can average the global temperature - but it tells you NOTHING about the temperature at any precise point. IF we measured electrical energy as an average - then it could be entirely misrepresented.
Here's an example. You can take the sum of the voltage across the shunt over - say - 1 minute - and then multiply it by the sum of the battery voltage over that same minute - and it will give a result that is only 'close' to but not 'representative of' the actual energy delivered or dissipated. It will certainly HIDE the benefits in phase relationships between those voltages - and it may either enhance or fudge the actual facts. Poynty is relying on this. He is hoping that your own lack of knowledge of detailed measurements is such that he can carry his argument. But pick up your phones. Talk to your academics. They're very approachable. They'll explain how it is that any measurment based on an average - is absolutely NOT acceptable. What is more - our own evidence shows that there are those relationships between the voltages that are ENTIRELY hidden by an average. I've not even touched on that side of the evidence yet. But Poynty et al - thay know of this. And this NEED TO AVERAGE is therefore also MUCH NEEDED. Else they'll have no argument.
We're here dealing with a really sophisticated effort to diffuse the efficacy of these forums. And it's actually where the real energy pollution is.
Regards,
Rosemary
the JREF is a biased farce... and so is randi's "challenge".
Quote from: WilbyInebriated on April 18, 2011, 02:18:31 AM
the JREF is a biased farce... and so is randi's "challenge".
Hi Wilby. Always nice to see you here. There's a machine in a museum someplace - I've seen a picture of it. It's housed in a glass case. Do you know of it?
Anyway - perhaps it's as well to mention Bessler's machine? I believe that worked. But I absolutely do NOT claim perpetual motion. I wish I could. I only claim absolute conservation of charge. And that's a completely different argument.
Here's one link that I found.
http://pesn.com/2006/06/27/9500287_Bessler_gravity_documentation/
Kindest regards,
Rosie
Quote from: Rosemary Ainslie on April 18, 2011, 02:41:03 AM
Hi Wilby. Always nice to see you here. There's a machine in a museum someplace - I've seen a picture of it. It's housed in a glass case. Do you know of it?
Anyway - perhaps it's as well to mention Bessler's machine? I believe that worked. But I absolutely do NOT claim perpetual motion. I wish I could. I only claim absolute conservation of charge. And that's a completely different argument.
Here's one link that I found.
http://pesn.com/2006/06/27/9500287_Bessler_gravity_documentation/
Kindest regards,
Rosie
hi rose. good to see you too! i believe you are thinking of the clarendon dry pile (oxford bell) ;)
http://atlasobscura.com/place/oxford-electric-bell
you see the thing with randi is that he is only prepared to "debunk" "unpopular" claims... there are plenty of
extraordinary claims out there that randi shows no interest in debunking... like the big bang theory, like the general theory of relativity, etc. yet he seems to show no concern (at least not the same level of concern he applies to "paranormal" claims. as an aside, i find this deliciously amusing. after all, what could be more paranormal than "first there was nothing, then it exploded") that billions of dollars are being hoodwinked from tax payers to fund the 11+ billion LHC and that billions are being hoodwinked from students via tuition only to have teachers teach them "first there was nothing, then it exploded"... HA what a farce!
and i have to comment on humboogers "Rosemary's Baby ~ a Short Story by Way of Analogy" from yOUR.com with a little analogy of my own.
humbooger's pickle ~ a short story by way of analogyhumbooger "Take the division 64/16. Now, canceling a 6 on top and a six on the bottom, we get that 64/16 = 4/1 = 4."
rosemary "Wait a second ! You can't just cancel the six !"
humbooger "Oh, so you're telling us 64/16 is not equal to 4, are you ?"
Quote from: WilbyInebriated on April 18, 2011, 02:57:44 AM
hi rose. good to see you too! i believe you are thinking of the clarendon dry pile (oxford bell) ;)
http://atlasobscura.com/place/oxford-electric-bell
you see the thing with randi is that he is only prepared to "debunk" "unpopular" claims... there are plenty of extraordinary claims out there that randi shows no interest in debunking... like the big bang theory, like the general theory of relativity, etc. yet he seems to show no concern (at least not the same level of concern he applies to "paranormal" claims. as an aside, i find this deliciously amusing. after all, what could be more paranormal than "first there was nothing, then it exploded") that billions of dollars are being hoodwinked from tax payers to fund the 11+ billion LHC and that billions are being hoodwinked from students via tuition only to have teachers teach them "first there was nothing, then it exploded"... HA what a farce!
and i have to comment on humboogers "Rosemary's Baby ~ a Short Story by Way of Analogy" from yOUR.com with a little analogy of my own.
humbooger's pickle ~ a short story by way of analogy
humbooger "Take the division 64/16. Now, canceling a 6 on top and a six on the bottom, we get that 64/16 = 4/1 = 4."
rosemary "Wait a second ! You can't just cancel the six !"
humbooger "Oh, so you're telling us 64/16 is not equal to 4, are you ?"
What a pleasure. My first laugh in a long time.
Thanks for this.
;D
BTW I've just seen that link. It's not the one I'm thinking of - BUT HOW GOOD IS THAT? Nice reminder there Wilby - EVEN PERPETUAL MOTION's in the bag.
Quote from: Rosemary Ainslie on April 18, 2011, 01:33:20 AM
\There is at LEAST one working device on show that has been working perpetually for some many years now. I just, for the life of me, can't remember the man's name. If I do I'll \
Reidar Finsrud
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=us7YB7eiOeQ
Quote from: happyfunball on April 18, 2011, 03:52:34 AM
Reidar Finsrud
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=us7YB7eiOeQ
Thanks Happy. That's the one I remembered. But how nice to know that there's two. So. Someone should get hold of Randi and claim that prize for either of those two estates - OR BOTH. And I'm reasonably satisfied that - provided this is handled by some legal experts - then I doubt that Randi would be able to refute those prizes. Golly. If Utilitarian or someone here actually rallies for the prize money on behalf of those estates - then I imagine they'd be able to claim a reasonable fee for all that effort from that prize money.
And we actually need these examples in the front page of EVERY TEXT BOOK ON THE PLANET. That way when we're subjected to all that disclaiming drivel against perpetual motion then we'll be better reminded of the quality of that drivel.
Please note that I have more than a sneaking suspicion that our Mookie has a vested interest in the Koeberg Nuclear Expansion program. Wonder if that's perhaps, why he's been trying to besmirch my good name.
Golly. Whatever next?
Rosemary
And MileHigh. The master of the mot juste. The wizard of the perfectly balanced sentence. The artiste of greatest clarity. What a waste of talent. Read my little exposition again. If I have erred or wandered too near the truth - just bear in mind - I was using analogy. I wonder why it is that you assumed anything else?
And if you and Pickle and others want to quote me - as you so often do - then please include the entire passage. Else the sense of what I'm trying to communicate is lost. And I'd then be inclined to think that you were simply quoting me out of context or - God forbid - propagandising. And thank God - your little forum gets all the attention that it deserves - which is negligible.
Kindest regards,
Rosemary
And BTW. What MileHigh can you and Pickle do about all that evidence of perpetual motion? Do you just deny this too? I'd be interested to see if your language skills are also equal to dismissing this evidence as well.
;D
Are you going to do the continuous operation test?
If not, why not?
.99
Quote from: poynt99 on April 18, 2011, 08:47:22 AM
Are you going to do the continuous operation test?
If not, why not?
.99
Poynty Point. Do you EVER read what I write? OF COURSE I'LL DO THIS. But first get me 5 or so EXPERTS to advise me in writing that this will constitute ABSOLUTE PROOF - and I'll gladly run all the required tests and their controls. Then - when those tests are concluded I will require those same experts to acknowledge those results in writing. GOOD HEAVENS. Historically we haven't got a single expert to even acknowledge perpetual motion - notwithstanding the evidence. Not a good thing Poynty. You must admit. I sort of imagine myself beetling around until the day I die and then hearing you all say - 'NOT GOOD ENOUGH. Until it's run for 1000 years - it's just hearsay'. You see for yourself what our poor Mr Reider Finsrud managed.
As ever,
Rosie
::)
Quote from: Rosemary Ainslie on April 18, 2011, 04:17:36 AM
Golly. Whatever next?
Rosemary
A new Chronophage
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1PeG2HsXbpw
The most beautiful clock I have seen :)
Quote from: powercat on April 18, 2011, 08:59:54 AM
A new Chronophage
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1PeG2HsXbpw
The most beautiful clock I have seen :)
WOW. That's really, really nice. Thanks for that Cat.
Rosie
Quote from: Rosemary Ainslie on April 18, 2011, 01:33:20 AM
Utiliarian - I am not about to try and impress anyone about anything at all. And as delectable as a million dollars may be - nor do I believe there is any sincere intention of proving anything at all. If it's perpetual motion that he wants to see - then properly it should have been paid out by now. There is at LEAST one working device on show that has been working perpetually for some many years now. I just, for the life of me, can't remember the man's name. If I do I'll append it here.
Well what you do is up to you, but as far as Finsrud, the problem with submitting his device is that (1) he himself claims that it is just art, and not a "real" perpetual motion device, and (2) he will not reveal the inner workings of his device, specifically what is hidden in the center column.
So given that disqualification, that leaves the number of working perpetual motion devices at exactly zero. Given that your device clearly shows a COP of infinity, and I have no doubt that this is true, it should be child's play to convert this into perpetual motion.
The Randi prize would also instantly make worldwide news and give you the credibility you seek to get into academic circles.
I have read extensively about this prize and it seems to be completely on the level. There have numerous preliminary tests conducted by the Randi Foundation, and these have been conducted very fairly, to the satisfaction of both the the foundation and the applicant. No applicant has passed the preliminary test required to show paranormal activity, but the foundation given many people full chances.
Here is an example of test done: http://forums.randi.org/showthread.php?t=118952 (http://forums.randi.org/showthread.php?t=118952)
The fact that no one has claimed the prize says something important - no one motivated enough to seek $1 Million has been able to back up his or her claims. But you can be the first, and it would make quite a worldwide splash. I cannot conceive of why you would not want to. If not for the money, think of advancing your work to mainstream.
Quote from: utilitarian on April 18, 2011, 09:17:53 AM
Well what you do is up to you, but as far as Finsrud, the problem with submitting his device is that (1) he himself claims that it is just art, and not a "real" perpetual motion device, and (2) he will not reveal the inner workings of his device, specifically what is hidden in the center column.
So given that disqualification, that leaves the number of working perpetual motion devices at exactly zero. Given that your device clearly shows a COP of infinity, and I have no doubt that this is true, it should be child's play to convert this into perpetual motion.
The Randi prize would also instantly make worldwide news and give you the credibility you seek to get into academic circles.
Hi again utilitarian. I believe that Watkin and Hill and our Mr Finsrud are all dead - unfortunately. The Cavendish Pile - I think - is meant to be chemical. Finsrud's is purely mechanical. And they all three - really HAVE produced perpetual motion. I most CERTAINLY have not. What I have, I think, is conservation of charge - and THAT as a required principle in physics - is already widely accepted. Just that it's not - typically - applied to electric energy.
But there's no question that I can run these batteries that they outperform their watt hour ratings. And I would be glad to do so - provided ONLY - that that result is then considered sufficient proof of the thesis.
What I am attempting is to draw attention to some much needed revision in the measure of electric energy. Thus far it's been 'grouped' under the 2nd Law. My thinking is that it should, properly be under the 3rd Law. Then. All that excess in efficiency will be very easily explained. And then too we'll all be given the required license to exploit it. Which would be very nice.
But to evaluate this as a perpetual motion machine would be WRONG. Possibly there are ways to configure it that it can better exploit that excess. But I'm very aware of my limitations utilitarian. All I can do is point at this particular build and hope, eventually, that I'll get some experts to the table. Not an entirely lost cause. Right now there are two who are considering the applied protocols. If it passes then I think they're both courageous enough to endorse the 'anomaly'. And once that's in the bag then - it'll be much, much closer to getting all this better known.
Again. Thanks for the input. I think you should seriously consider representing two deceased estates and looking to benefits for their heirs. It may prove lucrative. LOL
Kindest regards,
Rosemary
Quote from: Rosemary Ainslie on April 18, 2011, 08:57:19 AM
Poynty Point. Do you EVER read what I write? OF COURSE I'LL DO THIS. But first get me 5 or so EXPERTS to advise me in writing that this will constitute ABSOLUTE PROOF - and I'll gladly run all the required tests and their controls. Then - when those tests are concluded I will require those same experts to acknowledge those results in writing. GOOD HEAVENS. Historically we haven't got a single expert to even acknowledge perpetual motion - notwithstanding the evidence. Not a good thing Poynty. You must admit. I sort of imagine myself beetling around until the day I die and then hearing you all say - 'NOT GOOD ENOUGH. Until it's run for 1000 years - it's just hearsay'. You see for yourself what our poor Mr Reider Finsrud managed.
As ever,
Rosie
::)
Do you need proof from 5 auto mechanics to assure you that your car engine has stopped running or that the petrol is decreasing?
You seemed to have completely missed the point of the analogy. You have your assertion that the batteries supply no net energy to the circuit, yet you have provided no credible proof of that assertion. That means that there remains enough doubt about your assertion to require further or different testing. Obviously most if not all the readers here embrace this doubt as well, otherwise there would be widespread attempts to replicate, of which I see none.
So, to put the issue to bed, there is one definitive test that can produce undeniable results, and that is
the continuous operation test I have already proposed and laid out for you. The results will be clear, certain, and undeniably correct. All doubt about whether the batteries' state of charge declines or not will be put to rest.
You do not require the endorsement from any "experts" in order to see the logic and clarity in this method. Your denial of this fact is obviously a ploy being used to skirt around the real issue at hand. It's quite apparent the proposed test makes you very nervous. You really should afford the readers here more credit. Your denial of this test based on some nonsensical notion that it first requires the endorsement of 5 experts is an insult to the readership here. Your insecurity about this test and the potential results are more than obvious.
Perform the test, and put the issue to rest. Do the right thing.
.99
Quote from: poynt99 on April 18, 2011, 09:44:13 AM
Do you need proof from 5 auto mechanics to assure you that your car engine has stopped running or that the petrol is decreasing?
You seemed to have completely missed the point of the analogy. You have your assertion that the batteries supply no net energy to the circuit, yet you have provided no credible proof of that assertion. That means that there remains enough doubt about your assertion to require further or different testing. Obviously most if not all the readers here embrace this doubt as well, otherwise there would be widespread attempts to replicate, of which I see none.
So, to put the issue to bed, there is one definitive test that can produce undeniable results, and that is the continuous operation test I have already proposed and laid out for you. The results will be clear, certain, and undeniably correct. All doubt about whether the batteries' state of charge declines or not will be put to rest.
You do not require the endorsement from any "experts" in order to see the logic and clarity in this method. Your denial of this fact is obviously a ploy being used to skirt around the real issue at hand. It's quite apparent the proposed test makes you quite nervous. You really should afford the readers here more credit. Your denial of this test based on some nonsensical notion that it first requires the endorsement of 5 experts is an insult to the readership here. Your insecurity about this test and the potential results are more than obvious.
Perform the test, and put the issue to rest. Do the right thing.
.99
My dear Poynty Point. This is getting really boring. I am very happy to waste another 5 months of my life with experiments IF there is a guarantee of MOVING ON. You are rather insulting my own intelligence here. PROVE that I'll not be wasting my time and I will PROVE that these batteries outperform their watt hour rating. Not a difficult thing to do. It could all be entirely completed and in the bag possibly within a mere 48 hours. BUT I WILL NOT DO THE TEST OTHERWISE. THAT'S FINAL.
There is not a single test - NOT ONE - that you and yours would acknowledge. You do not have the required integrity. God knows. You can't even admit you were wrong with that undersampling fiasco. Many other examples. So. For you to suggest any test at all - is NOTHING. I need others to assure me that they'll recognise it as CONCLUSIVE. You cannot. You are simply not man enough
Rosemary
...the time-eater, Chronophage, devourer of hours...
Interesting art piece there. And now, on a completely different subject... :D
I'm sure I'm not the only one curious about this, Rosemary. You keep telling us all that (despite the many arguments to the contrary) you are 100% convinced of the success of your demonstrations, the proof of your theory and the validity of your measurement protocol.
You also repeatedly emphasize your primary focus on getting the attention and interest of "mainstream academia" and dismiss outright the validity of any skeptical opinions or critical observations expressed by anyone who is not a PhD EE.
Why do you then spend so many countless hours arguing with such unqualified fools as we on these several internet forums and your blog? Are we the only poor souls who will respond to you? Honestly, Rosemary, why do you waste your time? Can you really not find one single qualified PhD EE who will even listen for five minutes?
You've talked and talked about presentations to experts and tried endlessly to make us believe you are in constant intimate dialog with an array of experts who endorse your findings and guide your methodologies, yet you equally often, of late, have openly admitted that not one single EE expert has ever once even looked at your procedures and the results.
Maybe it's time to point your efforts away from verbosely and publicly arguing matters with people whose qualifications fall far short of your requirements and stop wasting your precious time and ours.
I, for one, have given up all hope that you will ever respond as a scientist to any earnest effort to help you understand why your measurements might be perceived as being basically flawed. You would rather argue and throw out a barrage of snide remarks and personal insults than thoughtfully consider any critical opinion or observation. Could this be the reason why no academic expert will give you even a brief audience?
Humbugger
I am not sure why you guys are even arguing over measurements. Who cares about measurements? Just make it self loop and then it will speak for itself. At over 17 COP, or infinite now, I think, how hard can it be to loop the output back to the input? Even allowing for loss, at over 17 times efficiency, it should be easy to make a self runner.
Then no argument will be needed over how such and such is measured.
Quote from: utilitarian on April 18, 2011, 10:09:50 AM
I am not sure why you guys are even arguing over measurements. Who cares about measurements? Just make it self loop and then it will speak for itself. At over 17 COP, or infinite now, I think, how hard can it be to loop the output back to the input? Even allowing for loss, at over 17 times efficiency, it should be easy to make a self runner.
Then no argument will be needed over how such and such is measured.
Rosemary firmly believes that her setup
already is "looped" and "self-running". It sits there on the bench and creates three outputs with no net input. One output is heat from the load resistor to the environment; another is copious amounts of current continuously charging the batteries. Thirdly, she reports a full 5 Watts flowing out of the MOSFET gates into the signal generator.
It's a real puzzle why the batteries have not yet boiled out given that she has been charging them 5 hours a day for five months with never any drawdown!
What more absolute proof of looped self-running could there be? ::) Right Rosemary?
Humbugger
Quote from: utilitarian on April 18, 2011, 10:09:50 AM
I am not sure why you guys are even arguing over measurements. Who cares about measurements? Just make it self loop and then it will speak for itself. At over 17 COP, or infinite now, I think, how hard can it be to loop the output back to the input? Even allowing for loss, at over 17 times efficiency, it should be easy to make a self runner.
Then no argument will be needed over how such and such is measured.
utilitarian - it's actually already a closed loop. Just not that obvious. But there's no 'easy fix' or no 'easy proof' in the way you're hoping. And I'm well aware of the fact that you ONLY want that proof. Unfortunately - you'll have to bear with me. I can only do my best - and I believe I'm doing it right. I would love to do a razzamataz rabbit out the hat kind of thing. But that would simply open a new can of worms - and then everyone will be talking 'battery types' and the entire focus will be off the physics principle and back to some kind of chemistry debate. And those debates will take more than my life time to settle.
If I can simply get back on track here. You're trying to get me to show you a small puddle of energy. I'm trying to get everyone to see whole oceans of the stuff. BUT. If there were guarantees that in showing that puddle then we could move on to those oceanic views - then I'm definitely game. It's just that I've pointed at the puddle for many many years. And I now know that our experts are NOT interested in that argument. They want an invincible argument - not something that may be guaged from a disputable chemical reaction. And for that invincible argument then they need to look at those measurements. It's only Poynty et al - who are debating this fact. And that's because they can't dispute the measurements. You see for yourself. They're trying to prove that the measurements are irrelevant. And if this were true - then science is irrelevant - based as it is on measurement.
But I've told you the conditions under which I'll test that 'puddle'. I'm happy to do so. But for now - can we perhaps move on?
Kindest regards,
Rosemary
Quote from: Rosemary Ainslie on April 18, 2011, 10:39:48 AM
utilitarian - it's actually already a closed loop. Just not that obvious. But there's no 'easy fix' or no 'easy proof' in the way you're hoping. And I'm well aware of the fact that you ONLY want that proof. Unfortunately - you'll have to bear with me. I can only do my best - and I believe I'm doing it right. I would love to do a razzamataz rabbit out the hat kind of thing. But that would simply open a new can of worms - and then everyone will be talking 'battery types' and the entire focus will be off the physics principle and back to some kind of chemistry debate. And those debates will take more than my life time to settle.
If I can simply get back on track here. You're trying to get me to show you a small puddle of energy. I'm trying to get everyone to see whole oceans of the stuff. BUT. If there were guarantees that in showing that puddle then we could move on to those oceanic views - then I'm definitely game. It's just that I've pointed at the puddle for many many years. And I now know that our experts are NOT interested in that argument. They want an invincible argument - not something that may be guaged from a disputable chemical reaction. And for that invincible argument then they need to look at those measurements. It's only Poynty et al - who are debating this fact. And that's because they can't dispute the measurements. You see for yourself. They're trying to prove that the measurements are irrelevant. And if this were true - then science is irrelevant - based as it is on measurement.
But I've told you the conditions under which I'll test that 'puddle'. I'm happy to do so. But for now - can we perhaps move on?
Kindest regards,
Rosemary
What was in the canister? A powered heating element, or was it simply siphoning off heat, and was it submerged? If so, was the water temperature shown in the video? I see a fluke measuring resistor temperature, are they related? Kind of confusing.
Quote from: utilitarian on April 18, 2011, 10:09:50 AM
I am not sure why you guys are even arguing over measurements. Who cares about measurements? Just make it self loop and then it will speak for itself. At over 17 COP, or infinite now, I think, how hard can it be to loop the output back to the input? Even allowing for loss, at over 17 times efficiency, it should be easy to make a self runner.
Then no argument will be needed over how such and such is measured.
Your thinking has its merit, however looping is much more complicated than performing a straight-forward continuous test whereby the battery SOC is monitored over time. Even a grade-school student could see the merit in that.
The true issue is being skirted around for obvious reasons; Rose has no real confidence in her claims. What she needs to do is cut the crap and perform the test.
.99
Quote from: poynt99 on April 18, 2011, 11:27:13 AM
Your thinking has its merit, however looping is much more complicated than performing a straight-forward continuous test whereby the battery SOC is monitored over time. Even a grade-school student could see the merit in that.
The true issue is being skirted around for obvious reasons; Rose has no real confidence in her claims. What she needs to do is cut the crap and perform the test.
.99
My dear Poynty Point,
When you repeat the same posts time out of mind then it constitutes 'flaming'. Could you kindly desist. I will be reporting this to Stefan. I have no intention of allowing you to corrupt this thread which is clearly your intention.
WHEN YOU GIVE ME REASON TO PERFORM THAT BATTERY DRAWN DOWN TEST OR SERIES OF TESTS - BY FIRST ENSURING A GUARANTEE THAT IT WILL THEN CONSISTUTE ABSOLUTE AND FINAL PROOF REQUIRED FOR THIS EXPERIMENTAL EVIDENCE - AND AS IT RELATES TO THE THESIS - THEN I WILL PERFORM THAT TEST. OTHERWISE I WILL NOT WASTE MY TIME.
Rosemary
Quote from: happyfunball on April 18, 2011, 11:02:26 AM
What was in the canister? A powered heating element, or was it simply siphoning off heat, and was it submerged? If so, was the water temperature shown in the video? I see a fluke measuring resistor temperature, are they related? Kind of confusing.
Happy read the report. I'll post a link again. I'll also try and find a picture of that element resistor. It was not in water. It was in the canister to conform to the control tests.
Regards,
Rosemary
http://newlightondarkenergy.blogspot.com/2011/03/report.html
Quote from: Rosemary Ainslie on April 18, 2011, 12:51:02 PM
My dear Poynty Point,
I will be reporting this to Stefan.
WHEN YOU GIVE ME REASON TO PERFORM THAT BATTERY DRAWN DOWN TEST OR SERIES OF TESTS - BY FIRST ENSURING A GUARANTEE THAT IT WILL THEN CONSISTUTE ABSOLUTE AND FINAL PROOF REQUIRED FOR THIS EXPERIMENTAL EVIDENCE - AND AS IT RELATES TO THE THESIS - THEN I WILL PERFORM THAT TEST. OTHERWISE I WILL NOT WASTE MY TIME.
Rosemary
Indeed, that would be a good thing. I think the readers would like to get Stefan's input here, as it is actually required at this point.
I have given you more than sufficient reason to perform the test. Your denial to do so is illogical and your reasons unfounded.
The desire here is for Rosemary to come clean. The goal I'm sure all the readers have here is to
prevent this thread from languishing into the dog and pony show it is presently teetering on becoming. Give the readers the closure they deserve. Show some integrity and perform the test so the facts can be known once and for all.
.99
Quote from: poynt99 on April 18, 2011, 01:28:36 PM
Indeed, that would be a good thing. I think the readers would like to get Stefan's input here, as it is actually required at this point.
I have given you more than sufficient reason to perform the test. Your denial to do so is illogical and your reasons unfounded.
The desire here is for Rosemary to come clean. The goal I'm sure all the readers have here is to prevent this thread from languishing into the dog and pony show it is presently teetering on becoming. Give the readers the closure they deserve. Show some integrity and perform the test so the facts can be known once and for all.
.99
Poynty - Pickle - Mookie - et al.
I am under no obligations to peform any tests at all. They would require close monitoring. And that monitoring would be at a cost. I would only consider that cost IF AND WHEN there is EXPERT and written endorsement that should we exceed the battery watt hour rating by - let's say double - then the entire academic community would consider that test to be DEFINITIVE proof of the claim. To complete both tests would take upwards of 2 months of monitoring and that is out of the question. It's feasible to run the heavy duty wattage number as a control and then simply run the test to the duration of that control. But even then I would need not less than 48 hours to make a significant reduction in the control. Which means that I would also need to run the test for that same 48 hours. That's doable - but still expensive - at not less than R2000.00. And I may need to get new batteries to perform this as some of my own have been compromised by a fire. I would also possibly need to add more batteries to the control as I'd need to reach an equivalent heat. Not sure yet. Possibly this can be adjusted downwards.
But whichever way this is cut - it means an awful lot of work, and time and expense. I absolutely will NOT engage on this unless and until I have the absolute confirmation that this will cut it.
That thereafter there will be wide and complete endorsement by the entire academic community and assurance of that endorsement given in advance of the test, by not less than 5 experts. Otherwise - it's a non starter.
Rosemary
So. Again. The onus is actually not on me - but on you. edited.
Sorry utilitarian - I've only just understood your point about the publicity associated with that claim for Randi's prize money.
If publicity worked in academic circles then I'd definitely go for it. It doesn't - unfortunately. It doesn't make a blind bit of difference to them. There are not that many who even read these forums - and there would be almost none who read his. And even if this got to the front page news - our academics would first require that it's published in an academic journal - or at least been accredited by experts as an anomaly. Academics are not like us mere mortals utilitarian. Surely you know that by now.
;D
Kindest regards,
Rosemary
Quote from: Rosemary Ainslie on April 18, 2011, 01:03:06 PM
Happy read the report. I'll post a link again. I'll also try and find a picture of that element resistor. It was not in water. It was in the canister to conform to the control tests.
Regards,
Rosemary
http://newlightondarkenergy.blogspot.com/2011/03/report.html
Cant really sift through the full report.
I take it the 'element resistor' was used to gauge heat generation? Is that the reading shown on the fluke?
Quote from: happyfunball on April 18, 2011, 11:14:33 PM
Cant really sift through the full report.
I take it the 'element resistor' was used to gauge heat generation? Is that the reading shown on the fluke?
yes.
WTF?
Guys - I think there are something in the order of 3 threads at Poynty's little forum that are dedicated to me. And they've also started a little blog of anonymous posters. Very nice publicity. Possibly not the most favourable of comments - but it all helps spread the word - so to speak. As they say 'any publicity is good publicity'. And I'm happy to see the interest spread.
What's particularly heartening is that the caliber of the poster is unquestionably infantile. That's a comfort. Any sane reader will quickly grow tired of all that repetition - the same old same old. Which means they'll likely ignore the comments but - with luck - get interested in the reason for all that protest. :o
With the entire exception of one of those enlisted detractors - there's an evident want to articulation. so. For those of you who have difficulty in understanding the 'thrust' so to speak of their rampage - it's this. They have all been beetling around - desperately trying to find some kind of evidence of over unity. And then I come along. Green as grass - thick as pigshit - old as Methusula - blind as midnight - untrained, unschooled - your very average Mrs Average Senior ciitzen - and point out that the answer was there - all along. That's the truth. The plain and simple truth. Our Giants - our Greats have dealt with this problem from the get go. It's just that everyone then tried to fit this wonderful science into certain thermodynamic pigeon holes where they absolutely could never fit. LOL.
Anyway - be that as it may. This all, needless to say - means that they're ANGRY. I have, with a somewhat irreverand ease - demystified current thinking - literally and figuratively. And they LOVED all that mystery. It gave them full license - vast scope - to sound excessively clever. They needed to convince all and sundry that one first needed copious supplies of IQ before one dared even comment. So. By default - so to speak - that meant that they also usurped all rights to explain or advance this knowledge - certainly here on the internet forums.
So. Now they're hell bent on 'killing the messenger. And if necessary, or as required they'd prefer to kill that message along with her'. It's really just a kind of medieval witch hunt. But actually - until they do manage this - this public burning at the stake - they'll actually have to tie me up and cut out my tongue. Because I'm compulsively determined to bring these results to the attention of as many people as I can. I have the very real privilege of not needing to earn a living. Which is not to say that I'm rich. On the contrary. But - with certain applied austerities - I can get by and devote whole chapters of what's left of this life - to advancing all this knowledge. What could be better? The pleasure of all that intellectual discussion - and all that good news. Not a bad way to spend one's remaining days.
And again. I draw comfort from history. Truth has an inconvenient way of showing up all over the place. And right now it keeps showing up in measurements on this most simple of simple circuits. it flies in the face of conventional understanding and kicks our Thermodynamic Laws into the Dark Ages - which is where they belong. Which, effectively, leaves this little band of old school losers - drowning in their own irrelevancy. So it is that they'll try every trick in the book to deny all this evidence. Please do yourselves a favour. Ignore those interruptions. I shall certainly try and do so myself. And then - with luck - I'll be able to carry on with this little exposition about such easy access to so much energy. It's good news indeed.
Kindest regards,
Rosemary
;D
Well, this is terribly embarrassing; According to their published circuit diagram, simulation diagram, and the demonstration video, Rosie-posie and her team of "experts" has not only incorrectly labeled two of the nodes on the prototype board (the F and C are incorrectly swapped), but they have connected mosfets 2-5 incorrectly as well (the Gate and Source pins are incorrectly swapped, but M1 is all correct). It is not surprising however that her "experts" didn't catch this big "OOOPS" when they were repairing the unit.
This would explain the somewhat funky wave forms, and why the simulation results look slightly different.
This sure doesn't instill much confidence in anyone following along with this travesty, especially when considering the entire project is already teetering on the brink of self-destruction. A rhetorical question or two; So what are we now to make of all those posted wave forms and so-called measurements? Are the probes even displaying the circuit nodes we have been led to believe they are displaying?
That aside, as a gesture of good faith Rosie-posie, may the world please see that properly-conducted continuous operation test? I'm afraid it's the only way you're going to prove to anyone beyond a reasonable doubt that your claims are true.
.99
Quote from: poynt99 on April 19, 2011, 11:01:26 AM
Well, this is terribly embarrassing; According to their published circuit diagram, simulation diagram, and the demonstration video, Rosie-posie and her team of "experts" has not only incorrectly labeled two of the nodes on the prototype board (the F and C are incorrectly swapped), but they have connected mosfets 2-5 incorrectly as well (the Gate and Source pins are incorrectly swapped, but M1 is all correct). It is not surprising however that her "experts" didn't catch this big "OOOPS" when they were repairing the unit.
This would explain the somewhat funky wave forms, and why the simulation results look slightly different.
This sure doesn't instill much confidence in anyone following along with this travesty, especially when considering the entire project is already teetering on the brink of self-destruction. A rhetorical question or two; So what are we now to make of all those posted wave forms and so-called measurements? Are the probes even displaying the circuit nodes we have been led to believe they are displaying?
That aside, as a gesture of good faith Rosie-posie, may the world please see that properly-conducted continuous operation test? I'm afraid it's the only way you're going to prove to anyone beyond a reasonable doubt that your claims are true.
.99
Hello Poynty Point. LOL. I LOVE the new name.
We've overlooked NOTHING and I would, yet again, assure you that I'd be VERY HAPPY to do those tests. BUT FIRST GET ME THOSE GUARANTEES.
And Poynty. The world is NOT WATCHING. If only it were. The news is all so good.
Kindest regards,
Rosie
Quote from: Rosemary Ainslie on April 19, 2011, 11:38:29 AM
Hello Poynty Point. LOL. I LOVE the new name.
We've overlooked NOTHING and I would, yet again, assure you that I'd be VERY HAPPY to do those tests. BUT FIRST GET ME THOSE GUARANTEES.
And Poynty. The world is NOT WATCHING. If only it were. The news is all so good.
Kindest regards,
Rosie
I await your admission to the contrary, and your apology any time soon.
.99
Quote from: poynt99 on April 19, 2011, 11:54:47 AM
I await your admission to the contrary, and your apology any time soon.
.99
You've got a long wait Poynty Point. LOL. All I concede is that there is - indeed - a modification to the positioning of the Gate and Source pins. We made full disclosure - but I was rather hoping you'd try those replications - and then explain what was required. It would have been a delicious opportunity to 'teach' you as I'm rather sick of being 'taught'. But be that as it may. The results persist. It's an advantageous arrangement - AND - you see for yourself - it gives us an oscillation that is EXTREMELY BENEFICIAL. That's all that matters.
I will admit that I did not expect you to pick up on this. LOL. I just wondered how you managed all those Spice replications. I had an idea you must have seen this then.
Take care Poynty. I admit to being trumped.
Rosie-posie.
:) ;D
Quote from: Rosemary Ainslie on April 18, 2011, 06:01:09 PM
I absolutely will NOT engage on this unless and until I have the absolute confirmation that this will cut it. That thereafter there will be wide and complete endorsement by the entire academic community and assurance of that endorsement given in advance of the test, by not less than 5 experts.
Let me get this straight..you are demanding that 5 academic experts swear in writing that the entire academic community will accept and endorse your claims?
And so far you yourself have been unable to get the attention of even one such expert to even give a five minute perusal of your work?
You must have a very strange concept of academia, Rosemary, to think that any worthy scientist would ever make any guarantee that even one other scientist would necessarily agree or endorse anything, much less all of academia. Your concept of reality is really, really strange.
But if you're looking for a solid way to avoid real testing, this demand will certainly do the trick. No one could ever possibly even begin to arrange any such ageement or promise from even the most incompetent of academics (and there are plenty of them around).
Humbugger
Quote from: Rosemary Ainslie on April 19, 2011, 12:05:14 PM
You've got a long wait Poynty Point. LOL. All I concede is that there is - indeed - a modification to the positioning of the Gate and Source pins. We made full disclosure - but I was rather hoping you'd try those replications - and then explain what was required. It would have been a delicious opportunity to 'teach' you as I'm rather sick of being 'taught'. But be that as it may. The results persist. It's an advantageous arrangement - AND - you see for yourself - it gives us an oscillation that is EXTREMELY BENEFICIAL. That's all that matters.
I will admit that I did not expect you to pick up on this. LOL. I just wondered how you managed all those Spice replications. I had an idea you must have seen this then.
Take care Poynty. I admit to being trumped.
Rosie-posie.
:) ;D
Am I reading this right? You have known for some time that four of your five MOSFETs were wired in with gate and source backward? And you never mentioned that? You were hoping that people would try to replicate based on a known incorrect schematic? And you were just going to sit there and wait hoping no one would discover this gross error? And now that it has been poynted out, you have the audacity to laugh about it and say you were keeping it mum in hopes that you could teach someone a lesson? It's no wonder no one is expending any effort to replicate.
Now, with this admission, you have just killed all possibility that earnest replicators will ever trust anything you present or say. This is just unbelievably bad science, rosemary, and is an insult to the integrity of the entire FE community. You have just lost any vestige of credibility you may have had left even with the "true believers".
Humbugger
Quote from: Rosemary Ainslie on April 19, 2011, 12:05:14 PM
You've got a long wait Poynty Point. LOL. All I concede is that there is - indeed - a modification to the positioning of the Gate and Source pins. We made full disclosure - but I was rather hoping you'd try those replications - and then explain what was required.
Take care Poynty. I admit to being trumped.
Rosie-posie.
:) ;D
I don't recall seeing any disclosure identifying this reversal of the Gate and Source connections on mosfets 2-5. Does anyone?
Perhaps you could point out this disclosure explicitly showing this?
I also rather doubt that you were even aware of this until now.
.99
I expect you're also going to say that the erroneous mislabeling on the proto-board of circuit nodes "F" and "C" was intentional too?
::)
.99
@poynt99. Can you give a rough timescale as to when you are going to organise your five experts ?
Quote from: poynt99 on April 19, 2011, 12:48:16 PM
I expect you're also going to say that the erroneous mislabeling on the proto-board of circuit nodes "F" and "C" was intentional too?
::)
.99
Pointy? F and C are no longer on our board. But from memory it related CORRECTLY to the positioning of the first MOSFET. There's nothing wrong there? Surely? We only transposed the 4 that we added subsequently. That was - unintentional - until we saw what it DID. And then we kept them there. We showed it in the video. We just didn't draw anyone's attention to that positioning. And that was simply because the EXPERTS that we were hoping to show - didn't turn up. Our intention - up until now - was to give that information for EXPERT advisement FIRST. They would have seen the significance - I hoped - as it related to the thesis and to my own exposition of current flow. And - frankly - I was actually hoping to keep it under wraps until then.
But it doesn't much matter. It just means that I'm going to have to explain it all here FIRST. I'm only due to show those first experts early next month. And I was rather hoping to keep some of your barking dogs away from this information because I am well used to their mockery as it relates to the thesis. And that's - as you know - my only INTEREST.
Rosemary
Quote from: Rosemary Ainslie on April 19, 2011, 01:01:04 PM
Pointy? F and C are no longer on our board. But from memory it related CORRECTLY to the positioning of the first MOSFET. There's nothing wrong there? Surely?
Rosemary
Points "F" and "C" are clearly shown on the proto-board IN YOUR DEMONSTRATION VIDEO!, and they are clearly marked incorrectly with respect to the actual IRFPG50 pinout and your circuit diagram, also shown and abundantly talked-to in the video.
::)
.99
Quote from: neptune on April 19, 2011, 12:58:38 PM
@poynt99. Can you give a rough timescale as to when you are going to organise your five experts ?
@neptune. Can you give a rough timescale as to when you are going to post something worthy of reading ?
::)
.99
Quote from: poynt99 on April 19, 2011, 02:21:31 PM
Points "F" and "C" are clearly shown on the proto-board IN YOUR DEMONSTRATION VIDEO!, and they are clearly marked incorrectly with respect to the actual IRFPG50 pinout and your circuit diagram, also shown and abundantly talked-to in the video.
::)
.99
WAKE UP POINTY. The first MOSFET IS EXACTLY AS SHOWN. The balance are NOT.
Rosemary
Quote from: poynt99 on April 19, 2011, 02:24:27 PM
@neptune. Can you give a rough timescale as to when you are going to post something worthy of reading ?
::)
.99
And may we ask the same of YOU?
Rosemary
@poynt99 . That was a civil question . No need to spit out your dummy .
Why does every thread dealing with reasonably functional devices turn into a dick size contest between trolls? I mean seriously... can't there be a single discussion that does not degenerate into several people thinking that they can tell an inventor what to do, attacking every point, no matter how mundane, and generally lowering the s/n ratio of useful information?
Further, why do we see only gum flapping and not building out of these self professed experts? Its almost as though they target anything useful employing every bit of bullshit at their avail to discredit presented data. Grow up, build something, and leave this nice lady alone.
Quote from: neptune on April 19, 2011, 02:33:39 PM
@poynt99 . That was a civil question . No need to spit out your dummy .
Well thank you neptune, but I personally don't require your assistance to remind me of such nonsensical requests.
.99
Quote from: Rosemary Ainslie on April 19, 2011, 02:26:04 PM
WAKE UP POINTY. The first MOSFET IS EXACTLY AS SHOWN. The balance are NOT.
Rosemary
OK, I will post the information later tonight so that you may see for yourself, since it appears you can't be bothered to check the details.
.99
Quote from: poynt99 on April 19, 2011, 03:00:42 PM
OK, I will post the information later tonight so that you may see for yourself, since it appears you can't be bothered to check the details.
.99
That will be good. I've just checked it out. The Drain = C. ALL reference to the drain is consistent with this. The Source - unmarked - is in series with the shunt. F only applies to gate for the first MOSFET.
And I think you have a little explaining to do yourself - Poynty Point. Your own little secret. HOW DID YOU GET THOSE OSCILLATIONS?? I'd give my eye teeth to see those Spice settings. Your words - at that time were something along the lines that - 'I just set it up and got it first time'. Really? Very strange. For a while there I thought you'd seen what we'd done. But you hadn't. So? What 'trickery' did you need to employ to get there? What distortions to the circuit did you need to apply? Without that reversal you could NOT have got the battery to oscillate at 180 degrees. And why did you not show us those modifications? And WHAT ABOUT THAT replication that you kept promising us?
And then FINALLY. How do you now explain this? The result is ENTIRELY replicable on a SPICE program. Even and up to those beneficial numbers. That very exciting negative voltage number. Tell me now. How come? How is this possible? If unity cannot be exceeded - THEN WHAT THE HELL IS GOING ON? And EVERY time you multiply those voltages they show that benefit. You had the phase right. You MUST have seen that advantage. Why haven't you told us all? Why weren't you barking this truth to the world - together with your hyena pack? Could it be that there's an agenda? Very strange Poynty. Do you really expect an ounce of trust in any of us who saw what you were playing at? The only thing I knew is that you were denying this benefit although you were replicating it in your simulations. Which is why I now depend so heavily on academics. I believe they still have a genuine interest in science for the sake of science. Not something that they can manipulate to advance a sense of self-importance or to advance an interest in maintaining the status quo. This is a revolution going on Poynty. Get used to it.
Rosemary
ADDED Guys - just as a reminder here. Poynty did those replications - and then trailed through a whole slew of posts urgently advising all and sundry to AVERAGE their values. You see why now. It's the only way one can HIDE the advantage of those beneficial phase angles. That's where the magic lies.
Quote from: twinbeard on April 19, 2011, 02:43:19 PM
Why does every thread dealing with reasonably functional devices turn into a dick size contest between trolls? I mean seriously... can't there be a single discussion that does not degenerate into several people thinking that they can tell an inventor what to do, attacking every point, no matter how mundane, and generally lowering the s/n ratio of useful information?
Further, why do we see only gum flapping and not building out of these self professed experts? Its almost as though they target anything useful employing every bit of bullshit at their avail to discredit presented data. Grow up, build something, and leave this nice lady alone.
Twin. I missed this. Thank you. Golly. I think I'll even print it and frame it. I was so hoping someone would help me out here.
How nice. And how rare. LOL.
Rosie
Quote from: Rosemary Ainslie on April 19, 2011, 03:41:31 PM
That will be good. I've just checked it out. The Drain = C. ALL reference to the drain is consistent with this. The Source - unmarked - is in series with the shunt. F only applies to gate for the first MOSFET.
I would expect you can now see your error. According to your circuit diagram, clearly the "F" and "C" labels are incorrectly positioned on the proto-board.
.99
I'll also mention the relevant points:
1) The demonstration presenter in the video states that the diagram is a representation of what is on the perf board. He goes on to relate the letter designations for the nodes marked on the diagram to those on the perf board.
2) He also states that the 5 MOSFETs are in parallel, which we now know they are in fact not.
.99
You're right. C and F were transposed. That was not intentional.
Now Poynty - are you going to answer some questions here? Let us know how you got that oscillation. It is ENTIRELY IMPOSSIBLE to get that battery and shunt voltage at 180 degrees in phase without transposing those FETs. So. How long have you known this? And why only yesterday did you admit it? Could it be that you also made an initial MISTAKE? I suspect so. You went on and on about altering the position of the probes across the battery. And then Pickle came forward and advised all and sundry that it wouldn't matter - what was needed was to eliminate the inductance on the shunt. LOL. And up to and including as recently as yesterday you were complaining that no matter what you do it 'oscillates'? And exactly WHY was that a complaint? Why weren't you shouting it from the roof tops from the get go? You MUST have seen what that does to those energy efficiency values. So. What gives? Why were you still DENYING that benefit? And why only YESTERDAY did you come forward with all this? Is it because you'd LOST the argument on undersampling? Then because you LEARNED that you actually could NOT demand a battery draw down test? Then because you LOST the opportunity of turning the focus into an argument about battery chemistry? And THEN ONLY - since all else was failing - did you decide to TRY and getting it back there by FINALLY pointing out that 'transposition'? The first time you'd seen this. I think not. Which, needless to say, is why you also then anxiously and - as you thought - GENEROUSLY allowed us to ... What? Redeem ourselves? By doing that draw down test? Are you that anxious to get the focus off that waveform and onto a meaningless chemistry debate? Or onto an endless discussion about perpetual motion which we've NEVER CLAIMED?
Frankly I thought you had done EXACTLY what we'd done but instead of transposing 4 of those FETS you'd transposed the whole catastrophe. I need to get a simulation of this - as I've never actually seen how it pans. But if you did realise what you'd done you hid it well. I couldn't work out what you actually knew. And then Poynty Point. Consider this. I am reasonably satisfied that the transposition - that early ACCIDENT - was CERTAINLY a blessing. I am entirely incapable of DELIBERATELY putting that arrrangement together. It's ECCENTRIC to a level that far exceeds my own competence. But you ALSO made that same MISTAKE - if such it was in your case. Don't you think - perhaps - that FATE itself is growing tired of our blindness? This suicidal march to certain extinction because EGO's are getting in the way? Perhaps God Himself intervened. Frankly I'm entirely satisfied that if we're under any kind of Devine guidance then He/She - THEY must be rather sickened at all this nonsense. The news is ALL GOOD. WHY ARE YOU TRYING TO MUZZLE IT?
So. In conclusion - we need to ADVANCE this technology - ideally on academic work benches. Any discussion of the significance - on these forums - needs to be appropriate. Not some ridiculous reach - by you - to produce perpetual motion. I was SO hoping to get this to our academic physicists by first getting an endorsement of the anomaly from our academic engineers. But perhaps it's REQUIRED that we discuss those material current properties - RIGHT HERE! And if you're not up for it then BUT OUT. I KNOW that it's easy concepts. They just need to be APPLIED.
Rosemary
IMO when a negative voltage is measured across the shunt (as a mean average), which clearly indicates that power is transfered to the batteries and heat is dissipated from the load , that would be enough proof for that this is a heater in self run mode.
@p99 : If the mosfets are not in parallel ; I don't see a circuit providing them with a individual gate voltages.
@RA : Are still mosfets with the flyback zehner diode in use, or without.
I think that the form of the signal supplied to the gate , its offset ect. are crucial for getting this ringing mode .Is there a adjustment procedure that must be carried out ? Thank you.
Quote from: TheCell on April 20, 2011, 03:43:21 AM
IMO when a negative voltage is measured across the shunt (as a mean average), which clearly indicates that power is transfered to the batteries and heat is dissipated from the load , that would be enough proof for that this is a heater in self run mode.
@p99 : If the mosfets are not in parallel ; I don't see a circuit providing them with a individual gate voltages.
@RA : Are still mosfets with the flyback zehner diode in use, or without.
I think that the form of the signal supplied to the gate , its offset ect. are crucial for getting this ringing mode .Is there a adjustment procedure that must be carried out ? Thank you.
I am not sure of your question. Yes we're using IRFPG50's and yes, they've got that zener body diode. The adjustments are only applied as required. It depends on the 'output' you're looking to. Then we adjust the 'off set' and the duty cycle. Beyond a certain level it exceeds the resistance at the gate of the first MOSFET. Then it's difficult to hold back that energy. But the point is this. The oscillation persists. There is no resulting 'equilisation' (if that's the word) of that energy. If you disconnect the batteries then the temperature across the load falls dramatically and quickly. But that oscillation 'retains' that temperature. It's still 'working' in the sense that you all think of the word. It's just that the temperature - that heat dissipation - has NOTHING to do with a loss of charge.
Sorry. I should have said potential difference.What we've got on this circuit that is entirely unusual and eccentric is an AMPLE path for the forward and reverse current flow. There are NO restrictions. And it appears - that under these cicumstances current just keeps moving. That should not - in terms of classical requirements - ever occur. The battery voltage climbs or falls. The circuit voltages climb or fall. They NEVER resolve themselves into that 'required' balance.
I hope that's clearer and I hope more of you readers are looking at the actual question here. And thanks TC for the question.
Kindest regards,
Rosemary
edited
Hi Rosemary on this beautiful spring day in the UK .I am a little bit confused here due to info overload .
1 . In the photo you show of the custom made element that fits in the canister , there appears to be only one Mosfet .Is this correct and does the circuit show overunity with only one mosfet?
2 Are you saying that the circuit works best with 5 Mosfets in parallel , 4 of which have their source and drain connections reversed , or all 5 have these connections reversed .
Perhaps when you have time , you could show a revised diagram showing the optimum arrangement .Continue to fight the good fight .All the best Neptune .
Rosemary, I'm following along quietly, have some stuff ordered but my main 'must-have' is still a decent function generator. I really envy those guys States-side as there is tons of kit available on eBay with dirt-cheap shipping. But it looks like I'm going to have to order one from China, but with a few 100 $ of stuff already in transit from there, I'm waiting to see if Customs here will be out to screw me financially.
Anyway, main purpose of post, a few questions that I am confused over.
1: If as now seems to be the case the mosfets are not in parallel, how exactly are they configured? This is kinda important!
2: When you blew the 2 mosfets, you admitted that you had a problem reproducing the 'effect'. With some effort you got it going but didn't explain what the difficulty was. If you have problems getting it to operate, what about the rest of us!
3: How much heat is generated by the mosfets? Those are pretty hefty heat-sinks you are using, if you don't have an accurate way of measuring the temperature, could you at least estimate their running-temperature.
4: Have you since tried adding additional external shunt-diodes to protect the mosfets - presuming it was over-voltage that took out your 2 mosfets?
Thanks.
For those that are having trouble visualizing the non-parallel mosfets 2-5, here is an edited version of their diagram. It is the Gate and Source that are swapped, not the Drain and Source btw.
.99
Hi Neptune - this is 3rd time I've tried to answer here and keep getting called away. Hopefully this time I'll finish this post.
Quote from: neptune on April 20, 2011, 06:29:19 AM
Hi Rosemary on this beautiful spring day in the UK .I am a little bit confused here due to info overload .
1 . In the photo you show of the custom made element that fits in the canister , there appears to be only one Mosfet .Is this correct and does the circuit show overunity with only one mosfet?
We started with 1 MOSFET. We only got the typical transitional spike. But we were well able to get INFINITE COP - here defined as MORE energy returned to the supply than delivered. We also got some impressive heat values dissipated. But at 100 degrees and upwards we stessed the MOSFET. I had nowhere to report all this because I was banned here. I kept trying to hint at this on Poynty's forum but got a broadside missile attack from Pickle - and gave up there altogether. Deregistration was urgently required as Poynty advised me he was NOT prepared to moderate this. I only mention this because there was never sufficient reporting about all this. And why I'm mentioning it at all - is that I really need
you guys to understand this. THERE IS ABSOLUTELY ALWAYS THE POTENTIAL TO GET that resonating frequency and it can ALWAYS be optimised to MORE RETURNED THAN DELIVERED which is - by definition - COP infinity. Unfortunately to prove this you'd do better with those zut oscilloscopes. I've been hopelessly spoiled. I've also learned that a functions generator is JUST FINE. Was not sure about this. But they keep a really clean waveform. The 555's tend to lose that clean resonating frequency - by comparison.
Quote from: neptune on April 20, 2011, 06:29:19 AM2 Are you saying that the circuit works best with 5 Mosfets in parallel , 4 of which have their source and drain connections reversed , or all 5 have these connections reversed .
On our circuit we have 4 reversed 1 not reversed. But NOTA BENE Neptune - or we'll be back into really confused territory. It is the gate and the Source that were transposed. Not the gate and drain. That's possibly important. I've never reversed the gate and drain.
Quote from: neptune on April 20, 2011, 06:29:19 AMPerhaps when you have time , you could show a revised diagram showing the optimum arrangement
I'll ask one of the guys to do this. But they're all working. So give me a few days. But - effectively - it's exactly as you see it on that report. Just with the transposition of 4 MOSFETs in parallel.
And thanks for the good wishes. I must say - I'm glad it seems that I'm forgiven for withholding all this. I really didn't want to bring it to focus until we'd had the results accepted as anomalous. That waveform - regardless of it's efficiencies which are considerable - just SHOULD NOT be possible. Certainly NOT within classical paradigms.
Kindest regards,
Rosie
EDITED
Thanks rosemary for making time to answer my questions . These answers pave the way for more successful replications . And in the interest of politeness and good manners , thanks to Point99 for the diagram .
Quote from: Sprocket on April 20, 2011, 07:49:32 AM
Rosemary, I'm following along quietly, have some stuff ordered but my main 'must-have' is still a decent function generator. I really envy those guys States-side as there is tons of kit available on eBay with dirt-cheap shipping. But it looks like I'm going to have to order one from China, but with a few 100 $ of stuff already in transit from there, I'm waiting to see if Customs here will be out to screw me financially.
Anyway, main purpose of post, a few questions that I am confused over.
1: If as now seems to be the case the mosfets are not in parallel, how exactly are they configured? This is kinda important!
Hi Sprocket. I think this is answered above. Four in parallel with that transposition of the Gate and the drain.
Quote from: Sprocket on April 20, 2011, 07:49:32 AM2: When you blew the 2 mosfets, you admitted that you had a problem reproducing the 'effect'. With some effort you got it going but didn't explain what the difficulty was. If you have problems getting it to operate, what about the rest of us!
LOL. No. That was just my own idiocy. It was just a question of pulling out the 'off set' button on the oscilloscope. It's just that the guys who tried to resolve this never saw the circuit with the functions generator. Their trouble shooting was on the circuit itself. I'm absolutely satisfied that if I can do anything then - good gracious - JUST ABOUT ANYONE can do it. LOL. And tuning those circuits to get those delicious resonances. That's really easy. And it's fun.
Quote from: Sprocket on April 20, 2011, 07:49:32 AM3: How much heat is generated by the mosfets? Those are pretty hefty heat-sinks you are using, if you don't have an accurate way of measuring the temperature, could you at least estimate their running-temperature.
They don't get too hot. Just I blew a couple when we inadvertently got into those heavy duty cycle modes - and then the voltages spiked. But they handle 800 volts comfortably. In fact I think those IRFPG50's can go as high as 1200 volts. I'm open to correction.
Quote from: Sprocket on April 20, 2011, 07:49:32 AM4: Have you since tried adding additional external shunt-diodes to protect the mosfets - presuming it was over-voltage that took out your 2 mosfets?
No. Not yet. I've just run a few tests to get the thing back up and running. But I'm getting some new functions generators. Still something wrong with this latest one as we can't get back that 3 minute interval between switching. Apparently they're finding something even more sophisticated. But I'll know more tomorrow or thereby.
Always a pleasure Sprocket. And good luck with sourcing that functions generator. I'm not sure why you guys don't perhaps try and get something from your technical colleges. It's a way of 'spreading the word' so to speak. And you'd be pleasantly surprised at how accommodating they are. Anyway. Good luck with your tests. And PLEASE. THINK APPLICATIONS. There's really no need to keep trying replicate any of this. The results are just so conclusive and so repeatable.
Kindest regards,
Rosemary
[/quote]
B is common ground.
positive Voltage of Function Generator Q1 switches ON Q2-Q5 swtiches off , because GS signal there is negative
negative Voltage of Function Generator Q1 switches OFF Q2-Q5 switches ON.
Now Function Generator is able to feed energy into the system during the off-phase !! . No , this diagram should not be like that.Therefore no decay
So, if Q2-Q5 are 'on' the battery voltage (approx. 70V) is connected to the 0.5 ohm restricted input of the signal generator with just the heating element in series?
Must be quite a robust signal generator.....
Quote from: teslaalset on April 20, 2011, 10:10:39 AM
So, if Q2-Q5 are 'on' the battery voltage (approx. 70V) is connected to the 0.5 ohm restricted input of the signal generator with just the heating element in series?
Must be quite a robust signal generator.....
The generator has a 50 Ohm output impedance, so there is some degree of protection there. But indeed, this is not something you really want to subject your FG to.
Also, there is no physical 0.5 Ohm resistor installed anywhere, that is just the resistance of the coaxial cable between the generator and the "Gate" input.
@TheCell,
What are you trying to say?
.99
Quote from: poynt99 on April 20, 2011, 10:19:41 AM
The generator has a 50 Ohm output impedance, so there is some degree of protection there.
Also, there is no physical 0.5 Ohm resistor installed anywhere, that is just the resistance of the coaxial cable between the generator and the "Gate" input.
You're right in case one uses a signal generator instrument.
But be carefull if one is using e.g. a microcontroller like an Arduino.
Just a tip.
First: I don't think, that it ever has been build up like that.
All considered during the off-phase.
If function generator C has negative voltage, than imagine a
2nd battery below ground potential B where it + is connected to B
and its - connected via the 0.5 Ohms Resistor to the SourceConnectors
of Q2-Q5.
The shunt 0.25 Ohm draws no current.
The whole voltage : 6*12V + UFunctionGen is connected to RL1 + 0,5Ohms at C.
.99 : Generator 50 Ohm output impedance , what the resistance of RL1 ?
The complete diagram is false, or the FunctionGenerator + battery drives the circuit during the off-phase.
The circuit is built as shown. Verified from both the video analysis and from Rose herself.
The resistance of RL1 is about 11 Ohms. You are correct about Rshunt indicating 0 Amps for part of the cycle, and that the load is in fact being driven by Q2-Q5 through the function generator and BYPASSING the shunt. Rose has already admitted that they measured a significant power in the Gate circuit.
What a mess folks!
There is no way with this circuit configuration as it stands, can the INPUT power be accurately measured, when at least part of the time, the current measuring resistor is not even in the circuit. In fact, it could be argued that Q1 may not ever conduct any current and provide power to the load at all!
Stop the presses folks, this begs for a serious and close examination of what's really going on here! I think we have our answer as to why the shunt indicates a negative mean voltage and current.
BUSTED!
.99
Still one thing to try :
Apply the function generator with a series resistor about 10 kOhms.
If it still oscillates during the off phase ...
Quote from: TheCell on April 20, 2011, 01:49:18 PM
Still one thing to try :
Apply the function generator with a series resistor about 10 kOhms.
If it still oscillates during the off phase ...
I agree, and it is doubtful it will continue to oscillate. However, Rose will most likely not oblige in this request, as she refuses to try anything that may jeopardize her claims.
.99
Quote from: poynt99 on April 20, 2011, 12:44:31 PM
The circuit is built as shown. Verified from both the video analysis and from Rose herself.
The resistance of RL1 is about 11 Ohms. You are correct about Rshunt indicating 0 Amps for part of the cycle, and that the load is in fact being driven by Q2-Q5 through the function generator and BYPASSING the shunt. Rose has already admitted that they measured a significant power in the Gate circuit.
What a mess folks!
There is no way with this circuit configuration as it stands, can the INPUT power be accurately measured, when at least part of the time, the current measuring resistor is not even in the circuit. In fact, it could be argued that Q1 may not ever conduct any current and provide power to the load at all!
Stop the presses folks, this begs for a serious and close examination of what's really going on here! I think we have our answer as to why the shunt indicates a negative mean voltage and current.
BUSTED!
.99
Poynty - what a sad, ill considered, histrionic, absurd - RIDICULOUS argument. Are you really that desperate? So anxious to deny everything? I actually think your posts are now entirely unacceptable. You need to hang onto your hat there. You're showing some serious instability.
Rosemary
Guys, for the record. The energy from the functions generator has been tested to death. We're not the idiots that Poynty is trying to imply. And I personally, have a real problem in having to deal with this kind of ill considered 'anything' posted here. Good gracious. If you need this argued then I am really wasting my time.
And what's that 'busted'? When is that kind of terminology applicable to serious science. As if we're perpetrating a con. How disgusting. What a revolting implication. I have absolutely NO intention of answering any more of Poynt's rather dubious points. And frankly - unless there's a way of moderating them - then I"m out of here. This is getting absolutely untenable.
Regards,
Rosemary
You're going to pack up and go, right when we're finally getting to the bottom of all this? ???
Aren't you even curious to see if your circuit and the measurements have been fooling you all along as it so appears, now that I have uncovered your "secret"?
I think everyone else is. ;)
.99
Quote from: poynt99 on April 20, 2011, 02:33:45 PM
You're going to pack up and go, right when we're finally getting to the bottom of all this? ???
Aren't you even curious to see if your circuit and the measurements have been fooling you all along as it so appears, now that I have uncovered your "secret"?
I think everyone else is. ;)
.99
I HAVE NO INTENTION OF PACKING UP ANYTHING AT ALL. I have every intention of preventing your ill considered assinine and abasurdly unsubstantiated nonsense from polluting this thread. No-one objects to discussion. But I - for one - am sick and tired of your infantile posts. That's an entirely different issue. You really need to grow up. And this is the last time I'm answering your posts until they become appropriately moderated. You are OUT OF LINE.
Rosemary
So Rose,
please post a new circuit diagram,
where we can see, how your MOSFETs were really wired.
Then you can start a new test.
Many thanks.
I have already shown several times how a false negative voltage can appear across an inductive shunt. Now, with the revelation that at least part of any positive current is being diverted through the "upside down" group of MOSFETs and never appearing in the shunt at all and none of any negative current is thusly diverted, this further explains how a net average negative current could easily be displayed across the shunt when in fact the actual net current may well be quite positive.
Furthermore, there is a recurring theme here coming from Rosemary that it is somehow remarkable and anomalous that the drain waveform or so-called "battery voltage" is 180 degrees out of phase with the shunt waveform. This is absolutely normal and would occur in all cases and always does! This is true in MOSFET circuits, junction transistor circuits, tube circuits, switching circuits, linear amplifiers and linear oscillators of all kinds. Obviously, as the current in the D-S channel increases, the shunt voltage goes up and the drain voltage goes down! There is nothing at all surprising or anomalous there and, in fact, it would be virtually impossible to have it any other way.
This completely normal and expected behavior also easily explains why the V*V trace always shows a negative value in Rose's circuit. The so-called "battery voltage" is always positive but varies in a way that it is at its high point when the shunt voltage is at its lowest (most negative) point. So, when the two numbers are multiplied by the scope math, any negative voltage on the shunt is multiplied by a much larger number than during times when the shunt voltage is positive and the so-called "battery voltage" is at its lowest point.
Even if the negative voltage peak on the shunt was only, say, 1/4 of the positive voltage peak, as long as the so-called "battery voltage" multiplier was more than 4x larger at that moment than it is at its low point, you would see a net negative V*V product. All of this nonsense has nothing to do with the actual input power from the battery!
It is a completely normal, expected result of not actually using the real DC battery voltage (which is virtually constant) as a multiplier and instead, feeding in a huge ac voltage that actually comes from the wiring inductance and not the batteries and in truth represents only the di/dt (rate of change of current) and not the battery voltage at all.
When the wiring inductance of the battery stack was cut in half by measuring at the battery terminals and she observed an exactly corresponding reduction in half of the AC part of the waveform this instantly proved that all of the AC voltage on the battery measurement is due to the wiring inductance and that there was still about half of that inductance remaining inside the measurement path because of the long wires used to interconnect the battery stack (the inductance of which was never eliminated from the measurement loop).
Finally, the position of the shunt, being within the gate drive loop (and now also within the source path of 4/5 of the MOSFETs) is not by any means a true and exclusive measure of the battery current.
A very simple way to address all of these problems (and other problems I have pointed out before) is to place the shunt directly on the negative terminal of the battery stack instead of inside the gate/source drive loop as it now is. In addition, the actual DC battery voltage (without the AC effects of the inter-battery wiring inductance) can be easily had by placing the probe across only the most negative battery of the stack.
These simple changes will have no effect on the circuit operation itself (all the same waveforms and oscillations and phase relationships will remain exactly intact) but will provide the actual measure of power flow into/out of the battery.
Simply take the V*V mean, multiply it by 4 (for the shunt being 1/4 ohm) and then multiply that by the number of identical batteries. For absolute accuracy, the shunt inductance can easily be compensated out of the measurement (while leaving it in the circuit itself) by adding an RC time constant equal to the LR time constant of the inductive shunt; RC=L/R. The diagram below shows the existing shunt X'd out, but there is no problem with leaving it there so as to assure no effect on circuit operation. You just can't measure there and expect to see only the battery current!
If Rose is still confused about any of these observations and the necessary procedures to make true input power measurements without making any changes to the operating characteristics of the circuit itself, once again, I urge her to consult with her local Tektronix or LeCroy Applications engineer. Short of that, I will be more than happy to answer questions or give advice. Here's to proper measurements in the future!
Humbugger
Quote from: hartiberlin on April 20, 2011, 02:58:24 PM
So Rose,
please post a new circuit diagram,
where we can see, how your MOSFETs were really wired.
Then you can start a new test.
Many thanks.
Harti - May I take this opportunity to again invite you to South Africa. You can then meet the team and become more thoroughly involved in this technology. I will be happy to give you whatever assurance is required that I will REFUND you in the event that ANY PART OF THIS CLAIM IS SHOWN TO BE FALSE. I'm not quite sure how to do this, but I imagine a cheque lodged with my attorney should cover it.
And may I remind you that you cannot possibly expect me to continue on this thread when Poynty is allowed to detract and delay this exposition against such absurd and easily disprovable nonsense. And I haven't even touched on his rudeness.
I have already dealt with the matter of the circuit diagram. And I'm not sure what test you're referring to. I can do any number of tests. I just need them to be relevant. It you're expecting me to do the battery draw down test - even here I'm happy to oblige. But I need some kind of assurance that it's worth my while. And anything short of absolute acceptance by the entire academic community - is actually NOT going to cut it.
Many thanks
Rosemary
Dear Stefan,
You should be aware of Rosemary's blog #107 and others where she repeatedly criticizes you and makes negative statements about your true motives and the purpose of your forum. She is always accusing me, you and Poynt of having secret negative motives and, basically, of being dishonest and against legitimate OU research efforts.
Furthermore, she has now recommended that all replicators do not post their experiments and results on your forum, so she herself is trying to take all further replication and testing work out of the public eye and off your forum completely. Of course, it is her right to do that, but I think you should be aware of these efforts of hers to slander you, throw doubt and insults at your work and publicly cast aspersions about your motives. Here is the entire content of her blog post #107:
"107 - behind the facade of the forum
Dear Reader,
I've tried giving Stefan Hartman the benefit of the doubt as it relates to his interest in sincerely promoting research into over unity. That, after all, is the title of his forum. One assumes.
I have publicly invited him to come to South Africa and see the operation himself. I have assured him that in the event that our claims are not consistent with the fact then I'll refund him his air flight. I would then be in the happy position of introducing him to the team and allowing him carte blance to evaluate the circuit as required. This offer was rejected.
He has previously allowed posters to flame my threads. He is now allowing Poynt.99 to do this. Poynt's latest claim is that the functions generator is the source of the energy - entirely unsubstantiated and easily disproved. But it's the manner of his address that is particularly unacceptable. Offensively insulting and rude. And certainly in breach of the standards of posting required there. Were I to continue then I'd be endorsing that kind of communication. And that would hardly do me or this technology any good at all. It is interesting that Stefan allows this and rather endorses my concerns that Stefan even wants to let this technology be progressed.
I feel that there is actually NO real intention of advancing any genuine research into over unity on any of these forums. I think they're just meeting grounds where the members are hoodwinked into thinking that there's a sincere research into breaching those thermodynamic laws. I am now of the opinion that what these forums are actually doing is PREVENTING this research as their actual mandate.
I have not yet been banned. Unless I am I will post there as required - and, hopefully, on the progress of this experimental evidence to our experts. That's all that's now needed. I'll keep the technical discussion here because they can then be advanced without those endless interruptions.
My intention is to get this advanced - somehow - to our academic forums - or I'll die trying. But until then - I'm afraid that I am off those forums. I am now entirely satisfied that they are designed to prevent rather than progress any kind of genuine exploration into this subject.
If any posters are attempting to replicate I would earnestly advise you to keep your results off the forum. You will be actively discouraged - or mocked - or flamed. It's not worth the effort. And if anyone needs any guidance that I or the team may be able to give - then please email me.
My email is ainslie@mweb.co.za. Please don't waste your time in adding comments to this blog. I can't always find them. And more often than not I forget to even look for them.
Kindest regards,
Rosemary "
Quote from: Rosemary Ainslie on April 20, 2011, 04:54:31 PM
Harti - May I take this opportunity to again invite you to South Africa. You can then meet the team and become more thoroughly involved in this technology.
There is no "technology" here. What you have inadvertently stumbled on is an oscillating circuit.
Stefan is right; new testing needs to be performed. Furthermore, it is paramount that
all power loops be measured. Presently, the shunt is likely not indicating the true current in and out of the battery.
This "new" circuit just adds to the complexity of determining the true INPUT power, and as I've suggested numerous times, a far better approach to putting the claims to bed once and for all is to perform the continuous operation test I proposed a few pages back.
Quote
And may I remind you that you cannot possibly expect me to continue on this thread when Poynty is allowed to detract and delay this exposition against such absurd and easily disprovable nonsense. And I haven't even touched on his rudeness.
Pointing out the glaring errors in your circuit, build and now measurements, is not a detraction at all, it's called getting to the truth.
.99
Quote from: Rosemary Ainslie on April 20, 2011, 04:54:31 PM
snip
And may I remind you that you cannot possibly expect me to continue on this thread when Poynty is allowed to detract and delay this exposition against such absurd and easily disprovable nonsense. And I haven't even touched on his rudeness.
snip
And anything short of absolute acceptance by the entire academic community - is actually NOT going to cut it.
Many thanks
Rosemary
Rosemary,
Thank you for your patience and perseverance. It is sad that these agenda agents have despoiled yet another chance of an informative list.
It is well within reason that anyone trying your circuit without success would normally write and tell you of their failure and seek further guidance.
But the outcome if left without such input would be for the average person to pack his bags and move on.
The very tenaciousness of these pitbulls, following you from list to list and filling them with bile is proof of their mission.
Near the beginning of this list you had some intriguing theories on alternate energy flows that I would love to have heard more on... oh well, maybe someday?
Harti has hundreds of lists to skim and is not always aware of when and how a list is being destroyed. A well run list would have a full time moderator who could take the appropriate steps to correct certain imbalances.
Just to say thanks Rosemary, we love you and hope there is a decent venue somewhere where "we", real builders and experimenters can access your discovery and wonderful ideas without harassment.
Kind regards
Ron P
Many thanks also go out to those who actively stand for and seek out the truth in these matters.
Kudos to those that ask the right questions at the right time, especially when things just don't add up.
Thanks go out to those that take a second look and delve into the important details, especially when things just don't add up.
Recognition for those that contemplate the offerings as opposed to blindly jumping on the wagon.
You know who you are...hats off to you. ;)
.99
Well at least ponty your still there,
many of us were put under moderation...all I asked was for an acceptable test to see if the batteries were really holding up or not.
After years of contributing to this site I can see no point if people who dare to seek the truth are banished or thrown on the fire.
Real scientific process and logic will always win out. If you dont then your left with a cult like belief system.
Karm
Quote from: eisnad karm on April 20, 2011, 11:34:09 PM
Well at least ponty your still there,
many of us were put under moderation...all I asked was for an acceptable test to see if the batteries were really holding up or not.
After years of contributing to this site I can see no point if people who dare to seek the truth are banished or thrown on the fire.
Real scientific process and logic will always win out. If you dont then your left with a cult like belief system.
Karm
Did Rosemary not test battery voltage pre-post? What are you talking about
The world works in strange ways sometimes. :)
Sorry about the censorship; perhaps after some time you and Hum will have full posting rights restored. ;)
Thanks for your input Mark, and don't ever stop asking the right questions; it's important.
.99
Quote from: happyfunball on April 20, 2011, 11:37:14 PM
Did Rosemary not test battery voltage pre-post? What are you talking about
Are you implying that there is a practical and
useful relationship between battery voltage and battery state-of-charge?
.99
Quote from: i_ron on April 20, 2011, 09:47:46 PM
Rosemary,
Thank you for your patience and perseverance. It is sad that these agenda agents have despoiled yet another chance of an informative list.
It is well within reason that anyone trying your circuit without success would normally write and tell you of their failure and seek further guidance.
But the outcome if left without such input would be for the average person to pack his bags and move on.
The very tenaciousness of these pitbulls, following you from list to list and filling them with bile is proof of their mission.
Near the beginning of this list you had some intriguing theories on alternate energy flows that I would love to have heard more on... oh well, maybe someday?
Harti has hundreds of lists to skim and is not always aware of when and how a list is being destroyed. A well run list would have a full time moderator who could take the appropriate steps to correct certain imbalances.
Just to say thanks Rosemary, we love you and hope there is a decent venue somewhere where "we", real builders and experimenters can access your discovery and wonderful ideas without harassment.
Kind regards
Ron P
Thank you Ron. It's always a relief to be reminded that my work is actually appreciated.
For those of you who are following this subject - here's a link to my blog. And for those who are looking into the experimental side of things then my email is
ainslie@mweb.co.za
http://newlightondarkenergy.blogspot.com/
Kindest regards,
Rosemary
Quote from: poynt99 on April 20, 2011, 11:45:52 PM
Are you implying that there is a practical and useful relationship between battery voltage and battery state-of-charge?
.99
I mean battery charge obviously. She tested it, right? It didn't go down, right? Excess heat generated, right? No? Yes? Maybe?
Quote from: happyfunball on April 21, 2011, 06:38:36 AM
I mean battery charge obviously. She tested it, right? It didn't go down, right? Excess heat generated, right? No? Yes? Maybe?
If you mean battery state-of-charge (SOC), no, she hasn't done that test. She refuses to do this, and she refuses to perform a continuous operation test over an extended period of time, all the while taking periodic SOC measurements.
She may have measured the battery voltage with the DMM a few times, but as we all know, battery voltage is an extremely poor and unreliable method for determining the battery's SOC.
Batteries are designed in fact to hover close to their theoretical terminal voltage for as long as possible under load, until finally near the end of their capacity, the battery voltage falls off rapidly, but by that time you already have an over-depleted battery on your hands.
.99
Quote from: eisnad karm on April 20, 2011, 11:34:09 PM
Well at least ponty your still there,
many of us were put under moderation...all I asked was for an acceptable test to see if the batteries were really holding up or not.
After years of contributing to this site I can see no point if people who dare to seek the truth are banished or thrown on the fire.
Real scientific process and logic will always win out. If you dont then your left with a cult like belief system.
Karm
It's very hard to have any faith whatsoever in the' scientific establishment' when prestigious institutions like MIT have been shown to have falsified their cold-fusion data 20 years ago. In a way I understand why they would do so - the notion that almost all of these institutions are "scientists on welfare" is the reality, bite the hand that feeds you and you're out of a job! Intellectual prostitutes, pure and simple. And wasn't it the same group of scientists that demanded the resignation of one of their own colleagues when he had the gal to suggest that this LENR excess energy might be the result of a transmutation of elements? If there's ever an end to this tyranny that place should be razed to the ground, Couple that with the fact that about 80% of meaningful scientific advances are by individuals with no formal scientific education and it's even more reason to be wary of the "real scientific process".
Quote from: hartiberlin on April 20, 2011, 02:58:24 PM
So Rose, please post a new circuit diagram, where we can see, how your MOSFETs were really wired.
snip....
An entirely reasonable request that I'll echo ....... please post a new circuit diagram. :)
Rather than just reading or even watching videos about your circuit and what's going on, oscillation wise, I 'd like a chance to replicate it and observe the effect in operation myself.
As an experimenter, I prefer and enjoy the hands on approach to projects I wish to get involved with.
A simple schematic circuit with parts specifications/description would be great.
For greater replication accuracy, specs on the function generator signal would also be very welcome: e.g peak to peak voltage, dc voltage bias offset (if any), frequency range and signal type e.g. sine, square, sawtooth.
echo again ......... pretty please, post a new circuit diagram. :-*
Cheers
Guys,
Have you seen this diagram?
http://www.overunity.com/index.php?topic=10407.msg282318#msg282318
That is it essentially.
.99
Here is the simulation circuit diagram she published. Unfortunately, it is quite small and a little difficult to get the actual values, but one can clearly see that all the mosfets are connected in true parallel.....quite contrary to how the actual prototype was built, as I've pointed out.
That is misleading in terms of being honest towards anyone who may have wanted to try a replication. Not only that, but this "variation" of the circuit as Rose calls it, puts the current shunt measurement seriously into question, because now there is no guarantee that all the battery current is reflected in that shunt scope trace.
.99
Quote from: poynt99 on April 21, 2011, 08:35:28 AM
Guys,
Have you seen this diagram?
http://www.overunity.com/index.php?topic=10407.msg282318#msg282318
That is it essentially.
.99
Missed that. Thanks Poynt.
Cheers
Quote from: poynt99 on April 21, 2011, 08:35:28 AM
Guys,
Have you seen this diagram?
http://www.overunity.com/index.php?topic=10407.msg282318#msg282318
That is it essentially.
.99
That circuit is confusing - 'nodes' that would differentiate between joins and cross-overs would be nice! As I read it, only the first mosfet is doing anything of significance there. What about the other 3 mosfets? There is definitely a circuit diagram needed here...
No mean average negative Value at the shunt , if you use circuit diagram Poynt99 Post Reply #738 :
http://www.overunity.com/index.php?topic=10407.msg282318#msg282318
It might function if you use the one in Post #739. IHMO not busted , but very difficult to examine.
Quote from: Sprocket on April 21, 2011, 09:01:55 AM
That circuit is confusing - 'nodes' that would differentiate between joins and cross-overs would be nice! As I read it, only the first mosfet is doing anything of significance there. What about the other 3 mosfets? There is definitely a circuit diagram needed here...
Here you go...
.99
@poynt99 - Thank you, every little helps!
@TheCell - But won't Q2-Q5 run dead-cold if all their sources are just tied to the generator o/p via the 0.5 Ohm resistor? And yes, the shunt resistor seems redundant as far as Q2-Q5 are concerned. I can see how they might effect Q1's oscillation though...
@Rosemary - do all the mosfets get hot during operation?
Hi Sprocket. I've copied this onto my blogspot. Here's the link
http://newlightondarkenergy.blogspot.com/
It may be a bit small - but it's the only jpg I've got and I won't be able to get it enlarged until after the holiday.
If you want to - feel free to copy them here.
Kindest regards,
Rosemary
This is bewildering. I posted that picture a minute ago. Poynty published it when? Then. He CLAIMS that they're in 'TRUE PARALLEL' Just please ignore him. He has no IDEA what he's saying. THEY ARE NOT. I cannot believe that he's taken over this thread. It's a positive hazard. A veritable MINE of misinformation. And it seems that Harti's happy to encourage this. What gives?
Rosemary
GUYS PLEASE NOTE - THIS IS A SIMULATION - IT WAS DONE YONKS BACK. THE SHUNT IS NOT POSITIONED AS SHOWN IN THIS CIRCUIT. I'M NOW REALLY SORRY THAT I EVEN POSTED IT.
@Rossie
I think it is a reasonable request to post an accurate diagram of your circuit so others who have kindly offered to replicate it and test can help verify your findings and possibly add some new insights.
1. Replication is vital if it is to gain any acceptance by mainstream academics or anyone else.
2. It will also enable some tests to be done that have been requested that you may not be in the position to do yourself like measuring the real battery condition before and after.
3. Others may also be able to build up rigs that can accurately measure heat gains and power consumed.
4. Others may be able to do the continuous testing
5. Other may be able to do simulations with software simulation packages.
It is vital that accurate information be obtained so that speculation is replaced by data and testing methodologies accepted by all.
Finally you often mention your team...perhas they will be kind enough to report their observations and conclusions.
Kind Regards
Karm
@Rosemary - thanks, that makes more sense! That pic poynt99 posted implied that all mosfets were connected in this way and he ignored my question about the rest of the mosfets - a deliberate attempt to obfuscate methinks...
Below is the schematic from Rosemary's site.
PS - Just realised that isn't scaled properly - so here is the original..
Seems to have calmed down here at HeaterVille. ;]
It was like an erfquake here yesterday. But no damage, and just minor injuries.
bah we all make mistakes. Look at me. LOOOOK!! lol
Mags
No wonder the function generator gets overloaded,
if the one MOSFET puts about 60 Volts onto the
function generator output.
So Rosemary,
please let us know, what your circuit should be really.
Should it now have 5 MOSFETs in parallel or
should it be like the last one with the false
polarised MOSFET that might destroy the function generator ??
So was this made on purpose that you posted a wrong circuit
diagram first or what ???
Quote from: Sprocket on April 21, 2011, 06:08:40 PM
@Rosemary - thanks, that makes more sense! That pic poynt99 posted implied that all mosfets were connected in this way and he ignored my question about the rest of the mosfets - a deliberate attempt to obfuscate methinks...
Below is the schematic from Rosemary's site.
PS - Just realised that isn't scaled properly - so here is the original..
Sprocket,
Have you seen this page?:
http://newlightondarkenergy.blogspot.com/2011/03/report.html
The schematic diagram I posted came directly from her site, and it was from the "report" post. I
implied nothing. That simulation diagram was included as part of the Report, which was based on the demonstration they gave. Everyone else can clearly see who was the real perpetrator of obfuscation, why can't you? Obviously that new
corrected diagram was just posted today, now that the cat is out of the bag so to speak, and let's not forget who uncovered this.
Are you sure you still want to cling to that asinine accusation?
Regarding your question; what about the other 4 mosfets? You've seen how they are connected, correct?
.99
Have they made another error with this "corrected" simulation diagram?
They have drawn the Source of Q2-Q5 connected to the shunt. But in the photo of the underside of the perf-board, you can clearly see that Q1's Source is connected to the shunt, and the Source of Q2-Q5 is not.
The function generator is driving Q1's Gate (per the photo of the actual build), but they are not showing that now in the new simulation diagram.
Take a look at the correct connections again guys.
http://www.overunity.com/index.php?topic=10407.msg282472#msg282472
WTF? ???
.99
For reference, and so that nothing gets "lost", here's that new "corrected" diagram again that Rose posted, this time re-sized. Note the difference in connections between this and the above perf-board photo (underside).
.99
Quote from: hartiberlin on April 21, 2011, 10:40:00 PM
No wonder the function generator gets overloaded,
if the one MOSFET puts about 60 Volts onto the
function generator output.
So Rosemary,
please let us know, what your circuit should be really.
Should it now have 5 MOSFETs in parallel or
should it be like the last one with the false
polarised MOSFET that might destroy the function generator ??
The choice is yours and any experimentalist's. If you use one MOSFET you will get the standard spike that we all know so well. What we have shown is that if you use the one - standard positioning - and then parallel others - non standard with the gate transposed with the source of the MOSFET then you get that extraordinary oscillation. The advantage of the oscillation is that it is simply showing us the FULL POTENTIAL of that spike. I am ASBOLUTELY NOT SURE WHY YOU CLAIM THAT THIS WILL DESTROY THE FUNCTIONS GENERATOR. We do not get the kind of voltage that you are assuming - anywhere NEAR the value that is likely to destroy anything at all.
Quote from: hartiberlin on April 21, 2011, 10:40:00 PMSo was this made on purpose that you posted a wrong circuit
diagram first or what ???
My dear Steve
I have written you an email where I EXPLAINED THIS. Did you read it? I also copied you on a private message that I sent to Neptune. Did you read that? What you're doing here is forcing me to make a full public disclosure. I'm hoping that there will be some benefit.
I am on record. I actively attempted to DISSUADE anyone at all from replicating because - in truth - I did not expect anyone to find that oscillation. When Poynty's simulation showed it - then I thought that perhaps that there were other ways of doing this. Or had he made my same early mistake? I absolutely was not sure. I still don't know.
What I do know is that my intention was to get endorsement by EXPERTS at a public demonstration. There are many who read these threads and these forums. But it's still a drop in the ocean. The public are largely and entirely unaware of what goes on here. So. We needed Doctors and Professors to endorse the anomaly. With that endorsement we would have been able to go PUBLIC in the true sense of the word. We need to get these facts to the broad public through the wider media channels. This because I KNOW, not SUSPECT - that there are those interested parties who read these threads. They LURK. Unlike those of us on this forum - they already KNOW of the benefits to this technology. The most of the readers here are still DEBATING the possibility even of OU - for goodness sake. I assure you that there are those interested parties who are already actively structuring and canvassing licensing rights.
So. Here was my 'hope' shared by us all. We demonstrate this to our EXPERTS. We explain the early 'freak' misalignment of those FET legs. We then show the resulting waveform which, at its least is a continual oscillation and which MOST CERTAINLY defies classical assumption. We use this as proof of a second current source on our circuit. This speaks to the thesis. Then physicists may be prepared to publish either the thesis or the circuit. Either way - publication in a reviewed journal puts the technology SQUARELY in the public domain - with every reason to progress it. Then there can be NO REASON WHATSOEVER to apply any kind of license - as the principles applied are just too easily breached.
We did not get those experts - therefore no media exposure - therefore no easy road to PUBLIC acceptance of that dual current. Therefore I saw it as required that we hold back on that transposition until we - at its least - get our experts to the table.
I have absolutely no quarrel with the facts having been disclosed by Poynty. I actually think that all is this moving in directions over which none of us have any real control. BUT. I absolutely and heartily object to his INSISTENCE that there is nothing here. We continue with that attitude AT OUR PERIL. There is most certainly interest in this technology. And it is most certainly with at least one highly reputable academic institution. And FAR from making that research publicly available - I see no mention of it. And that's alarming.
So. You can quarrel with my motives here. I am not sure that I shouldn't perhaps have challeneged Poynty on how he managed that oscillation. I certainly did NOT intend letting the facts out before we had PUBLIC acknowledgement of anomaly. And that was not to insult anyone here but to protect that information from being claimed 'elsewhere'. I think the truth is that I was precipitous with the disclosure of that oscillation in the first instance. I trust I can be forgiven. It was and is very exciting.
But. I say this again. You do not need that oscillation to get those benefits. It is EASILY obtained with the standard 'spike' which we used before. It also results in COP infinity. It is just NOT as elegant in its effect nor as eloquent in what it's showing. And it's not as amenable to heavy duty current. What none of us need is to have this thread disrupted by Poynty and Cheeseburger - reminding us - time out of mind - that there's nothing here.
Sorry all. It's been a disaster. And I am well aware of the part I played in this. I think the truth of the matter is that it would have been better to show the full hand. Which is my fault and no-one else's. But it's out now. And somehow I think that was meant. There is no-one to blame here except me in as much as I imposed my own wishes on the team - which, I may add, was done with relative ease as the concerns are shared and the team members here fully cogniscant of that INTEREST.
Kind regards,
Rosemary
And guys - that simulation was done some time back. It was done in an attempt to see if this could be simulated at all. There have been others - I believe. I just don't know. I see that Poynty is still disrupting this. I have lost all appetite for answering is posts. Surely you see that what is required is that we get to an understanding of what is happening here? This discussion is otherwise going nowhere.
Rosemary
Quote from: Rosemary Ainslie on April 22, 2011, 12:46:01 AM
And guys - that simulation was done some time back. It was done in an attempt to see if this could be simulated at all. There have been others - I believe. I just don't know. I see that Poynty is still disrupting this. I have lost all appetite for answering is posts. Surely you see that what is required is that we get to an understanding of what is happening here? This discussion is otherwise going nowhere.
Rosemary
Why are you posting "old" simulations then and passing them off as "present" results?
I think the folks here would be quite interested in seeing your schematic and simulation of the
actual present circuit.
What are you trying to do, confuse and obfuscate more than you have already?
::)
.99
Poynty Point. It seems you have given up challenging the technology and are now challenging my honesty. May we all impose on you to give us the FULL DIAGRAM of that oscillation that you managed first time. And don't 'hold back. I'm sure there are many here who'll try it.
Do I need to remind you - and find that post? Or are you finally going to level with us? We really need to know. What I want to know is HOW WAS THAT POSSIBLE without a transposition? Are there other ways of getting that oscillation? You see how important this is. It's the interest of making full public disclosure and keeping this information OPEN SOURCE. Our own intention to do this has never waivered. You - on the other hand - have NEVER DONE SO.
Rosemary
And guys - I have just been alerted to the fact that anyone who is in support of these efforts of ours - are still likely to be beneficiaries of hate mail about me - in their personal messages. Please ignore them. Or demand that they publish those opinions. Or. Better still - report them to Harti. It's a gross abuse of the PM function.
Seems to me you could clear up all doubt by hooking a probe to the heating element and one on the batteries and letting it just run indefinitely. Not sure why you're not doing that already. It would quickly become pretty clear if it's legit or not. Unless you are concerned about 'exploding batteries' as you mentioned. If that's the case, then what exactly is the point of any of this
Quote from: happyfunball on April 22, 2011, 01:56:27 AM
Seems to me you could clear up all doubt by hooking a probe to the heating element and one on the batteries and letting it just run indefinitely. Not sure why you're not doing that already. It would quickly become pretty clear if it's legit or not. Unless you are concerned about 'exploding batteries' as you mentioned. If that's the case, then what exactly is the point of any of this
I am not concerned about exploding batteries and I could, indeed, just hook it up and let it run. I am happy to do so IF that would result in unequivocal proof of what we're claiming. IT WOULD NOT. There are at least two examples of perpetual motion for public view. The one is a chemical interaction. The other is a mechanical interaction. Niether have made a blind bit of difference to public perceptions nor to academic denial of over unity. And we have NEVER claimed perpetual motion.
Do you even read these posts Happy?
Rosemary
We are well able to prove that the batteries outperform their watt hour ratings. We've done so. Ad nauseum.
Quote from: Rosemary Ainslie on April 22, 2011, 03:49:14 AM
I am not concerned about exploding batteries and I could, indeed, just hook it up and let it run. I am happy to do so IF that would result in unequivocal proof of what we're claiming. IT WOULD NOT. There are at least two examples of perpetual motion for public view. The one is a chemical interaction. The other is a mechanical interaction. Niether have made a blind bit of difference to public perceptions nor to academic denial of over unity. And we have NEVER claimed perpetual motion.
Do you even read these posts Happy?
Rosemary
We are well able to prove that the batteries outperform their watt hour ratings. We've done so. Ad nauseum.
Just hook it up, slap a few meters on it, and let it run on a webcam for a few months. It's not the same as some weird old chemical cap battery (whatever it is) or the ball on the track. This would be continuous generation of energy in the form of heat. Just do it, it would absolutely go a long way toward proving your claim and would cost basically nothing. It would be necessary to do this if the device is to be used in the real world. Just do it.
Quote from: happyfunball on April 22, 2011, 04:08:16 AM
Just hook it up, slap a few meters on it, and let it run on a webcam for a few months. It's not the same as some weird old chemical cap battery (whatever it is) or the ball on the track. This would be continuous generation of energy in the form of heat. Just do it, it would absolutely go a long way toward proving your claim and would cost basically nothing. It would be necessary to do this if the device is to be used in the real world. Just do it.
Happy - I'll do it if all else fails. Then I'll invest the time to do this test EXACTLY as is required. But it's nowhere near as easy as you're claiming. If it were then I'd have it running between demonstrations.
Here's the point. I have NO idea of the battery chemistry involved. While I know we can exceed watt hour ratings - I'm not sure that we'll also get a full recharge. I have only ever run that test continuously from 11.30i'sh am to 1.20 am. I had to go out there at night and one of the security guards at the Campus came with me for protection. During that time the battery lost 0.1 volts according to the DMM. But the heat was steadily climbing and that setting was already slipping. I disconnected that test - and - until now have never even referred to it. Then. The loss of 0.1 volts is defintely significant - given that we had the system running on 5 batteries. But the confusion was that the scopemeter showed no loss at all.
Then. There is a way to measure energy - ALL ENERGY - or all electric energy. And I'm relying on this to emphasise the anomaly. In other words according to STANDARD MEASUREMENT PROTOCOLS - there is a breach in classical prediction related to the transfer of energy. The purists won't look at battery draw down. They ONLY want those measurements.
The last thing I want is to see this evidence degenerate into the kind of 'hopes' that Bearden/Bedini have - related to the advantage, for instance, of high voltage spikes to regenerate old batteries. The results are too significant for that. And they'll be relegated to the same level of importance if the numbers themselves don't stack. So what? What then will happen? A few members here will apply these principles and then? They'll claim that their batteries outperform their watt hour ratings? And like the Bearden/Bedini claim - there will be the endless discussion by those that reject the evidence and those that endorse the evidence.
This technology of ours, unlike all the others - has only been on the internet for 2.5 years. It only got these forums - in earnest - in September 2009 - when Glen did that replication. He then safely took me off these forums by flaming my threads and getting them locked. That cost me a year. And I was only able - again - to advance all this when I was re-instated here on Harti's forum. Significantly I was not given a thread on Poynty's forum. The only thread available to me was locked. And I was not given the offer of my own 'abridged' version which all their other members enjoy. You can guess why? I had to be kept quiet so they could continue laughing at the ludicrouness of the claim. So I effectively lost a year. I
haven't even mention how urgently they tried to prevent this research at CPUT. They wrote letters there, very much as they do here - actively claiming that this discovery was their own and I was usurping their hard efforts to claim it for an unrelated thesis.
But I confidently predict that 6 years from now - which is about how long Bedini et al, been trying to point at this 'spike' - this same circuit will be doing it's rounds with the same meaningless historical repetition. It is our opinion - mine and those who are working on this with me - that we need the urgent intervention of our academics. I cannot change my opinion on this because I see how little is achieved without them. The good news is that they really ARE open to persuasion. They just need that evidence. And it's better to get it approved as an anomaly. Then they need not stick their necks out that far which may, otherwise, jeopardise their professional reputations. And once it's on a large number of campuses then we can all rest easy. One after the other will be trying to outperform the next - and that's a really, really good thing.
And please note. I keep saying this. We have discovered NOTHING. What we've done is UNCOVERED the benefits of counter electromotive force. It has always been ASSUMED to be the result of 'stored' energy. What our numbers show - and what that oscillation shows - is that it is actually NOT stored energy but REGENERATED energy. In other words - circuit material, although passive, is able to generate it's own potential energy supply - provided that the material is inductive or conductive.
Kindest regards,
Rosemary.
edited
Eya adding new members to new knowledge.
_______________________________________________________________________________________
à¹à¸—งบà¸à¸¥ (http://www.1bet88.com/sport_betting.html)-บาà¸,,าร่า (http://www.1bet88.com/baccarat.html)-à¸,,าสิà¹,น (http://www.1bet88.com)-à¸,,าสิà¹,นà¸à¸à¸™à¹,,ลน์ (http://www.casino-onlineslot.com/)-sbobet (http://www.3n2.net/sbobet.html)
Kind of just sounds like a lot of excuses, Rose. Hook it up and let it run for a few months. At the very least you'll no doubt learn something in the process. No one seems convinced you've proven it at this point so you'd have nothing to lose.
Quote from: poynt99 on April 21, 2011, 10:43:04 PM
Sprocket,
Have you seen this page?:
http://newlightondarkenergy.blogspot.com/2011/03/report.html
The schematic diagram I posted came directly from her site, and it was from the "report" post. I implied nothing. That simulation diagram was included as part of the Report, which was based on the demonstration they gave. Everyone else can clearly see who was the real perpetrator of obfuscation, why can't you? Obviously that new corrected diagram was just posted today, now that the cat is out of the bag so to speak, and let's not forget who uncovered this.
Are you sure you still want to cling to that asinine accusation?
Regarding your question; what about the other 4 mosfets? You've seen how they are connected, correct?
.99
Read again what I wrote - I specifically said that the pic you posted
implied, not your good self - found here;
Quotehttp://www.overunity.com/index.php?topic=10407.msg282472#msg282472
So no, there is nothing asinine about my post! This schematic has the Q2 mosfet in that weird configuration and is labelled "Q2-Q5", and that clearly implies that they are all wired that way, which made no sense to me - hence my question to you then about the other 3 mosfets. Which you then neglected to answer! And yes, I now know how they are connected, thanks to Rosemary's blog.
Why you provide that link to the Report page is beyond me - the source-tied-to-gate schematic you posted and I have just linked to above is not found there, just the 'original' circuit...
Quote from: Rosemary Ainslie on April 22, 2011, 04:39:02 AM
Happy - I'll do it if all else fails.
What is that supposed to mean? If what fails, this dog and pony show and constant evasion of the real and simple issue?
Quote
Then I'll invest the time to do this test EXACTLY as is required. But it's nowhere near as easy as you're claiming. If it were then I'd have it running between demonstrations.
That's quite a full load of BS. You could be running this test right now, either way you choose. Either keep track of the load temperature (as happyfunball suggested), or track the battery SOC as I have suggested repeatedly.
If either of these two parameters show a net decline over time, and never recover, then it is quite obvious and clear what is going on....the batteries are being depleted.It's that simple, but Rose won't do it unless she obtains some kind of assurance from "experts" that this decline (or whatever the result) is a true and accepted indication.
Quote
I have NO idea of the battery chemistry involved. While I know we can exceed watt hour ratings - I'm not sure that we'll also get a full recharge.
Perform the SOC tests over time and you will get a very good idea how the battery chemistry is responding to the circuit and load. No actually, you
don't know that you can exceed the amp-hour ratings of the battery; you have not proven that at all yet.
As Happy suggested, do the test (either one) and stop making excuses.
And post a schematic of your circuit. If you have already, then please indicate which one is the correct one.
.99
Quote from: Sprocket on April 22, 2011, 06:26:30 AM
Read again what I wrote - I specifically said that the pic you posted implied, not your good self - found here;
So no, there is nothing asinine about my post! This schematic has the Q2 mosfet in that weird configuration and is labelled "Q2-Q5", and that clearly implies that they are all wired that way, which made no sense to me - hence my question to you then about the other 3 mosfets. Which you then neglected to answer! And yes, I now know how they are connected, thanks to Rosemary's blog.
Why you provide that link to the Report page is beyond me - the source-tied-to-gate schematic you posted and I have just linked to above is not found there, just the 'original' circuit...
Even if I could figure out what you want or what you are trying to say, I don't think I can help you.
.99
I just entered in the schematic from the blog 109. Nothing happens. I don't believe that the waveforms she says come from that schematic sim actually did, although it's possible her expert who did the sim is using something other than a version of Pspice or he has left something out or mismarked some component values. The schematic as shown does not produce any kind of oscillation using Pspice.
I'd love to hear about anyone else's effort to sim that schematic. I get nothing at all...just sits there. So here's a chance to be Rosemary's hero and show how Humbugger made an error! Show me my mistake.
I spent ten years designing and successfully putting into mass production a wide variety of "on purpose" MOSFET RF power oscillators. All of them had 180 degrees phase shift between the source current and drain voltage waveforms but none ever exceeded 100% efficiency. Of course, I made realistic measurements, so I guess that's why no infinite COP was ever seen!
At this time, Rosemary still has not presented a schematic that agrees wiith the photo of her breadboard. As Poynt has pointed out, the breadboard has the solo FET being driven by the gate driver and the source connected to the shunt. The other four have their gates hooked to the shunt and their source pins tied to the gate driver.
It certainly appears that Rosemary is purposely concealing or misdirecting the pathway to replication. I feel quite sorry for anyone who earnestly tries to replicate the hardware. The number of errors, purposely kept secrets and outrageous contradictions has become a true farce. Almost as insane and nonsensical as the measurement scheme and the wishful conclusions it so erroneously supports.
Humbugger
From da blog
"I assure you all that it is easily translated into practical applications. All that is still missing is accreditation by academic experts. And this is MUCH required - because without it we can be accused of perpetrating some kind of fraud. It is an unfortunate truth that these kind of claims proliferate our internet and our history. All the more reason to delay any development of marketable applications until this is endorsed."
I have never in my life heard such a non-progressive, non-inventive, non-productive philosophy. Look at all the great inventions and discoveries of the past 300 years. How many of those inventors and entrepreneurs felt they needed to wait for some kind of approval from academia before proceeding? The notion is completely ridiculous...even moreso in the context of "Free Energy Forum Society".
All one needs to do is make a practical product that performs the advertised function and is reasonably priced. Academia can pound sand. What kind of silly, chickenhearted thinking is this, Rosemary? If applications are so easily implemented and the thing is really an answer to the world's energy needs, as you claim, why, oh why would you need anyone's approval or sanction?
I know I'm not winning any popularity contests here with my sometimes scathing dismissals of the validity of Rosemary's claims and her approach to testing. Compared to academia, my rejections are mild. They won't even give her an audience! At least I'm trying to point out the flaws and problems. Academia won't even bother to try.
But let me ask those of you who are encouraging Rosemary along enthusiastically and who so casually dismiss my comments here as being part of some nasty MIB or ego-driven psychopathic conspiracy to stop free energy progress.
Do you agree with Rosemary that free energy developers should wait for academic approval before they start developing applications? DO YOU?
To me this is absolutely antithetical to all that the free energy movement and open source inventors forums stand for. It reeks of an excuse for the pending final failure.
Blame the academics...they stopped my application development by not accrediting my theory. Blame the poor fools like Poynt and Humbugger who keep trying to explain what the problems are and where the mistakes are being made...Blame the forum moderators and owners for not censoring all technical criticisms.
It's getting old.
Kindest Regards,
Humbugger
The correct schematic as per the actual build. I combined all the CSR (shunt) resistors into one on my diagram.
.99
Have any of you wondered why Q2-Q5 are mounted on large heat sinks while Q1 is only on a small U-channel heat sink?
Well if you have, I can tell you it's because Q1 probably doesn't get very hot. Q2-Q5 however probably do. Why? Because Q2-Q5 are sourcing most of the current to the load. ;)
The important realization here, is that as a result, very little of the net current in the load is flowing through the CSR. :o
.99
Quote from: poynt99 on April 22, 2011, 09:21:42 PM
Have any of you wondered why Q2-Q5 are mounted on large heat sinks while Q1 is only on a small U-channel heat sink?
Well if you have, I can tell you it's because Q1 probably doesn't get very hot. Q2-Q5 however probably do. Why? Because Q2-Q5 are sourcing most of the current to the load. ;)
The important realization here, is that as a result, very little of the net current in the load is flowing through the CSR. :o
.99
Guys,
I want to know how upwards of 48 amps flowing over more than 80 percent of the duty cycle - can possibly represent 'very little' of anything at all. The more so as the voltage behind that current is also upwards of 48 volts. During the oscillation phase there is a really, heavy duty current flow.
The real question is this. What in that switch transposition enables this? My own take is this. The gate is either presenting a positive signal to the drain or a negative signal to the source. Effectively what standard settings on that MOSFET enable, is the positive to the drain or a zero or a negative, to the drain. That's it. So then? Does that mean that there has, perhaps, been a negative potential on the circuit that was simply not allowed to fully generate? This because our transistors were designed on an ASSUMPTION? And that assumption being that the negative voltage component was simply stored energy? And, somehow this stored energy is released in those really high spikes?
The puzzle is this. Parasitic oscillations are known to cross zero and result in that complex sine wave that is sort of snubbed out at each transition as it manifests. It's the fact that it crosses zero at all that perhaps should have given us a clue. Some early indication of this negative potential difference on the circuit itself. I suspect that the doping in those transistors is designed precisely to prevent this. Or certainly to prevent it from persisting as it does here with this transposition.
Either way. What is clear as daylight is that there is no restriction to the flow from the battery and no restriction to the flow from what has been seen as counter electromotive force. And IF that CEMF is the result of 'stored' energy - then how is it that it can exceed the energy from the supply in the first instance. No-one has difficulty - for some reason - in explaining this when it's a spike. But there is some greater effort needed to resolve this under classical paradigms IF and when we find that continuous oscillation - or that continuous resonance.
It seems that there is NO STOPPING IT - provided that the signal at the gate stays negative. And that is definitely NOT acceptable in any standard or mainstream school of thought. And please note. The MOSFETS ALL stay relatively cool. They are NOT unduly stressed under normal conditions. They only become stressed when we apply too much signal at the gate. Then it seems to want to default into a kind of 'runaway' condition - as I think Happy referred to it.
Regards,
Rosemary
And Guys - another thought. Consider too that these parasitic oscillations are only evident when those MOSFETs are put in parallel. What actually has happened there? Could it be that all those extra body diodes now come into play? That there are then enough of them to better enable that returning flow? I'm sure this is part of it. But I absolutely do not have the answers. I've been reading up on transistors but we really need an expert. Perhaps someone here can comment.
And Dear God - Please let it not be Poynty. I'm heartily sick of his negativity. First it was a misreading of the voltage across the battery. Then it was inductance on the wire. Then it was gross undersampling. All of it gross and unadulterated nonsense.
Again - with regards,
Rosemary
hi Rosemary
the important thing at this 'poynt' is not to get distracted
it seems that there are now at least two follow-ups suggested by recent developments:
A) with the circuit as tested, go on to make whatever developments are necessary to enable continuous operation** (eg. try those suggestions for DC negative gate drive, etc)
B) with a circuit modified to place all MOSFETS truly in Gate/Drain/Source parallel, establish whether it's still possible to achieve parasitic oscillation - and if so, does this version provide significantly different energy conversion results to your March 12 test?
**
i realise that establishing proof of your 'new conduction model' is your own personal driver in performing this experiment, but i believe that you also have an altruistic desire to see people benefit from the 'clean green' energy which this circuit might address: eg. off-grid water heating
somebody recently made the valid point that if your circuit is be used in this way, then it must be made to operate continuously without danger of overheating or of 'slipping out' of the preferred drive conditions
unfortunately, i think that until you successfully enable the continuous safe operation of your circuit then nobody will be prepared to either to give any credence to your conduction model or to try and apply the 'technology'
it would be a shame to have come so far, in the face of so much flak, and not to bring this 'Herculean' task to a successful completion
i hope that you will take this post in the constructive spirit in which it is intended
np
http://docsfreelunch.blogspot.com (http://docsfreelunch.blogspot.com)
It should be checked first to what extent the signal generator supplies power to the circuit. If this Power is not negligible put a high ohmic resistor into the signal line (10k) of the signal generator(as mentioned before).
Continuous operation tests do not make sense if during the whole time the signal generator acts as an energy supply.
IMHO it is a battery pulsing circuit , similar to the feg of bedini, or that device that richard willis demonstrates. Remember that guy pete sumaruck, who looped a battery via an inverter, that powers a 60 Watt lamp and a charger, charging this battery . Likely to succeed.
Quote from: TheCell on April 23, 2011, 06:19:22 AM
It should be checked first to what extent the signal generator supplies power to the circuit. If this Power is not negligible put a high ohmic resistor into the signal line (10k) of the signal generator(as mentioned before).
Continuous operation tests do not make sense if during the whole time the signal generator acts as an energy supply.
You are on the correct path, however the function generator never supplies much power to the circuit at all. What I believe it
does do, and what is required for both the oscillation and transfer of power to the load through Q2-Q5, is provide a low-impedance AC path for the oscillations to ground potential.
How it does this precisely is unknown without having the schematic for that generator, but I believe one possibility might be protection diodes on the output of the generator.
Inserting a 10k in series with the generator will most certainly kill the operation.
.99
If anyone can find a schematic or Service Manual for the GFG-8216A Function Generator, that will help a lot.
Alternate models in the same family most likely have the same output configuration, so these schematics might apply as well:
GFG-8255A
GFG-8250A
GFG-8219A
GFG-8217A
GFG-8215A
.99
There are 'nul-points' in Rose going forward with any test until she can state in no uncertain terms which connection diagram (if any) she herself is going by as her reference.
So far she has published three very different schematics, and I think the good folks here deserve to know which one everyone should be referring to when discussing the circuit.
It is clear and obvious from the demonstration video how the actual circuit is connected (if one bothers to look), but so far Rose has not published a schematic diagram that depicts that actual configuration.
Until Rose comes forward and discloses the actual circuit drawing that represents the prototype apparatus she has been testing, there is 'nul-point' in suggesting she change to real-parallel (which she will unlikely do anyway).
.99
In the mean time, I have been playing with the simulation, and I believe I have a good enough handle on things to produce a number of results.
There are basically 3 different configurations we can explore:
1) Q1-Q5 in true parallel. An oscillating circuit is possible in this configuration, but the wave forms are somewhat different than what Rose currently has.
2) Q1 as the Gate drive, and Q2-Q5 with G and S pins swapped. This configuration oscillates and produces wave forms that are closer to the actual scope measurements. This is also the current configuration of the actual apparatus as it has been tested. I can demonstrate an average 0 or negative shunt voltage as Rose has. The Vbat and shunt traces are nicely inverted (although lightly offset) from each other. All powers and currents can be demonstrated.
3) Q2-Q5 receive Gate drive, and Q1 is connected with G and S pins swapped. This is the configuration of the last simulation diagram Rose published on her blog. This is not representative of the current build apparatus, but does produce similar results to 2) above. In fact in terms of the simulation, this configuration produces wave forms that are closer to the actual scope traces than in 2). A negative shunt current can easily be demonstrated, along with all the actual powers and currents throughout the circuit.
The one caveat however in all the simulations, has been that the Gate drive resistor must be quite a bit lower than the theoretical 50 Ohms output of the Function Generator. Values can range from 2 Ohms to 22 Ohms (as was used in the last sim posted by Rose).
My simulation of the exact same Simetrix schematic Rose last posted did not want to run with the Gate resistor at 22 Ohms as shown. It required a value of about 5 Ohms in order for oscillation to occur. This could be due a to slightly different IRFPG50 model used in Simetrix compared to PSPice. However, as I mentioned in a previous post, the Function Generator does not supply significant power to the load, it is mainly used as a DC bias for the Gate to enable/disable circuit oscillation by adjusting the MOSFET channel resistance. The FG also appears to be providing for a low-impedance AC path for the high frequency oscillations, and without this path, the circuit will not oscillate and supply significant power to the load.
So I ask Rose or anyone; is there any particular circuit and any particular "effect" you would be interested in seeing?
Just let me know and I will try to produce the desired results. In the mean time, I will be playing a bit more and perhaps posting some of the various results which I feel get to the meat of the matter here.
.99
Quote from: nul-points on April 23, 2011, 04:03:32 AM
hi Rosemary
the important thing at this 'poynt' is ...
Quote from: poynt99 on April 23, 2011, 12:11:44 PM
There are 'nul-points' in ...
there is 'nul-point' in ...
.99
whoever said "imitation is the sincerest form of flattery" was obviously unaware how lame it looks! ;)
Quote from: nul-points on April 23, 2011, 12:59:15 PM
whoever said "imitation is the sincerest form of flattery" was obviously unaware how lame it looks! ;)
Lame indeed!
I see you got the "poynt". ;)
I think the folks here could benefit from seeing something helpful in your posts. Acting like a smartass does not quite qualify.
.99
Quote from: poynt99 on April 23, 2011, 01:10:11 PM
Lame indeed!
I see you got the "poynt". ;)
I think the folks here could benefit from seeing something helpful in your posts. Acting like a smartass does not quite qualify.
.99
Seems odd
the first time i read this post just a bit ago, it read
" 'nul-points = Lame indeed! "
But no indication that it was edited
Selective edit notifications?
Mags
In continuation, this might be of interest to a few here.
The configuration is as per 2) above. Gate drive is to Q1, and Q2-Q5 have G and S reversed connections. This is the "as-built" configuration Rose has been testing and posting scope shots on.
Focusing on Vbat and Vcsr as Rose has been, the following scope shots reveal the same negative Vcsr and negative power going back to the battery.
More to follow.
.99
Now the scope shot of MEAN [vbat(t) * vcsr(t)] * 4.
A whopping -192W back to the battery! :o
In theory, these two measurements (the -192W and -9.94W) should be the same. Which one do you think is the correct one? Is either the correct one?
.99
Let's see what you get if you put in a shunt right at the negative battery terminal. Hook the scope ground to the battery and the probe tip to the shunt so as not to reverse the polarity.
Then using probe #2 also grounded at battery negative terminal, probe the true battery voltage excluding all wiring inductances and resistors.
Then we can see what the real power is coming out of the battery.
Humbugger
Now let's look at the average power in the critical devices. The "W" probe in PSPice allows for a direct probing of instantaneous power in any given device. By applying the "AVG" function to these traces, we obtain a trace which converges on the real power dissipated in that device.
Measured is the REAL power in the following:
1) Q2-Q5 combined: ~14.6W
2) Q1: ~0.41W :o
3) Battery: ~-33.3W*
4) Load Resistor: ~16.86W
* Normal battery power is measured as a "negative" because this represents power being supplied to a circuit, i.e. a loss of energy.
If we look at the power balance, we have:
33.3W = 14.6W + 0.41W + 16.86W
33.3W = 31.87W
The remaining ~1.43W can be accounted for by the power dissipated in the 2 Ohm Gate resistor, and the 0.25 Ohm CSR. Oddly, the function generator contributes about 3W to the circuit, and this is precisely the amount lost in the 2 Ohm battery lead resistor. These losses are not shown in the graphs.
It becomes quite apparent in the simulations, that if the gate impedance is too high the continuous oscillations stop. I am convinced that the FG somehow provides for a low AC impedance path through it's output terminal, and this is why the circuit still oscillates. This would also explain why the FG does not heat up even though it has a 50 Ohm resistor in series.
I hope that with the above details and analysis, the "problems" in all this mess are now starting to become apparent. Surely it is obvious that Q1 is providing almost no power to the load resistor. One might also observe that the power measured using the CSR and Vbat voltage points is largely reactive, and not indicating anything close to the truth in terms of what the battery is supplying or receiving.
.99
Quote from: Magluvin on April 23, 2011, 01:59:35 PM
Seems odd
the first time i read this post just a bit ago, it read
" 'nul-points = Lame indeed! "
But no indication that it was edited
Selective edit notifications?
Mags
if you edit quick enough, say in the first five or ten minutes after posting, it won't show an edit. not sure if it's a forum feature or a bug...
In reply #780 above, in the scope shot "Q1_scope03.png", the battery power was calculated using the average of Vbat x Vcsr.
It should be pointed out that this normally would provide the correct answer. In this case MEAN (Vbat) is the correct value, i.e. ~71V, but the value for MEAN (Vcsr) is incorrect. The reason for this as was pointed out above, is because the majority of current flowing through the load resistor and battery is doing so via Q2-Q5, and not via Q1 where the CSR is in fact connected.
As a result, the CSR will not indicate the true current through the load and battery. As a side note, Hum suggested that the CSR should be placed outside of the Vgs loop of the MOSFET Q1, and I fully agree. The results of this simulation also offer support for this. The CSR would indicate (and Rose would jump in glee) that the currents in the load are upwards of 6A in this case (1.5Vp/0.25), but in fact the average current from the battery is less than 0.5A.
.99
Thanks Wilby
Things like that can just get the imagination going for sure.
Mags
I think Rosemary's whole reason for doing these various circuits and measurements is to help validate her thesis which is based on unorthodox physics not commonly believed to exist. I fail to understand why anyone would expect tests run on a simulation based on the current physics that Rose is trying to contradict to show her new concepts? Of course the simulation is going to show a different results than Her team gets, what would be the point in doing any of this if it could just be run on a simulation?
Oh well I had to ask, Rose I haven't said hello for a while good luck.
Pete
& Magulvin I just edited this and it looks like Wilby's correct
Poiyt, would it be possible for you to post the zipped PSpice project of your latest circuit?
B.t.w. be careful with putting the Watt probe on the battery. The power indicated is reversed in polarity.
I've noticed this before. It's very misleading
You can check it with a simple circuit only existing of a battery and a resistor.
Quote from: teslaalset on April 23, 2011, 04:19:31 PM
Poiyt, would it be possible for you to post the zipped PSpice project of your latest circuit?
B.t.w. be careful with putting the Watt probe on the battery. The power indicated is reversed in polarity.
I've noticed this before. It's very misleading
You can check it with a simple circuit only existing of a battery and a resistor.
Hi teslaalset.
Have you seen this post above?
http://www.overunity.com/index.php?topic=10407.msg282734#msg282734
I'm quite aware of the negative power indication when the W probe is placed on
any source, and
this is correct as I pointed out both in the above post, and on the scope shot text.
Good that you're on the ball though ;)
.99
Quote from: vonwolf on April 23, 2011, 04:17:02 PM
I think Rosemary's whole reason for doing these various circuits and measurements is to help validate her thesis which is based on unorthodox physics not commonly believed to exist. I fail to understand why anyone would expect tests run on a simulation based on the current physics that Rose is trying to contradict? Of course the simulation is going to show a different results than Her team gets, what would be the point in doing any of this if it could just be run on a simulation?
Oh well I had to ask, Rose I haven't said hello for a while good luck.
Pete
That point has been made more than once - ie. no simulation software can simulate scalar waves etc. whether by accident or design. Yet they keep being put forward as 'proof' that the real circuit must be wrong! That said, I think Rosemary actually asked for some of these simulations to be done, so she can't complain too loudly...
Quote from: Sprocket on April 23, 2011, 04:32:27 PM
That point has been made more than once - ie. no simulation software can simulate scalar waves etc. whether by accident or design. Yet they keep being put forward as 'proof' that the real circuit must be wrong! That said, I think Rosemary actually asked for some of these simulations to be done, so she can't complain too loudly...
Your right I think I even saw Harti comment on this so it might be a bit redundant but its like I said I haven't said Hi to Rose in a while and I by no means was representing Rosemary's stance on this.
Pete
Quote from: vonwolf on April 23, 2011, 04:17:02 PM
I think Rosemary's whole reason for doing these various circuits and measurements is to help validate her thesis which is based on unorthodox physics not commonly believed to exist. I fail to understand why anyone would expect tests run on a simulation based on the current physics that Rose is trying to contradict to show her new concepts? Of course the simulation is going to show a different results than Her team gets, what would be the point in doing any of this if it could just be run on a simulation?
Oh well I had to ask, Rose I haven't said hello for a while good luck.
Pete
vonwolf,
You should aim to follow along more closely. ;)
1) Rosemary and her team have in fact performed simulations of a variation of what I just did above (config. 1 rather than config. 2) which she posted on her blog yesterday. If they added in 2uH of inductance on each side of the battery as I have, their results would be a lot closer to those obtained from the real apparatus.
2) Rather than flat out stating that the results can't be correct because they are a simulation, kindly point out exactly what is not correct? I was able to show a net negative CSR voltage (have you examined the posts?), and that in itself goes against "unorthodox physics" as you put it. The results using the same measurement points also show a net power going back to the battery. Do you actually understand this and can you explain why
the simulation shows this?
I wouldn't say the simulation has showed results that are all that different than what her team has obtained. Please provide some detail as to what you mean exactly. btw, you also missed the fact that Rose is very interested in seeing that this can be achieved in a simulation. That is why she has been asking me for details on my previous simulations and why she has been running them herself (or her team has).
I trust that should catch you up somewhat.
.99
Quote from: poynt99 on April 23, 2011, 04:32:06 PM
Have you seen this post above?
http://www.overunity.com/index.php?topic=10407.msg282734#msg282734
I'm quite aware of the negative power indication when the W probe is placed on any source, and this is correct as I pointed out both in the above post, and on the scope shot text.
Sorry, my bad. I need to read the details, this thread has a high update rate with a lot of details. I still trying to catch up.
Interesting simulation, and good you're aware of the source power polarity issue of PSpice.
I learned it the hard way myself.....
Quote from: Sprocket on April 23, 2011, 04:32:27 PM
That point has been made more than once - ie. no simulation software can simulate scalar waves etc. whether by accident or design. Yet they keep being put forward as 'proof' that the real circuit must be wrong! That said, I think Rosemary actually asked for some of these simulations to be done, so she can't complain too loudly...
What exactly are scalar waves sprocket, and what do they have to do with the Ainslie circuit and this thread topic?
.99
Here are the PSpice 10.5 files for the "Q1" configuration.
.99
Quote from: poynt99 on April 23, 2011, 04:51:18 PM
What exactly are scalar waves sprocket, and what do they have to do with the Ainslie circuit and this thread topic?
.99
Longitudinal waves as opposed to the Hertzian wave "FE is impossible" club you obviously belong to! As to its relevancy, I think I'm right in saying that Rosemary has stated already that in her opinion, the alleged 'artifact' cannot be modelled with simulation software - so let me direct the same question to you, what are you doing here flooding her thread with simulations, and what has it got to do with the thread topic?
Quote from: poynt99 on April 23, 2011, 01:10:11 PM
I think the folks here could benefit from seeing something helpful in your posts. Acting like a smartass does not quite qualify.
.99
LOL @ the Pontiff
i shall continue to post whatever i believe to be most apposite at the time
i'm not drawing any conclusions as to whether Rosemary's current experiment is valid or invalid until i see relevant data
from her (or her team)members of OU.com will gauge you by your treatment of her - and beating on Rosemary with a big stick is unlikely to convince her to comply with your demands
Quote from: nul-points on April 23, 2011, 05:49:53 PM
LOL @ the Pontiff
i shall continue to post whatever i believe to be most apposite at the time
...
and so shall I.I know you're a big fan and can't help yourself, but kindly refrain from the lame 'poynt' references. I certainly have not ever made them myself using
your moniker (up until your lesson that is).
Quote
i'm not drawing any conclusions as to whether Rosemary's current experiment is valid or invalid until i see relevant data from her (or her team)
You will be waiting a very long time then my friend.
Quote
members of OU.com will gauge you by your treatment of her - and beating on Rosemary with a big stick is unlikely to convince her to comply with your demands
Perhaps. The only thing that IS important however, is that one be truthful, forthcoming, and willing to learn and accept when they've made an error. IMO, we've not seen much of that from Rose.
If I'm wrong in any of my assertions, or my analysis, please clearly point it out. There is much emotional flak being thrown at it all, but no one can seem to muster any kind of technical argument one way or the other. Why don't you start nul?
I'm interested in the truth. Why aren't you?
.99
Quote from: Sprocket on April 23, 2011, 05:46:41 PM
Longitudinal waves as opposed to the Hertzian wave "FE is impossible" club you obviously belong to! As to its relevancy, I think I'm right in saying that Rosemary has stated already that in her opinion, the alleged 'artifact' cannot be modelled with simulation software - so let me direct the same question to you, what are you doing here flooding her thread with simulations, and what has it got to do with the thread topic?
What exactly is a Longitudinal wave, sprocket? How is it related to the Ainslie device and this thread?
I'm performing simulations (similar to those done by Rose) at this time to address some real issues with the current status quo. I'm examining the circuit at a level necessary to scope out unseen pitfalls in the measurements being taken by her and her team.
What are you doing here that is constructive in any way?
.99
Quote from: poynt99 on April 23, 2011, 06:36:13 PM
What exactly is a Longitudinal wave, sprocket? How is it related to the Ainslie device and this thread?
I'm performing simulations (similar to those done by Rose) at this time to address some real issues with the current status quo. I'm examining the circuit at a level necessary to scope out unseen pitfalls in the measurements being taken by her and her team.
What are you doing here that is constructive in any way?
.99
Longitudinal waves is where Tesla said the magic lies and that is good enough for me! If you are looking for me to get all technical then you are going to be disappointed - or not as is probably the case. Or are you suggesting that they do not exist? If that's not the case, does current simulation software model them - that's a question, since you apparently specialise in this area? This I already asked in the form of a question, but you ignored that!
Are you suggesting that I do not have a right to post on a public forum, whereas its permissible for you to hound Rosemary Ainslie from forum to forum, trash her threads, all the while denying her a venue on you own forum? Come to think of it, what are you even doing here at OU? If you think your piss-poor attitude is somwhow going to scare me off, you are sadly mistaken.
You trying to educate me about how SPICE can not simulate scalar or longitudinal waves when you can not even tell me what they are, I find quite comical, and frankly, it's pitiable.
Regarding the question, let me try to be more specific, since you have apparently mistaken the context:
What have you posted in this thread that has been constructive in any way? How have you been able to help progress the collective goal of understanding the circuit, the measurements, the actual connections, the real schematic, the assumptions, the oversights, etc. etc.? don't bother answering btw. ::)
By doing the simulations and posting the results, insights and conclusions, I am providing at the very least, food for thought, and hopefully at best, the actual solutions to the enigma we're involve in here.
I would very much like to focus on getting to the bottom of this very technical challenge, so if you don't mind, I would suggest that unless you have some specific technical issue you wish to address me with, you refrain from engaging in any further flame throwing along my direction. This applies to more than just you.
Thanks,
.99
LOL, I figured I'd get a response like that - "look everybody, I'm smarter than he is!!!" Sigh, you really are that childishly pathetic.
I also like the way you avoided a direct question - Tesla's too big a game for you! You and your motives really are transparent.
If you were at all interested in proving/disproving this thesis you'd open a thread of your own and stop trashing others. The reason you don't is that you know quite well that it would fizzle out in no time, with you being the only one posting there - a bit like your crappy forum. Why? 'cos anyone with more than a passing interest FE is familiar with your tactics and knows what a prick you are!!!
What's really sad is that Stephan allows vermin like you to do this. He and this forum have obviously sold out long ago.
That said, I realise that I'm just adding to the noise here, which contrary to what you post, is exactly your intent. So you're on IGNORE from now on.
Quote from: Sprocket on April 23, 2011, 08:57:24 PM
LOL, I figured I'd get a response like that - "look everybody, I'm smarter than he is!!!" Sigh, you really are that childishly pathetic.
I also like the way you avoided a direct question - Tesla's too big a game for you! You and your motives really are transparent.
If you were at all interested in proving/disproving this thesis you'd open a thread of your own and stop trashing others. The reason you don't is that you know quite well that it would fizzle out in no time, with you being the only one posting there - a bit like your crappy forum. Why? 'cos anyone with more than a passing interest FE is familiar with your tactics and knows what a prick you are!!!
What's really sad is that Stephan allows vermin like you to do this. He and this forum have obviously sold out long ago.
That said, I realise that I'm just adding to the noise here, which contrary to what you post, is exactly your intent. So you're on IGNORE from now on.
::)
.99
Guys - especially Sprocket, Mags and Pete
This is very important. Please read it carefully.
I have a very real concern that I think needs an answer. I'm not sure what 'time' is applicable to any one of you - and since we're scattered around various time zones then it's possible that our computers either conform to our own time zones or to something preset here. I have never myself 'joined up' as a member. Harti always did this for me - just to accommodate my own idiocy. I have grave diffculties doing this. So I'm not sure what 'settings' were applied here. But what I KNOW is this.
I posted my schematic on my blogspot - because I still find it relatively easy to do that there. Within a heartbeat Poynty copied this to his post
« Reply #741 on: April 21, 2011, 02:43:47 PM
Within 10 minutes of posting that schematic on my blogspot I posted this.
« Reply #747 on: April 21, 2011, 07:35:47 PM »
IN EFFECT what has happened here is this. REGARDLESS of the time zones - what this shows is that Poynty was able to INSERT a post - set to a time that PRECEDED MY OWN PUBLIC POST AND MY NOTIFICATION OF THAT BLOG POST HERE - BY A COOL 5 HOURS.
He absolutely COULD NOT HAVE DONE THIS without being a moderator on this forum and on this thread. And that gives some considerable pause for thought.
You will then notice that he has also been given permission by Harti - to say pretty well as much as he needs to or wants to - and you will notice that Harti himself SAYS NOTHING. One assumes he is too busy. I wonder if I could impose on either Harti OR Poynty - to explain how they managed that post.
And Mags - it's true that we have 10 minutes or thereby to edit. I MARK my edits REGARDLESS - because I've been widely accused of 'going back' and changing my posts. I OFTEN DO. But it's because I'm relatively blind. I can only really read them once they're posted. And then I edit them. I've now learned about the 'preview' function and am doing a bit better. But neither you nor I can insert posts and we CERTAINLY can't change that time.
I am now of the opinion that I am about to be booted off this forum. Let me explain why. TK was given carte blanche and full license to say what he wanted to get rid of me or the technolgy. At the time I carried the dubious distinction of being banned from the forum without even joining. More often than not my view of the thread was blocked via my IP address. Then Glen was given license to flame my threads to death and certain closure. And RIGHT NOW Poynty has clearly been given the same license.
Then. There is absolutely NOTHING WRONG with my emails. Usually I am given 'due notice' via email of anyone posting. I have RECEIVED NO NOTIFICATION OF THESE LATEST POSTS. It happens EVERY TIME there's a sequence of postings that REALLY need an answer. AGAIN. That can only happen with the active co-operation of Harti.
So. I'm alerting you to the fact that I am possibly about to be kicked off here. And secondly that Poynty is 'flaming' this thread with the full knowledge and approval of Harti - IF NOT WITH HIS ACTUAL STATUS AS A MODERATOR HERE.
WHAT GIVES??
ALSO. I'll answer Poynty's POINTS. God help us all. Why do you guys not see the absolute NONSENSE he's applied to those measurements? That troubles me more than anything. Clearly he can get away with saying anything he wants IF he can also get away with such ASBURD NONSENSE on power measurements. It's an ABSOLUTE TRAVESTY. It is ERRONEOUS. In fact it's LAUGHABLY incorrect. It's ENTIRELY UNSCIENTIFIC. What Poynty has done is FUDGED JUST ABOUT EVERYTHING. But I have a problem. We've got our 'gathering of the clans' as it's EASTER SUNDAY. I wont be able to get back here before 3.00 this afternoon. But I see how REQUIRED this is.
If I've been banned before then - PLEASE CHECK OUT MY BLOG. In fact, if I disappear from here GO TO THAT BLOG. Perhaps I can impose on Pete or someone here to link to the blog if I get banned. Otherwise I'll have absolutely NO VOICE to answer this absolute nonsense.
Kindest regards,
Rosemary
AND HAPPY EASTER TO those of us who celebrate. In fact it's a festive time for just about all our religions. So. To everyone - HAVE A WONDERFUL HOLIDAY.
Regarding Hum's suggestion for moving the CSR, here are some results.
The CSR was moved right next to the battery as shown, while the 200nH inductance was left at the Q1 Source in order to maintain circuit oscillation.
The battery voltage is taken either with a DMM (valid) or with a scope probe. The CSR voltage is also taken either with a DMM (valid) or a scope probe. Note however that the CSR scope probe needs to be reversed so that the common can be at the battery negative terminal. This works out quite nicely, but note that the power value will come to a positive number, not negative.
The battery power is obtained by:
Vbat * MEAN[Vcsr] * 4 =>
72V * 120.6mV * 4 ~ 34.7W (should be negative)
Note the previous battery power measurement taken using the direct P(t) method in PSpice, was -33.3W. I changed the circuit slightly by moving the CSR and leaving an inductance in the Source, so this may account for the small difference in the measurement. At any rate, the two values correlate well.
Recall when the CSR was located at the Q1 Source, the power computation resulted in a figure of -9.94W. This is not only the incorrect polarity (should be positive), but it is off by a factor of 3x.
In conclusion, it has been shown that taking both the battery and CSR voltage measurements directly across their terminals, and with the CSR located as close to the battery as possible (outside of the MOSFET Vgs loop) will result in a correct measurement of battery power. It should also be noted that taking the average of both prior to multiplying them (as would be done with DMM measurements) is a completely valid method, and produces the same end result as the scope does.
.99
Rose,
I honestly don't have any idea how you got the idea that I am somehow pre-empting your posts or that I have moderator rights here or some such. ??? That is absolutely false. It is also false that you are going to be banned here. That is all pure nonsense and tale-spinning.
Regarding the posts, what is it that is wrong with the results I've posted?
.99
Quote from: poynt99 on April 23, 2011, 10:33:11 PM
Rose,
I honestly don't have any idea how you got the idea that I am somehow pre-empting your posts or that I have moderator rights here or some such. ??? That is absolutely false. It is also false that you are going to be banned here. That is all pure nonsense and tale-spinning.
Regarding the posts, what is it that is wrong with the results I've posted?
.99
I have absolutely NOT got the time to do this Poynty. Not now. Your results on those sims are nonsense. This last at least correct in its protocols IF you've done it as required. But this emphasises how URGENTLY you need that average. And an AVERAGE IS NOT ACCEPTABLE. And. It's still WRONG experimentally. And it is CERTAINLY NOT consistent with the sim results that I've seen.
THEN. Please explain how you managed to post that sim schematic 5 HOUR BEFORE I MADE IT PUBLIC? That's a miracle Poynty Point of some considerable dimensions.
Rosemary
Quote from: Rosemary Ainslie on April 23, 2011, 10:13:29 PM
I posted my schematic on my blogspot - because I still find it relatively easy to do that there. Within a heartbeat Poynty copied this to his post
« Reply #741 on: April 21, 2011, 02:43:47 PM
Have a closer look my dear, and also try reading the post. The two are not the same schematic.
Quote
Within 10 minutes of posting that schematic on my blogspot I posted this.
« Reply #747 on: April 21, 2011, 07:35:47 PM »
IN EFFECT what has happened here is this. REGARDLESS of the time zones - what this shows is that Poynty was able to INSERT a post - set to a time that PRECEDED MY OWN PUBLIC POST AND MY NOTIFICATION OF THAT BLOG POST HERE - BY A COOL 5 HOURS.
Sorry, I have no idea really what you are referring to. ???
.99
Quote from: poynt99 on April 23, 2011, 10:47:26 PM
Have a closer look my dear, and also try reading the post. The two are not the same schematic.
Sorry, I have no idea really what you are referring to. ???
.99
Sorry Poynty. If it's not the same schematic then indeed I'm talking nonsense. That's a relief. In fact that's an ENORMOUS relief.
Kindest regards,
Rosemary
Quote from: Rosemary Ainslie on April 23, 2011, 10:51:29 PM
Sorry Poynty. If it's not the same schematic then indeed I'm talking nonsense. That's a relief. In fact that's an ENORMOUS relief.
Kindest regards,
Rosemary
:D
The pic I posted at reply #741 is from your report post here:
http://newlightondarkenergy.blogspot.com/2011/03/report.html
So yes, they are two different schematics. The report schematic shows the MOSFETS in true parallel, and the one just posted recently on your blog shows them not in true parallel. ;)
.99
Quote from: poynt99 on April 23, 2011, 08:28:41 PM
You trying to educate me about how SPICE can not simulate scalar or longitudinal waves when you can not even tell me what they are, I find quite comical, and frankly, it's pitiable.
kind of like you trying to educate us about 'lectricity' when you cannot even correctly describe the energy exchange mechanism of your hallowed "electron"??? ;)
Quote from: WilbyInebriated on April 23, 2011, 11:00:11 PM
kind of like you trying to educate us about 'lectricity' when you cannot even correctly describe the energy exchange mechanism of your hallowed "electron"??? ;)
Could you be more specific with a reference please?
Thanks,
.99
Quote from: poynt99 on April 23, 2011, 11:02:00 PM
Could you be more specific with a reference please?
Thanks,
.99
sure. you are razzing sprocket trying to get him to explain scalar/vector, and using that as a springboard to marginalize him (you think it's pitiable that he can't explain that to your satisfaction). and... likewise i think it's pitiable that your hallowed fundamentals on what you base your simulations, calculations, estimations, assumptions, conclusions, etc. ad infintum, ad nauseam cannot correctly describe the discrete energy exchange mechanism between one of your hallowed "electrons" and another. heck, forget correctly, you can't even describe it satisfactorily (read as 'without paradoxes'). ;)
Quote from: WilbyInebriated on April 23, 2011, 11:08:53 PM
sure. you are razzing sprocket trying to get him to explain scalar/vector, and using that as a springboard to marginalize him (you think it's pitiable that he can't explain that to your satisfaction). and... likewise i think it's pitiable that your hallowed fundamentals on what you base your simulations, calculations, estimations, assumptions, conclusions, etc. ad infintum, ad nauseam cannot correctly describe the discrete energy exchange mechanism between one of your hallowed "electrons" and another. heck, forget correctly, you can't even describe it satisfactorily (read as 'without paradoxes'). ;)
By "specifying a reference", I was referring to one that indicates
a case in point where
I was trying to do what you claim I was, that is; "describe the discrete energy exchange mechanism between one of your hallowed "electrons" and another". In short, please refresh my memory where I was attempting (and apparently failing) to do what you claim I was.
.99
Quote from: poynt99 on April 23, 2011, 11:17:53 PM
By "specifying a reference", I was referring to one that indicates a case in point where I was trying to do what you claim I was, that is; "describe the discrete energy exchange mechanism between one of your hallowed "electrons" and another". In short, please refresh my memory where I was attempting (and apparently failing) to do what you claim I was.
.99
actually i never claimed you were attempting (albeit you surely would fail) to describe such. i am saying that you cannot. yet, you (read as you and the rest of those who adhere to maxwell's equations) presume to educate the 'unwashed masses' as to just what 'lectricity' is and just how it works... yet, you cannot describe the mechanism of the simple phenomenon of just how one of your hallowed "electrons" transfers energy to another.
which reminds me, a question about spice... what equation does spice use to describe said mechanism? and if does not have such, then i think it's pretty clear that spice is not really 'modeling' reality. ;)
Quote from: WilbyInebriated on April 23, 2011, 11:26:39 PM
actually i never claimed you were attempting (albeit you surely would fail) to describe such. i am saying that you cannot. yet, you (read as you and the rest of those who adhere to maxwell's equations) presume to educate the 'unwashed masses' as to just what 'lectricity' is and just how it works... yet, you cannot describe the mechanism of the simple phenomenon of just how one of your hallowed "electrons" transfers energy to another.
which reminds me, a question about spice... what equation does spice use to describe said mechanism? and if does not have such, then i think it's pretty clear that spice is not really 'modeling' reality. ;)
Are you yourself tonight Wilby? Is this a test of some kind ???
You seem so sure of yourself that I would fail. That is not logical, and that is not like you to commit such a logical fallacy (or insert appropriate term here). You are presuming to know the outcome of something you can not possibly know for certain.
Why the confrontation?...and why about electron energy exchange? Where did that come from?
Give me an example of where I was trying to explain "lectricity" in terms of electrons to someone, and failing.
SPICE uses a combination of known physics and EM theory for resolving circuit node voltages and currents and component power dissipation. Just as engineers computed the necessary equations to solve complex designs before computers came along, SPICE does the same thing, but it excels at this, and produces better results. EM theory may not be complete, but it has allowed us to progress tremendously over the last 100 years. SPICE uses this same EM theory in it's algorithms, and in the right hands it can produce excellent results.
Ohm's law may have ultimately been derived from electron theory, but we rarely find it necessary to go down to the electron level when we are doing our every day electrical calculations.
So in summary, I do not see the issue you are try to present. Perhaps you could provide a direct example of where you feel current EM theory and/or a SPICE simulation has failed to produce accurate results when checked in reality.
.99
Since you asked,
Here is a pretty good document that goes into the physics of SPICE modeling semiconductors:
http://www.allenhollister.com/allen/files/physics.pdf
.99
Quote from: poynt99 on April 24, 2011, 12:07:59 AM
Are you yourself tonight Wilby? Is this a test of some kind ???
i am. perhaps it is.
Quote from: poynt99 on April 24, 2011, 12:07:59 AMYou seem so sure of yourself that I would fail. That is not logical, and that is not like you to commit such a logical fallacy (or insert appropriate term here). You are presuming to know the outcome of something you can not possibly know for certain.
i am sure you would fail. you know as well as i do (well i hope you do) that there is no such knowledge in the books nor does mankind possess instruments to prove anything of that kind. we can't even observe such phenomena with out altering its energy state. hell, mainstream science can't even decide what an electron is... it is still chasing after the wave-particle duality myth. ::) it is no more of a logical fallacy than your post to sprocket. ;) and speaking of logical fallacies, i noticed you are
not describing the mechanism of the simple phenomenon of just how one of your hallowed "electrons" transfers energy to another. ;)
Quote from: poynt99 on April 24, 2011, 12:07:59 AM
Why the confrontation?...and why about electron energy exchange? Where did that come from?
because i do unto others as they do unto others. because it's a glaring omission in em theory that goes right down to the fundamental level.
Quote from: poynt99 on April 24, 2011, 12:07:59 AM
Give me an example of where I was trying to explain "lectricity" in terms of electrons to someone, and failing.
i have already addressed this. i'm not quite sure why you are still obsessing over this. you, milehigh and the pickle do seem to be a bit obsessive though. ;) have a closer look my dear, and also try reading the post. ;) as i said previously, "actually i never claimed you were attempting (albeit you surely would fail) to describe such."
Quote from: poynt99 on April 24, 2011, 12:07:59 AM
SPICE uses a combination of known physics and EM theory for resolving circuit node voltages and currents and component power dissipation. Just as engineers computed the necessary equations to solve complex designs before computers came along, SPICE does the same thing, but it excels at this, and produces better results. EM theory may not be complete, but it has allowed us to progress tremendously over the last 100 years. SPICE uses this same EM theory in it's algorithms, and in the right hands it can produce excellent results.
em theory may not be complete??? ::) let us be honest here poynt, em theory
is not complete. furthermore, it contains paradoxes in relation to other mainstream science theories and is most likely flawed at a fundamental level. yes, it has allowed us to progress tremendously over the past hundred years but that doesn't resolve any of its related paradoxes.
Quote from: poynt99 on April 24, 2011, 12:07:59 AM
Ohm's law may have ultimately been derived from electron theory, but we rarely find it necessary to go down to the electron level when we are doing our every day electrical calculations.
i never suggested any such thing... ::)
Quote from: poynt99 on April 24, 2011, 12:07:59 AM
So in summary, I do not see the issue you are try to present. Perhaps you could provide a direct example of where you feel current EM theory and/or a SPICE simulation has failed to produce accurate results when checked in reality.
.99
obviously not. you still are stuck on the misinterpretation that i was suggesting that you were trying "describe the discrete energy exchange mechanism between one of your hallowed "electrons" and another". perhaps you could describe said mechanism instead of beating around the bush?
edit: my poynt ;) is, don't denigrate and marginalize people because they can't explain something to your satisfaction or i will take that stick from you and beat you with it. ;) i'd love to register at yOUR forum and do the same to milehigh and the pickle but it wouldn't be right to come into your house and kick your dogs. ;) thanks for the pdf link.
Quote from: poynt99 on April 23, 2011, 06:09:51 PM
Quote from: nul-points
[LOL @ the Pontiff
i shall continue to post whatever i believe to be most apposite at the time]
...and so shall I.
I know you're a big fan and can't help yourself, but kindly refrain from the lame 'poynt' references. I certainly have not ever made them myself using your moniker (up until your lesson that is).
Quote from: nul-points
[i'm not drawing any conclusions as to whether Rosemary's current experiment is valid or invalid until i see relevant data from her (or her team)]
You will be waiting a very long time then my friend.
Quote from: nul-points
[members of OU.com will gauge you by your treatment of her - and beating on Rosemary with a big stick is unlikely to convince her to comply with your demands]
Perhaps. The only thing that IS important however, is that one be truthful, forthcoming, and willing to learn and accept when they've made an error. IMO, we've not seen much of that from Rose.
If I'm wrong in any of my assertions, or my analysis, please clearly point it out. There is much emotional flak being thrown at it all, but no one can seem to muster any kind of technical argument one way or the other. Why don't you start nul?
I'm interested in the truth. Why aren't you?
.99
lighten up honeychile, you'll give yourself a coronary!
if i notice something which i believe to be wrong and which hasn't already been corrected, and i think that i can contribute something helpful, then i'll often try and point it out
a scan of my posts throughout this thread will show that i've usually made suggestions of a practical nature - some supportive and some counter to the suggestions being posted
so this makes me a "big fan" who "can't help [my]self"? what impeccable logic
you'll notice that i haven't taken issue with you on any of your past statements of technical fact in this thread - so it's pretty safe to assume that i don't disagree with those facts (as distinct from your own opinions, to which you're entitled, as much as anybody else is to theirs)
this doesn't make me any more or less of a fan of you
so - what i directed at you related to your
treatment of Rosemary, not to your analyses:
Quote from: nul-points
members of OU.com will gauge you by your treatment of her - and beating on Rosemary with a big stick is unlikely to convince her to comply with your demands
you may try and imply that i'm not interested in "the truth" or that i need to "start" "to muster [some] kind of technical argument" - i'm happy to let the good members of this forum be the judge of my motives, interests and any technical contribution
The great measurement conundrum :-[
How about the simpler tools ? You know ... KISS.
A high quality "centred zero" variable range analogue ammeter, placed directly on either positive or negative terminal, in series with the circuit in question, will give a more reliable and accurate reading of real time current amplitude and direction.
Same can be said of voltage readings. Analogue doesn't mean antiquated.
I have played with circuits using digital scopes, dmms, etc, and have found them to be mostly un-useful with respect to DC pulsing circuits.
Especially DMMs, which often show large voltage increases (at the battery), many volts above the starting voltage, while a particular circuit is running, yet the analogue meter will show just a small voltage decline during the same period.
When the circuit is turned off, the DMM voltage will show a quick drop to below the starting voltage, while the analogue meter will show a small increase to the same voltage as the DMM. (still below starting voltage).
One particular simple circuit that I played with recently, was the "thomas oscillator" which had been contributed to one of the Doc Stiffler threads. It sent my DMM's wild, with battery readings doubling when the circuit was on.
My old "annies" didn't miss a beat though - they showed the more "simple" (but more accurate) reality with their simple design.
In that instance, the large gains and drops in voltage readings on the DMM were the result of RF produced from the circuit. RF is something that analogue meters absorb readily, without major interference to their performance.
Anyhow, that's just my 2 cents worth.. regarding measurement problems ...kneedeep
Old fart going now... LOL
Cheers
Thanks hoptoad, that is good advice. ;)
I'm not sure about the availability of analog center-zero meters, but certainly the standard ones are. The old Simpson 260 series are a good choice.
The only potential issue with the analog meters is their relatively-low input impedance, but there are applications (such as battery voltage and current measurement) where they do well nonetheless.
.99
EDIT: Corrected impedance of the analog meter...should be low vs. high.
Is there no one that has any constructive comments about the simulation results I posted yesterday?
Has anyone noticed the negative shunt current? Is that not of any interest being that it is in line with measurements taken on the actual apparatus?
.99
A comparison of Vbat and Vshunt; The apparatus vs. PSpice:
The MEAN of the shunt voltage of the apparatus is -32.5mV as shown, and in the sim it was -35mV as shown in the previously posted Q1_scope03.png.
.99
Discussions on these simulations of yours Poynty - are fraught. I simply never know what you're referring to and I would be so glad to move on. Nonetheless. I seems that I must forever waste time and work through the painful requirements to alert our members to the full extent of your misdirections.
This refers.
« Reply #783 on: April 23, 2011, 08:10:36 PM »
There is absolutely NOTHING wrong with your deductions but everything wrong with the method of your deductions and THAT because you KEEP WANTING TO AVERAGE. Then. As if that error in itself if not enough - you also then charge around the place demanding that we either get rid of inductance or factor it in.
I'm not going to redo the math. I would LOVE to know if your simulator can do the required. But whether it can or NOT the fact is that with a given resistance and a given inductance - then at certain applied frequencies it can then change the impedance which then materially changes that resistance. So. If your simulator is able to factor that value in - I'd be very interested in your instantaneous wattage analysis. And - I think as it applies to that overly simplified sum you presented being 71V * 0.035V * 4 is quite simply NOT representative of the wattage delivered or dissipated. Yet you then follow it up with those cryptic comments '-9.94W appears to be going back to the battery!!!!!!!!' Well. NO. Not actually. Not even close.
Regards,
Rosemary
THEN.
As if that insult to our intelligence isn't enough you carry on with this farce. Your post « Reply #784 on: April 23, 2011, 08:35:03 PM » refers.
Here you AVERAGE the battery voltage on the next simulation at -48 Volts or thereby. WHAT are you talking about Poynty? HOW DO YOUR SIMULATIONS SHOW THE BATTERY VOLTAGE AT ANY NEGATIVE NUMBER AT ALL? We have never seen this. We have seen the battery voltage flirt with zero. In fact, on certain settings I've seen instantaneous battery voltage exceed zero. And there are some settings where I've even seen it dip into full on negative territory. But I have NEVER, NEVER, NEVER seen the AVERAGE battery voltage result in any negative voltage AT ALL. EVER. How can it? Do we really seem that STUPID that we can read this and simply 'move on' to the next point - so to speak? Just swallow this nonsense and pretend that we didn't notice? Therefore, when you present us with that absurd value of -192 Watts it becomes more than a little insulting to our collective intelligence. Either that - or you have NO CLUE what you're doing.
Regards
Rosemary
In the hope to avoid any confusion, I'd like to re-emphasize how the power traces were obtained in scope shot Q1_scope05.png previously posted and reproduced here.
When taking a power measurement with an oscilloscope and two probes, we use one probe for voltage across the device of interest, and one probe for current through the device of interest. The latter measurement is obtained (with the Ainslie apparatus) by using a current sense resistor (CSR) placed in series somewhere with the battery, and the resulting current is obtained by using the following equation for Ibattery:
Ibattery = Vcsr/Rcsr
In the case of both probes, these are instantaneous measurements.
In the scope, a MATH function is used to multiply these two values together, i.e. Vbat(t) * ibat(t), in order to obtain the instantaneous power p(t) in that device. Then in order to determine the average (REAL) power, we use a measurement function in the scope to perform an averaging of that p(t) trace, and the scope displays the MEAN numerical value it computes on that trace. Many of you know this already, and this is simply review.
In PSpice v10.5, there is a wattage probe that can be placed onto any device. After doing so, the scope shows the p(t) of that device. As discussed, this is the instantaneous power in that device, and is the instantaneous voltage across it times the instantaneous current through it. The wattage (W) probe in PSpice does this multiplication and displays the results automatically.
After the p(t) trace is on the scope screen, we can perform the same averaging function we do with the scope in order to obtain the average (REAL) power in that device. In PSPice this function is called "AVG", and you will often see this included in the trace statement at the bottom of my scope shots, esp. when power is being examined. In PSpice, rather than displaying the average of p(t) numerically as on the scope, it shows you the running average of the p(t) trace, and you can see and measure with a cursor what the final value is that it converges on. This is how I determine the numerical values I place on the scope shots and write in the posts. See the scope shot below.
.99
Then. It never seems to stop. Your post
« Reply #785 on: April 23, 2011, 09:51:48 PM » refers. Here we're treated to a post that is an absolute parade of nonsensical measement - either resulting from your own stupidity or your assumption that our own is that abyssimal that we'll not see the absurdity in your math.
Quote from: poynt99 on April 23, 2011, 03:51:48 PM
Now let's look at the average power in the critical devices. The "W" probe in PSPice allows for a direct probing of instantaneous power in any given device. By applying the "AVG" function to these traces, we obtain a trace which converges on the real power dissipated in that device.
Not a clue what you mean here. What is the "W" probe? And what exactly does your 'AVG' FUNCTION DO? Does it average the voltage over a pure oscillation? Because if it simply averages the value of that oscillation and presents it as a 'ripple' then it is ERRONEOUS. And what then makes this 'CONVERGE ON THE REAL POWER DISSIPATED?' - the more so as it no longer is representative of anything at all. vi dt has become vi. Absolutely NOT applicable to any power measurements that are more complex than a direct current. What you're trying to do Poynty Point - is average that trace. And we all know why. You can INDEED average a DIRECT CURRENT. AND at sleight of hand that's exactly what you've done. You've TURNED IT INTO A DIRECT CURRENT through the simple expediency of first finding an average. VOILA! The rabbit out the hat trick. Total misdirection. AND YOU GET AWAY WITH IT. How come? How come this disgusting piece of analysis is allowed to present itself as scientific? And where is everyone's howl of protest? By rights you should be laughed out of court. And what do you think our academics think of your work here? If they read this - then they will also KNOW that either this forum contributors are utterly unschooled in science - or they're utterly committed to misdirection.
Regards
Rosemary
Then as for the balance of that nonsense.
Quote from: poynt99 on April 23, 2011, 03:51:48 PMMeasured is the REAL power in the following:
NO. It is either averaged or it is real time. You're confusing your terms.
Then
Quote from: poynt99 on April 23, 2011, 03:51:48 PM1) Q2-Q5 combined: ~14.6W
2) Q1: ~0.41W :o
3) Battery: ~-33.3W*
4) Load Resistor: ~16.86W
No supporting evidence for any of these sums. Have no idea if they're averaged - real time - or what. But the batttery voltage for starters is nonsense.
then
Quote from: poynt99 on April 23, 2011, 03:51:48 PM* Normal battery power is measured as a "negative" because this represents power being supplied to a circuit, i.e. a loss of energy.
Really badly defined terms. A loss of energy to what? To the battery? I would have thought NOT.
Then
Quote from: poynt99 on April 23, 2011, 03:51:48 PMIf we look at the power balance, we have:
33.3W = 14.6W + 0.41W + 16.86W
33.3W = 31.87W
The remaining ~1.43W can be accounted for by the power dissipated in the 2 Ohm Gate resistor, and the 0.25 Ohm CSR. Oddly, the function generator contributes about 3W to the circuit, and this is precisely the amount lost in the 2 Ohm battery lead resistor. These losses are not shown in the graphs.
Can't follow this because I'm not telepathic. You need to explain what you're getting to and, more to the point - a some reasonable account of how you marshalled these facts to get to that conclusion. To me they're entirely unrelated pieces of evidence and for all I know you sucked these numbers out of your thumb.
Quote from: poynt99 on April 23, 2011, 03:51:48 PMIt becomes quite apparent in the simulations, that if the gate impedance is too high the continuous oscillations stop. I am convinced that the FG somehow provides for a low AC impedance path through it's output terminal, and this is why the circuit still oscillates. This would also explain why the FG does not heat up even though it has a 50 Ohm resistor in series.
If this is what you think - then I wonder if it's because this is the best EXCUSE you can come up with. I would far preferto see something based on an analysis that is a little more substantial than any you've presented here.
Regards
Rosemary
Which makes the conclusion to your post - as absurd as everything preceding it.
Quote from: poynt99 on April 23, 2011, 03:51:48 PMI hope that with the above details and analysis, the "problems" in all this mess are now starting to become apparent.
This MESS is ONLY appropriate to the MESS in these posts.
Quote from: poynt99 on April 23, 2011, 03:51:48 PMSurely it is obvious that Q1 is providing almost no power to the load resistor.
WHAT? WHERE DOES THAT COME FROM? You show Q1 measuring milliwatts? WHAT ARE YOU TALKING ABOUT?
THEN.
Quote from: poynt99 on April 23, 2011, 03:51:48 PMOne might also observe that the power measured using the CSR and Vbat voltage points is largely reactive, and not indicating anything close to the truth in terms of what the battery is supplying or receiving.
Since WHEN has power been 'reactive'. Pure waffle Poynty Point. And nothing WHATSOEVER to do with power analysis. And very much less to do with the facts or even the truth. Just a selective bit of misdirection offered with the pretense that you know whereof you speak - and, in fact, just a laughable insult to us all.
Guys - please note. There is absolutely NO WAY that one can do any power analysis on any circuit that has a waveform that is more complex than a direct current. Certainly it cannot be applied to the waveforms we're generating here. I do hope you realise this. And in as much as no-one has challenged all this nonsense I'm concerned that perhaps the most of you do not know this. If you doubt it - then look it up. And yes - If one were to average these voltages then it may - under SOME settings - result in the kind of results that Poynty is pointing to. But it would ALWAYS BE WRONG - EVEN IF IT RESULTED IN AN APPARENT GAIN TO THE SYSTEM. There is only ONE correct methodology applied to power analysis on a switching circuit. And that is ASBOLUTELY NOT IN AVERAGING ANYTHING AT ALL.
Kind regards,
Rosemary
I split these posts into a series of posts because it was just WAY TOO LONG.
Regards again
R
Rose,
It appears that you are having some trouble understanding the data I am presenting with these simulations.
If you would care to specify some particulars, I would be glad to go over them with you and explain them to the best of my ability.
.99
Quote from: Rosemary Ainslie on April 24, 2011, 01:33:36 PM
Guys - please note. There is absolutely NO WAY that one can do any power analysis on any circuit that has a waveform that is more complex than a direct current. Certainly it cannot be applied to the waveforms we're generating here. I do hope you realise this.
:o ???
.99
Quote from: poynt99 on April 24, 2011, 01:19:03 PM
In the hope to avoid any confusion, I'd like to re-emphasize how the power traces were obtained in scope shot Q1_scope05.png previously posted and reproduced here.
When taking a power measurement with an oscilloscope and two probes, we use one probe for voltage across the device of interest, and one probe for current through the device of interest. The latter measurement is obtained (with the Ainslie apparatus) by using a current sense resistor (CSR) placed in series somewhere with the battery, and the resulting current is obtained by using the following equation for Ibattery:
Ibattery = Vcsr/Rcsr
In the case of both probes, these are instantaneous measurements.
In the scope, a MATH function is used to multiply these two values together, i.e. Vbat(t) * ibat(t), in order to obtain the instantaneous power p(t) in that device. Then in order to determine the average (REAL) power, we use a measurement function in the scope to perform an averaging of that p(t) trace, and the scope displays the MEAN numerical value it computes on that trace. Many of you know this already, and this is simply review.
Still wrong Poynty Point. You need to compute those instantaneous wattage values and then average those values over time. NOTHING ELSE. You absolutely CANNOT take a mean numerical value of voltage and mean numerical value of amperage and give us that product as being representative of the power from or to that battery. Your Spice sim would need to do multiple sampling analysis of multiple points in each waveform. Self-evidently it cannot - as it represents the voltage sample range as a mean average 'ripple'. If it was doing what it was meant to do the resultant waveform resulting from that power analysis would 'FOLLOW THE SHAPE' of the voltages across the shunt and the battery. That is why the LeCroy and the Tektronix are so excellent. It holds up to 500 000 points sampled on any one screen shot. Your simulator can NEVER get even close if it can do it at all. When you can show a TRACE on that PSpice simulation of yours that actually does this - then ONLY will I be convinced. The wattage values resulting from those products NEVER defaults to anything that looks like a steady line ANYWHERE AT ALL. YOUR ANALYSIS IS FLAWED POYNT. GROSSLY.
Quote from: poynt99 on April 24, 2011, 01:19:03 PMIn PSpice v10.5, there is a wattage probe that can be placed onto any device. After doing so, the scope shows the p(t) of that device. As discussed, this is the instantaneous power in that device, and is the instantaneous voltage across it times the instantaneous current through it. The wattage (W) probe in PSpice does this multiplication and displays the results automatically.
Then the trace resulting from that product would look VERY DIFFERENT. I can pull up the waveform from the wattage over any part of our own data dumps and it never, never, never defaults into a straight line with a small ripple. Therefore whatever you CLAIM PSpice is doing has no bearing on what it is actually doing.
Quote from: poynt99 on April 24, 2011, 01:19:03 PMAfter the p(t) trace is on the scope screen, we can perform the same averaging function we do with the scope in order to obtain the average (REAL) power in that device. In PSPice this function is called "AVG", and you will often see this included in the trace statement at the bottom of my scope shots, esp. when power is being examined. In PSpice, rather than displaying the average of p(t) numerically as on the scope, it shows you the running average of the p(t) trace, and you can see and measure with a cursor what the final value is that it converges on. This is how I determine the numerical values I place on the scope shots and write in the posts. See the scope shot below.
If you can see the wattage with a cursor - AS YOU CLAIM - then show us that wattage shape - drawn as it is - in real time - from the traces of the current and the voltages. What you are SHOWING US is something that is averaged. And with respect, I think this is because PSpice CAN'T do that instantaneous wattage. And IF IT CAN - then, I say it again. SHOW US THAT PRODUCT.
Look again at the PSpice traces that you've shown us. It has flatlined the oscillation. A product of the amperage and voltage WOULD NEVER FLATLINE. Why don't you realise this? It has INDEED averaged everything.
Rosemary
Look at the shape of the math trace here Poynty. That's what I expect from PSpice. Anything less and we are not looking at anything relevant.
I'll see if I can find a sample.
And Poynty. That highlighted bit of nonsense in your download of the battery voltage. WHAT A JOKE. You write this.
negative power of the battery = -33.3 watts. Then you add (a negative battery power is normal and indicates a net loss of energy over time) - in paranthesis.
WHAT A LOAD OF COBBLERS. IF ANYONE EVER - ANYWHERE IN THE WHOLE WORLD - EVER FOUND A NEGATIVE POWER VALUE - THEN THERE WOULD BE NOTHING BUT AMAZEMENT. There is absolutely NOTHING normal in a negative wattage value. In fact - so EXTRAORDINARY is this that it would be an entirely meaningless term. Wattage is NEVER NEGATIVE. Nor is it EVER EXPECTED TO COMPUTE TO A NEGATIVE VALUE. IF AND WHEN IT DOES THEN IT IS EXTRAORDINARY. This truth is so enshrined that I was ASSURED - by every expert that I have ever spoken to - that it is ENTIRELY IMPOSSIBLE TO GET A NEGATIVE WATTAGE VALUE because it is ENTIRELY IMPOSSIBLE TO RETURN MORE ENERGY THAN DELIVERED. And a NEGATIVE WATTAGE ABSOLUTELY HAS NOTHING TO DO WITH THE ENERGY LOST OVER TIME.
You really do take us all for fools. God help us if the nonsense that you expound is believed by anyone ever. It is a travesty of science.
Rosemary
Quote
Guys - please note. There is absolutely NO WAY that one can do any power analysis on any circuit that has a waveform that is more complex than a direct current. Certainly it cannot be applied to the waveforms we're generating here. I do hope you realise this. And in as much as no-one has challenged all this nonsense I'm concerned that perhaps the most of you do not know this. If you doubt it - then look it up.
Where do we "look it up"?
WTF? Poynt is doing the exact same set of measurements at the exact same points in the exact same circuit you have been doing ever since day 1. And showing the exact same results. His use of averaging (being done AFTER the real-time point by point multiplying) is exactly the same as your own use of averaging: MEAN AFTER MULTIPLY.
That full set of measurement done the same exact way you have always done it serves only to show that the sim agrees rather precisely with your bench testing when done in exactly the same way.
Then, after doing the work to replicate your circuit, your tests and your results almost to the millivolt, showing the validity of the simulation rather convincingly, Poynt goes on to move the scope probes and the shunt to the proper locations to allow for a true direct unpolluted measure of the battery voltage and the battery current.
He continues to use the same real-time point-by-point sample multiplying technique just as you always have done and then takes the mean of the resulting power trace, just as you have always done. The results clearly show a large net drain from the battery and a very low efficiency of power delivery to the heating element through the circuitry.
HE CAREFULLY POINTS OUT AND AS TESLASET HAS CLEARLY VERIFIED (AND I VERIFY AS WELL) THAT THE PSPICE W PROBE USES THE CONVENTION OF STATING A DRAIN FROM THE BATTERY AS A NEGATIVE POWER.
Why don't you just quickly put your shunt right at the battery negative terminal itself and take a good look? It's not hard to do. It will show you immediately that the net current is draining the battery and not charging it. No need for lengthy battery runs at all. No need for further confusion.
Rosemary, your arguments are so thoroughly "straw-man" based and so poorly stated at that, that you really should take a break from your incoherent ranting and just try to absorb what has been clearly shown:
The simulation behaves exactly like your circuit. When measured wrongly, exactly as you measure, the results agree with your results. When measured properly, the very low COP and gross inefficiency of powering a heating element using MOSFET parasitic oscillations is revealed clearly. End of story.
No amount of rude insults, calling people dogs and vermin and stupid, will change these well-demonstrated facts..
Humbugger
Quote from: Rosemary Ainslie on April 24, 2011, 02:18:35 PM
Look at the shape of the math trace here Poynty. That's what I expect from PSpice. Anything less and we are not looking at anything relevant.
I'll see if I can find a sample.
I see now one thing that is tripping you up; it's the
p(t) trace. I usually fore go displaying that, and I go directly to the application of the AVG function on that trace.
When you see the trace statement as" "
W(R1)" for example, that means the trace is of
p(t) for R1.
When you see the traces statement as: "
AVG(W(R1))" using the same example, that indicates
MEAN[p(t)].
This latter trace statement is what is required to obtain a numerical value of the average/real power in the device of interest.Here is what p(t) looks like before applying the AVG function.
.99
@Rosemary,
Sorry, but I have to support Poynt here.
Seems you have not used Pspice ever, otherwise you would understand the negative power values of the battery.
Rose, is your setup still working?
Why not (as suggested earlier in the this thread) keep it running for a week and see how the batteries are doing after a week?
Deleted, double post. Srry.
Guys - I was rather angry when I wrote those posts. With good reason. But it may be that I need to explain this carefully.
The reason I am that anxious to get these measurements evaluated by those EXPERTS is precisely beause the minute one gets to a sum that shows a negative cycle mean voltage on a waveform - then one has definitive proof of COP infinity.
We get this using 1 MOSFET applied in the typical way - or these stack of MOSFETS applied atypically. Because the minute you take the product of the a negative and a positive then it results in a negative. And if you have a negative product then you are showing more energy being returned than was initially supplied. Then we can get this same negative value over the cycle mean even when we dissipate really hefty wattage values over the resistor element. That's the first point.
But what we wanted to highlight at that demonstration - is that we ALSO get a negative mean wattage without the sum of the voltage across the shunt being negative. In other words it's the phase angle between the voltages that ALSO has a hidden benefit. This is because when the battery voltage is climbing from a 'recharge' then too the shunt voltage is falling. And vice versa. In other words - just about any way we cut it we're into INFINITE COP territory.
Now. There is a question of measurement error. For instance, it was Poynty et al who insisted that I put the probes directly across the battery. I did this. But what they expected to find was that the battery voltage would flatline - with a small ripple. Poynty was ON RECORD with this prediction. We did the test. He was WRONG. But what it did do was give us a reduced voltage value across the battery. And this, frankly was a relief to find. Because we had persistently recorded a wattage that I simply COULD NOT RECONCILE with the wattages that we found on the circuit.
In the same way - there may yet be some proof that this energy is erroneous. But it is absolutely NOT in the absurdities in Poynty's exercises. Those analyses are not even scientific. They are utterly misleading - and as ever - it requires a 'fudging' of the values to get there. There is something happening on this circuit that points to an anomaly. This because it is absolutely NOT POSSIBLE in terms of classical paradigms - to find more energy returned than delivered. And that returned energy would show itself as a NEGATIVE VALUE in power analysis. Otherwise one would absolutely NEVER find a negative mean average or a negative power value on any circuit EVER. And it is at precisely this point that we have PROOF of an anomaly.
Kindest regards,
Rosemary
Quote from: poynt99 on April 24, 2011, 03:02:04 PM
I see now one thing that is tripping you up; it's the p(t) trace. I usually fore go displaying that, and I go directly to the application of the AVG function on that trace.
When you see the trace statement as" "W(R1)" for example, that means the trace is of p(t) for R1.
When you see the traces statement as: "AVG(W(R1))" using the same example, that indicates MEAN[p(t)]. This latter trace statement is what is required to obtain a numerical value of the average/real power in the device of interest.
Here is what p(t) looks like before applying the AVG function.
.99
THANK YOU FOR THAT DOWNLOAD. NOW POYNTY POINT. IF YOUR SIMULATION ANALYSIS IS SHOWING A NEGATIVE WATTAGE WHICH IS A CORRECT REFLECTION OF THE FACT - THEN EXPLAIN IT. Because there is no way under the sun that this is possible according to the HOST OF EXPERTS that I have spoken to.
At this point you should think this through and come back with an explanation that is not based on the absurdities of saying that this 'represents the net LOSS of the energy from the battery'. There are enough of us readers here to KNOW that you are NOW TALKING NONSENSE.
AND THEN FOR THE FIRST TIME YOUR POSTS WILL BE ON TOPIC.
Regards,
Rosemary
Quote from: Rosemary Ainslie on April 24, 2011, 02:27:02 PM
And Poynty. That highlighted bit of nonsense in your download of the battery voltage. WHAT A JOKE. You write this.
negative power of the battery = -33.3 watts. Then you add (a negative battery power is normal and indicates a net loss of energy over time) - in paranthesis.
WHAT A LOAD OF COBBLERS. IF ANYONE EVER - ANYWHERE IN THE WHOLE WORLD - EVER FOUND A NEGATIVE POWER VALUE - THEN THERE WOULD BE NOTHING BUT AMAZEMENT. There is absolutely NOTHING normal in a negative wattage value. In fact - so EXTRAORDINARY is this that it would be an entirely meaningless term. Wattage is NEVER NEGATIVE. Nor is it EVER EXPECTED TO COMPUTE TO A NEGATIVE VALUE. IF AND WHEN IT DOES THEN IT IS EXTRAORDINARY. This truth is so enshrined that I was ASSURED - by every expert that I have ever spoken to - that it is ENTIRELY IMPOSSIBLE TO GET A NEGATIVE WATTAGE VALUE because it is ENTIRELY IMPOSSIBLE TO RETURN MORE ENERGY THAN DELIVERED. And a NEGATIVE WATTAGE ABSOLUTELY HAS NOTHING TO DO WITH THE ENERGY LOST OVER TIME.
You really do take us all for fools. God help us if the nonsense that you expound is believed by anyone ever. It is a travesty of science.
Rosemary
Good posts Rosemary!
Unfortunately simulations are only as good as their programing... which follows the dictum, Garbage in equals Garbage Out
Ron
Quote from: Rosemary Ainslie on April 24, 2011, 03:11:33 PM
There is something happening on this circuit that points to an anomaly. This because it is absolutely NOT POSSIBLE in terms of classical paradigms - to find more energy returned than delivered. And that returned energy would show itself as a NEGATIVE VALUE in power analysis. Otherwise one would absolutely NEVER find a negative mean average or a negative power value on any circuit EVER. And it is at precisely this point that we have PROOF of an anomaly.
Kindest regards,
Rosemary
With the simulations, I showed a negative CSR voltage and negative power returned to the battery as a result. I thought that was one of your goals, and that it would be of interest to you.
.99
Quote from: i_ron on April 24, 2011, 03:15:25 PM
Good posts Rosemary!
Unfortunately simulations are only as good as their programing... which follows the dictum, Garbage in equals Garbage Out
Ron
LOL. Hi Ron. Indeed. But I think that if our simulators can show this negative value - then that's pretty cool. It means that we may not have strayed too far from our inductive laws in the first instance. And that's really the nub of our argument. Faraday's IN - Kirchhoff's OUT. Not a bad conclusion when you think how all that emphasis on stored energy ended us in this energy crisis.
Take care
Kindest regards,
Rosie
Quote from: poynt99 on April 24, 2011, 03:17:48 PM
With the simulations, I showed a negative CSR voltage and negative power returned to the battery as a result. I thought that was one of your goals, and that it would be of interest to you.
.99
OK Poynty Point. I'll pretend to forget that comment that you pencilled in which stated 'a negative battery power is normal and indicates a net loss of energy over time'. I'll also pretend that I never read your forum posts which are sorely in need of moderation. And while I'm at it - I'll also just pretend that I think you're trying to advance some knowledge here. How's that?
Rosie-posie
;D
As I said Rose, I thought that an indication of current flow back to the battery in a simulation would be of interested to you. This IS what I have shown. Are you interested?
If so, where do we go from here?
.99
Quote from: Rosemary Ainslie on April 24, 2011, 03:15:16 PM
THANK YOU FOR THAT DOWNLOAD. NOW POYNTY POINT. IF YOUR SIMULATION ANALYSIS IS SHOWING A NEGATIVE WATTAGE WHICH IS A CORRECT REFLECTION OF THE FACT - THEN EXPLAIN IT. Because there is no way under the sun that this is possible according to the HOST OF EXPERTS that I have spoken to.
We can certainly explore this if you are willing.
Quote
At this point you should think this through and come back with an explanation that is not based on the absurdities of saying that this 'represents the net LOSS of the energy from the battery'. There are enough of us readers here to KNOW that you are NOW TALKING NONSENSE.
Power
coming from (as opposed to
going to) a source such as a battery,
will always compute to a negative number.
In the attached diagram, there is a simple example with one source (Vbat) and some resistive loads, R1, R2, and CSR1.
The electric field across any source is always in opposition to the direction of current through that source.
I have marked the direction of current in RED and the polarity of the potential difference across each component in BLUE. Note that the battery Vbat has a potential difference
opposite to that of all three loads? Since power in a component is the voltage across it times the current through it, it's now obvious why a
source will have a
negative sign associated with its power. At the loads, the potential difference across them and the current through them are in the same direction, and hence the power associated with
any load is
positive.
Under normal circumstances, any power source loses or gives up energy, and any load gains or receives energy, so this is an easy way to remember what polarity the power should be in each.
SPICE does not do anything unusual by applying a negative polarity to any source power that it plots on its scope, because you can see that this is precisely how the math works out.
.99
btw Rose,
Part two of my post above is not the explanation of the negative power you referred to in part one. Part two was simply an explanation as to why a source's power normally has a negative sign associated with it.
All loads however, including CSR resistors, would normally have a positive power associated with them, and the fact that the CSR resistor in your measurements AND in my simulation are showing a MEAN NEGATIVE voltage, would seem to indicate that a net current is flowing into the battery, or in other words it seems to be either supplying no net energy at all, or it is getting charged, depending whether the MEAN CSR voltage is 0V or negative, respectively.
If in fact there is current going back into the battery, and it is in the same direction as the battery's electric field (contrary to the norm), then indeed the sign associated with the measured battery power would be positive.
.99
Edit: sp cor.
Guys, I'm actually going to address this post to the general members here at OU.com. I've referred to this OFTEN but I really need everyone here to be fully cogniscant of the facts. From the get go this technology of ours has been attacked. With scorn and ridicule and absolute rejection. And it was not enough to just reject the technology. What was also needed in this sacrificial celebration was my good name along with it. That's immaterial - because I really DO NOT HAVE ANY SCIENTIFIC REPUTATION to protect. But you see for yourself that the maligning the one without the other would possibly lose all that compounded force. It is no accident that the talents of Pickle and TK and MileHigh and Poynty and others et al - et al - an on and on - were enlisted for this purpose. Just remember how consistently I was getting booted off one forum after the other. THAT was the object. They did whatever was needed to get me away from here.
Now. Here's the thing. Never in history has there been a new idea brought to the table - that it was NOT FIRST SCOFFED and the bringer - so to speak - maligned along with that idea. I'm in really good company. But the joke is that I'm BRINGING NOTHING. All we've done is uncovered a property in electric energy that has been entirely OVERLOOKED. HOWEVER - to get to that property - to the actual magic of the electromagnetic interaction - also needed an analysis of the actual properties of the electric condition and the magnetic condition. That - of necessity - required a field analysis - and FIELD PHYSICS is a grossly under-evaluated branch of science. In fact the ONLY people who have a handle on this is our string theorists. And they're thinking is so COMPLEX - their math that obscure - that not even their expert colleagues can understand them.
That's where I committed the heresy. I made it simple. Or I thought I did. Apparently there are still those who have difficulties here and I intend changing that to make it ever simpler. But I should not have been able to comment at all. It simply doesn't fit with the profile of all that required high IQ and general brilliance - coupled with a first class training. I'm the first to acknowledge this. But but the same token I'm delighted to acknowledge it. Here's why. If I - who am representative of all that is average - can get MY head around it - then ANYONE CAN. And that's my comfort. Because the truth is this. We have allowed our EXPERTS full license to comment on physics and - by default - on ENERGY which is the holy grail of physics.
And they, in turn, have been reluctant to ask questions - but rather to ONLY provide ANSWERS. And even here - I suspect it's because we, the public imposed that condition on them. It was 'the deal' in that relationship. That way we also relinquished our own responsibility to get familiar with all the conceptual reasoning behind physics. We 'left it' to them. And in doing so we also relinquished our responsibility to ENGAGE in what was and is evidently a mushrooming energy crisis. We are polluting our Mother Earth and giving it toxic scabs and poisoned lungs - and acres upon acres of poles of wires to scar it's beauty. We're INTRUDING on a natural condition to impose our own greedy desire for energy and more and more and ever more of it. Nothing wrong with that need. Everything wrong in the manner in which we're trying to do this. And while all this abuse suits the pockets of those who actually get enriched by all this, if we do NOT stem the tide of all this pollution - then I absolutely agree that Nature both can and will get rid of us. This world is way too perfect for her to allow a lasting damage. And she can, most certainly, recover what she wants and reject what she doesn't.
Which all is a circuitous way of pointing out that we really need to explore this energy. The good news is this. Possibly for the first time ever we're in the happy position of proving a claim with MEASUREMENT. That's a first. Up until now, we've been told that the measurements don't support it. But NOW THEY DO. So. Let's concentrate on all that measurement. Because this goes to the HEART of their denials and to the quintessential essense of all that required PROOF.
Kindest regards,
Rosemary
Quote from: poynt99 on April 24, 2011, 06:05:51 PM
As I said Rose, I thought that an indication of current flow back to the battery in a simulation would be of interested to you. This IS what I have shown. Are you interested?
If so, where do we go from here?
.99
i have an idea. probably not the most popular idea ever but...
you could get some fpga's, take the software instruction that tells this programmable hardware (fpga's) how to wire itself up as and look on that software instruction as a genetic algorithm chromosome. mutate it randomly and evolve the hardware... this has been done for over a decade and you (poynt) appear to have the skills to get the hardware part of it done. and there appears to be plenty of people on your forum (and this one) who could probably help out with the coding. hell, i might even help you out with the coding. you can even do 'extrinsic evolution' on a computer (i know you love your sims... ;) ) instead of intrinsic evolution on an actual hardware fpga. you could do this for ainslie device, the tpu, or anything you can imagine.
are you interested in such a route or would you prefer continue to defend your hallowed and incomplete classical electrodynamics and pretend that you doing such is a benefit to us all?
Quote from: WilbyInebriated on April 25, 2011, 12:14:24 AM
i have an idea. probably not the most popular idea ever but...
you could get some fpga's, take the software instruction that tells this programmable hardware (fpga's) how to wire itself up as and look on that software instruction as a genetic algorithm chromosome. mutate it randomly and evolve the hardware... this has been done for over a decade and you (poynt) appear to have the skills to get the hardware part of it done. and there appears to be plenty of people on your forum (and this one) who could probably help out with the coding. hell, i might even help you out with the coding. you can even do 'extrinsic evolution' on a computer (i know you love your sims... ;) ) instead of intrinsic evolution on an actual hardware fpga. you could do this for ainslie device, the tpu, or anything you can imagine.
are you interested in such a route or would you prefer continue to defend your hallowed and incomplete classical electrodynamics and pretend that you doing such is a benefit to us all?
Hi Wilby. What is an fpga?
Quote from: Rosemary Ainslie on April 25, 2011, 12:26:06 AM
Hi Wilby. What is an fpga?
a field programmable gate array. the logic elements that constitute its most elementary workings can be changed at will by reprogramming the bits in the chip’s memory, known as configuration bits. gates, for example, can be changed to and gates or not gates, input wires can be reprogrammed to be output wires, and so on.
edit: look at the config bits as genetic algorithm chromosomes and we can 'evolve' circuits. circuits that do some amazing things.
Quote from: WilbyInebriated on April 25, 2011, 12:29:44 AM
a field programmable gate array. the logic elements that constitute its most elementary workings can be changed at will by reprogramming the bits in the chip’s memory, known as configuration bits. gates, for example, can be changed to and gates or not gates, input wires can be reprogrammed to be output wires, and so on.
edit: look at the config bits as a genetic algorithm chromosome and we can 'evolve' circuits. circuits that do some amazing things.
Ok. So is the idea here to apply a variety of settings at the gate? Is that it? Please Wilby. There are those of us who read here who are mere mortals. Please explain your thinking more simply. If this is going where I think it is then this could be very interesting. But right now I'm just guessing at what you're pointing at.
Kindest regards - and SO NICE TO SEE YOU'RE PREPARED TO ENGAGE HERE.
;D
Rosie
Quote from: poynt99 on April 24, 2011, 06:05:51 PM
As I said Rose, I thought that an indication of current flow back to the battery in a simulation would be of interested to you. This IS what I have shown. Are you interested?
If so, where do we go from here?
.99
And Poynty - to answer your question here. We would all be fools to ignore the talents that are available on this forum. But by the same token I'm seriously concerned that it first took all those posts to answer your rather facile rejections of this claim and it's import. I can't help but ask myself why? Why all that need?
If I am to trust you - then can I impose on you to do some retrospective and much needed moderation on your forum. I believe that more than one of your contributors have indulged in an excess of criticism that does my name no good at all - and by association - this technology an equal amount of harm.
Come on Poynty Point. By rights I shouldn't even answer your posts. I've been excessively tolerant. And only because I rather like the way your mind works. But you've had us dancing there Poynty. Now you need to become proactive. And for that I really don't want to spend forever trying to work out what if what you've disclosed is also actually all that you've seen. That surely is the deal - if we're to move forward at all.
Kindest regards,
Rosemary
ADDED
If that's not clear. Let me put it better. I don't trust you. But I would prefer to as I'm happy that you'd bring some real value to the table.
And MileHigh - I really don't want to encourage you by answering any of your absurdities - but let me remind you. You and your predictions are as relevant to this discussion as the Jurassic period of the Mesozoic era. They're already outmoded - even within classical paradigms. You've just never caught up.
Just remember that the survivors of that era had to 'FLY'. You're still crawling along - bound as you are by all that antiquated thinking. But I'm glad that you're happy with it. I realise that you're rather monstrously hide bound - being as it is that you belong - not to this century but to the centuries past. Would that we could all live there. It was a far less polluted and a far less populated place. But reality bites MileHigh. And right now you're doing what ostriches do best when they don't want to see what's coming for them.
You most CERTAINLY were enlisted. The whole point of Poynty's forum is to entrench paradigms that have already collapsed all over the place - LONG back. All those members are enlisted. What you represent is the wate product of this new age reach into new thinking. You are absolutely not capable of it. But nor can I blame you. We all have our limitations. And if I'm a carricature - it's a carricature that I'm really happy with. You're own is easy. Just need to picture a tyrranosaurus rex that has also lost those teeth. Sort of loses it's scare factor - it's local or general relevance. And it certainly then also loses any kind of interest - except of course - for other elderly dinosaurs. I just wish you'd stop trying to make a meal out of discussing me. It's exhausting.
Rosemary
And anyway - on a more constructive note. Guys. We've got a new Tektronix functions generator. I believe it can give a 5% duty cycle. We'll be trying this out today and hopefully I'll have some measurements later.
Regards,
Rosemary
Quote from: Rosemary Ainslie on April 25, 2011, 12:36:59 AM
Ok. So is the idea here to apply a variety of settings at the gate? Is that it? Please Wilby. There are those of us who read here who are mere mortals. Please explain your thinking more simply. If this is going where I think it is then this could be very interesting. But right now I'm just guessing at what you're pointing at.
Kindest regards - and SO NICE TO SEE YOU'RE PREPARED TO ENGAGE HERE.
;D
Rosie
the gist of 'evolvable' hardware is simple enough. the configuration bits that program the wiring and circuitry of the fpga become the 'chromosomes' of the individuals to undergo the trial of survival of the fittest. the chip is configured, then set to do some task (like applying various settings at the gate, or something else), and its performance is measured. then the bit streams representing the best-performing configurations are mated together, mutations are added, and new individuals are tested, measured, and either discarded or mated. eventually, a configuration should emerge that’s very good at accomplishing a specific task, albeit might take thousands of generations to appear.
the beauty of it is, that you can use the fpga's as blank evolutionary 'slates' and let evolution fiddle around with the fine details. ie: you can create without any preconceptions built in. so, it’s not told anything about what is 'good' and what is 'bad' or how it achieves the behavior. evolution just plays around making changes, and if the changes produce an improvement, then fine. it doesn’t matter whether it’s changing the circuit design or using just about any weird, subtle bit of physics (note: this doesn't work on the simulation fpgas, only hardware fpgas) that might be going on. the only thing that matters to evolution is the overall behavior. this means you can explore all kinds of ways of building things that are completely beyond the scope of conventional methods. allow evolution to write all the design rules.
i hope that helps elucidate, i can be rather terse at times and expect people to 'see' what i see. it's a character flaw. ;)
Quote from: Rosemary Ainslie on April 25, 2011, 02:57:52 AM
And anyway - on a more constructive note. Guys. We've got a new Tektronix functions generator. I believe it can give a 5% duty cycle. We'll be trying this out today and hopefully I'll have some measurements later.
...
Rosemary
hi Rosemary
if 4 out of the 5 MOSFETs are merely providing (rather unconventional) feed back to Q1 gate, how many are actually needed to achieve the same
effective results (eg. as March 12)? does it still work with, say: 4? ..3? ..2? ..1?
also, does any other particular number of 'feedback' MOSFETs appear to give a better result than 4 of them?
thanks
np
http://docsfreelunch.blogspot.com (http://docsfreelunch.blogspot.com)
@poynt99 .Can you please answer a simple question for me . Preferably with a yes or a no .Do you now believe , as a result of your simulation results ,that the Rosemary Ainslie Circuit is overunity . That is to say , that it provides heat output whilst charging the batteries .
Quote from: Rosemary Ainslie on April 25, 2011, 02:57:52 AM
And anyway - on a more constructive note. Guys. We've got a new Tektronix functions generator. I believe it can give a 5% duty cycle. We'll be trying this out today and hopefully I'll have some measurements later.
Regards,
Rosemary
Rose,
I remember there was some suspicion that the Instek function generator may not be working properly (possibly damaged), but I thought it was subsequently determined to be OK. Is this now not the case? Is that why you now require another generator?
What model is the Tek generator you've now got?
.99
Quote from: Rosemary Ainslie on April 25, 2011, 02:57:52 AM
And anyway - on a more constructive note. Guys. We've got a new Tektronix functions generator. I believe it can give a 5% duty cycle. We'll be trying this out today and hopefully I'll have some measurements later.
Regards,
Rosemary
Rosemary, you mentioned that you couldn't get that massively-long mark-space ratio to work properly anymore a few pages back - is that the reason you had to get another one, or was it just for the shorter duty-cycle?
I think we all can agree on the established fact that a net MEAN negative CSR voltage would seem to indicate a net current going back into the source battery.
A question to Rose, and any of the readers here (it would be interesting to hear any thoughts on this):
Is this apparent reversed current going back toward the source battery a consequence and product of the circuit operation itself, or is battery chemistry involved and somehow required to produce this reverse-current effect?
.99
Quote from: nul-points on April 25, 2011, 04:00:04 AM
hi Rosemary
if 4 out of the 5 MOSFETs are merely providing (rather unconventional) feed back to Q1 gate, how many are actually needed to achieve the same effective results (eg. as March 12)? does it still work with, say: 4? ..3? ..2? ..1?
also, does any other particular number of 'feedback' MOSFETs appear to give a better result than 4 of them?
thanks
np
http://docsfreelunch.blogspot.com (http://docsfreelunch.blogspot.com)
In my simulation, going from 4 mosfets down to 1 mosfet in pseudo-parallel with Q1, the Fo changes from ~1.3MHz to ~1.8MHz, and the P-P voltages increase about 25% or so. This make sense to me.
I'm currently looking for my spare IRFPG50, but so far I can't find it. I am pretty sure I bought 2 when I was putting together GL's PCB to test the previous version of this project. If I can find it, I might try the two in psuedo-parallel and see if I can get the oscillation.
.99
Further to the changes mentioned above, the net MEAN CSR voltage goes from ~-35mV to ~-55mV.
This of course would seem to indicate more current going back to the source battery with one mosfet compared to 4 mosfets in psuedo-parallel with Q1.
.99
Briefly once again looking at the CSR placement, we see from the IR datasheet for the IRFPG50, that they are placing the CSR outside the Vgs loop. This avoids the possibility of the Gate drive interfering with the current measurement.
It also eliminates the appearance of the CSR voltage on the Gate drive, which can modulate it and cause instability. This is usually only a concern if the CSR resistor value is relatively high, or it exhibits significant inductance, or if the Source current is relatively high.
.99
@poynt99 .You seem to have missed my earlier question . Does the result of your simulation lead you to believe that the Rosemary Ainsle Circuit is overunity . In other words , that it provides heat output whilst recharging the battery .If you are busy , a yes or no will suffice .
Quote from: WilbyInebriated on April 25, 2011, 03:50:33 AM
the gist of 'evolvable' hardware is simple enough. the configuration bits that program the wiring and circuitry of the fpga become the 'chromosomes' of the individuals to undergo the trial of survival of the fittest. the chip is configured, then set to do some task (like applying various settings at the gate, or something else), and its performance is measured. then the bit streams representing the best-performing configurations are mated together, mutations are added, and new individuals are tested, measured, and either discarded or mated. eventually, a configuration should emerge that’s very good at accomplishing a specific task, albeit might take thousands of generations to appear.
the beauty of it is, that you can use the fpga's as blank evolutionary 'slates' and let evolution fiddle around with the fine details. ie: you can create without any preconceptions built in. so, it’s not told anything about what is 'good' and what is 'bad' or how it achieves the behavior. evolution just plays around making changes, and if the changes produce an improvement, then fine. it doesn’t matter whether it’s changing the circuit design or using just about any weird, subtle bit of physics (note: this doesn't work on the simulation fpgas, only hardware fpgas) that might be going on. the only thing that matters to evolution is the overall behavior. this means you can explore all kinds of ways of building things that are completely beyond the scope of conventional methods. allow evolution to write all the design rules.
i hope that helps elucidate, i can be rather terse at times and expect people to 'see' what i see. it's a character flaw. ;)
Hi Wilby. This sounds really interesting. I'm afraid I'm absolutely not equal to this. But if you or anyone else is - then I think we'd all be riveted. How fascinating. Sort of allowing chance to determine an optimised design. I see now why you refer to it as 'evolving'. How extraordinary. Let us know if you can rally the right expertise.
Kindest regards,
Rosie
It is interesting that a simulation shows the effect of charging the battery with even one mosfet used. Now you could exchange the mosfet with a normal bipolar transistor or / and exchange the lead acid battery e.g. with a lithium ion battery and watch if the effect still persists.
If the effect diminishes after exchanging the battery than it's a bedini thing,
if it does so after exchanging the mosfet , it maybe a case of negative resistor effect shown with it.
Quote from: nul-points on April 25, 2011, 04:00:04 AM
hi Rosemary
if 4 out of the 5 MOSFETs are merely providing (rather unconventional) feed back to Q1 gate, how many are actually needed to achieve the same effective results (eg. as March 12)? does it still work with, say: 4? ..3? ..2? ..1?
also, does any other particular number of 'feedback' MOSFETs appear to give a better result than 4 of them?
thanks
np
http://docsfreelunch.blogspot.com (http://docsfreelunch.blogspot.com)
Hi nul-points. I'm afraid I can't answer this. Once those clips are disconnected I can't reconnect them because I can't quite follow their threads. It's my bad eyesight. So. I need someone else to do this test and the guys who work with me on this are just too busy. I was, in fact, hoping to get some of this done today - but we got caught up with an entirely unrelated circuit. They're trying to generate a continual oscillation without the switch. Some really interesting results. But too unstable at this point. Apparently we'll have another go at this in a week or so. When we've got it that it's more repeatable then I'll post that circuit. Some interesting thinking.
I'll also do some detailed tests on how many
MOSFETs required during this coming week. But I'll have to wait to find out who's available.
Kindest as ever,
Rosemary
edited
Quote from: poynt99 on April 25, 2011, 11:46:14 AM
I think we all can agree on the established fact that a net MEAN negative CSR voltage would seem to indicate a net current going back into the source battery.
A question to Rose, and any of the readers here (it would be interesting to hear any thoughts on this):
Is this apparent reversed current going back toward the source battery a consequence and product of the circuit operation itself, or is battery chemistry involved and somehow required to produce this reverse-current effect?
.99
i think that is a key question in starting to get a handle on the nature of any anomaly which may be present
tests have been suggested (some months back) to discriminate between these possibilities but the onus is rather on Rosemary to try some of these variations whilst keeping the remainder of the circuit unchanged, so we can be more confident that any different behaviour only follows the change and not anything to do with the build-specifics of other reps
(EDIT - however, i wouldn't expect battery-related effects to be evident in sim results)
my initial response to a CSR in the Vgs loop would be to move it to the drain side - but - it's just possible that the feedback from a Vgs shunt could be contributing to anomalous operating conditions
so on reflection i'd probably put this change on the 'try-one-change-at-a-time' list of follow-up tests
just my 2c
np
http://docsfreelunch.blogspot.com (http://docsfreelunch.blogspot.com)
Quote from: Rosemary Ainslie on April 25, 2011, 01:56:55 PM
I was, in fact, hoping to get some of this done today - but we got caught up with an entirely unrelated circuit. They're trying to generate a continual oscillation without the switch. Some really interesting results. But too unstable at this point.
:o
Could you explain a bit more what you mean Rose? Are you saying you guys are attempting to make an oscillator with no active device at all, i.e. no MOSFET or transistors?
.99
Quote from: poynt99 on April 25, 2011, 09:26:37 AM
Rose,
I remember there was some suspicion that the Instek function generator may not be working properly (possibly damaged), but I thought it was subsequently determined to be OK. Is this now not the case? Is that why you now require another generator?
What model is the Tek generator you've now got?
.99
We had a first early ISO-TECH. GFG H216A. This gave us 3 minutes on the duty cycle - max 20% on or off - and it worked perfectly. Then we tested this against a second identical model to check that the effect was not associated with vagaries related to that make. The second - also an Iso-Tech - also fresh out the box - didn't work as there was something wrong with the duty cycle - that it would not adjust at all. Then we tried a 3rd that worked as well as the 1st. Because we'd marked the various optimised button settings on the first - we continued working with that. We then got another 'new out the box' for the home demos - which is when we found we could only get 2.08 minutes from the switch. Then we replaced this - yet again - and I 'think' we're back to 3 minutes. But the waveform still has that 'hammer head' 'start' of each oscillation. I now think this must have been the result of one of the MOSFETS that we needed to replace. But I can live with this variation. It's just a shame that we can't get back the early shape that did not default during the oscillation phase.
We have still not tested the Tektronix. Hopefully I'll start on this soon. It's a Tektronix CFG280. Not new out the box - but fully tested and fully calibrated.
Regards,
Rosemary
Quote from: Sprocket on April 25, 2011, 10:12:43 AM
Rosemary, you mentioned that you couldn't get that massively-long mark-space ratio to work properly anymore a few pages back - is that the reason you had to get another one, or was it just for the shorter duty-cycle?
Hi Sprocket. Yes indeed. The really interesting test will be on this Tektronix - because it's able to give a 5% duty cycle 'on' or 'off' which I'm looking forward to testing.
Take care of yourself Sprocket. I love your posts.
Kindest regards,
Rosemary
:)
Agreed np,
However imho, the most practical CSR placement least prone to error or influence is in the negative leg of the battery, and as close as possible to the battery as well.
As pointed out in a previous post with diagram, this also provides a very convenient configuration to allow the scope probes to span both the battery and the CSR, and provide for the same lead "common".
.99
Quote from: Rosemary Ainslie on April 25, 2011, 02:09:02 PM
We have still not tested the Tektronix. Hopefully I'll start on this soon. It's a Tektronix CFG280. Not new out the box - but fully tested and fully calibrated.
Regards,
Rosemary
Thanks.
I'd be interested in hearing about the results with this generator as well.
.99
Quote from: poynt99 on April 25, 2011, 11:46:14 AM
I think we all can agree on the established fact that a net MEAN negative CSR voltage would seem to indicate a net current going back into the source battery.
A question to Rose, and any of the readers here (it would be interesting to hear any thoughts on this):
Is this apparent reversed current going back toward the source battery a consequence and product of the circuit operation itself, or is battery chemistry involved and somehow required to produce this reverse-current effect?
.99
Not sure if I'm allowed to venture an answer here. My own take is that just as there's a quantifiable energy in the battery - and a quantifiable amount of this generated to flow as current through the circuit - in the same way the circuit material has that same quantifiable amount of energy which is also then generated to flow - but in the opposite direction. The two currents forge their own path to their own separate sources. Therefore - regardless of the battery chemistry - this energy keeps getting routed back to where it belongs - the one postive - back to the battery to discharge it - then the one negative - back to the circuit material that generated it.
Therefore there may or may not be time for the electrolytes to entirely reposition or whatever the term is. But the current - the actual material current flow - is compelled to return there. Which is also why I do NOT think that a capacitor would work. It would separate the current flow from the source and I'm not sure how it can then know where to return. But I'm open to correction. I know that some small test was done on this during this last week and it did seem as if the capacitor did not retain any charge. But I was not there to see the test and I am not in receipt of the full results.
Kindest as ever,
Rosemary
Quote from: poynt99 on April 25, 2011, 02:15:50 PM
Agreed np,
However imho, the most practical CSR placement least prone to error or influence is in the negative leg of the battery, and as close as possible to the battery as well.
As pointed out in a previous post with diagram, this also provides a very convenient configuration to allow the scope probes to span both the battery and the CSR, and provide for the same lead "common".
.99
yes - i'm with you on the common ground advantages - but perversely my gut feel says try at least 1 change-out test for minimal feedback at the gate - maybe with minimal monitoring just to get a 'go/no-go' type handle on any contribution to anomalous operation from a 'source-ended' gate drive
...anyway - for the moment, it sounds like Rosemary & team may be trying the earlier DC gate drive suggestion, so i guess we need to 'watch this space'!
Quote from: Rosemary Ainslie on April 25, 2011, 02:21:40 PM
Therefore - regardless of the battery chemistry - this energy keeps getting routed back to where it belongs - the one postive - back to the battery to discharge it - then the one negative - back to the circuit material that generated it.
In summary of the above, are you saying that battery chemistry IS involved and a necessary part of the process to produce the reverse-current effect?
Quote
Therefore there may or may not be time for the electrolytes to entirely reposition or whatever the term is. But the current - the actual material current flow - is compelled to return there. Which is also why I do NOT think that a capacitor would work. It would separate the current flow from the source and I'm not sure how it can then know where to return. But I'm open to correction. I know that some small test was done on this during this last week and it did seem as if the capacitor did not retain any charge. But I was not there to see the test and I am not in receipt of the full results.
Kindest as ever,
Rosemary
Was the capacitor connected in parallel with the battery stack or was it connected to the circuit by itself?
.99
Quote from: poynt99 on April 25, 2011, 02:08:52 PM
:o
Could you explain a bit more what you mean Rose? Are you saying you guys are attempting to make an oscillator with no active device at all, i.e. no MOSFET or transistors?
.99
No. What's being designed is the use of MOSFETs without a signal generator. But I'm on such wobbly ground here. I shouldn't have mentioned it probably. I have NO idea what the circuit showed. But we'll post it when we've got something more stable. Some interesting early indications of that same oscillation. But no benefits. I think they're looking to modify the circuit.
Probably shouldn't have mentioned it. You'll need to be patient. I'll certainly have something to post within the next ten days or so.
Regards,
Rosemary
Quote from: Rosemary Ainslie on April 25, 2011, 02:34:23 PM
No. What's being designed is the use of MOSFETs without a signal generator. But I'm on such wobbly ground here. I shouldn't have mentioned it probably. I have NO idea what the circuit showed. But we'll post it when we've got something more stable. Some interesting early indications of that same oscillation. But no benefits. I think they're looking to modify the circuit.
Probably shouldn't have mentioned it. You'll need to be patient. I'll certainly have something to post within the next ten days or so.
Regards,
Rosemary
OK thanks.
I see it was an issue of the terminology used.
.99
Quote from: poynt99 on April 25, 2011, 02:32:27 PM
In summary of the above, are you saying that battery chemistry IS involved and a necessary part of the process to produce the reverse-current effect?
Was the capacitor connected in parallel with the battery stack or was it connected to the circuit by itself?
.99
Poynty. What I'm actually saying is this. The current that flows from the battery is trying to get back to the negative terminal. Then it can reposition it's charge. Then it can separate from the field (the voltage and/or current) into discrete packages that then break away from the field and move to recombine the molecules. WHEN they separate from the voltage/current - then they can recombine those atoms into a molecular arrangement that is more 'balanced'. But they never actually 'break' from that voltage/current into those discrete packages - because they've no sooner reached the negative terminal than the NEGATIVE cycle kicks in. The potential difference has now changed from the one to the other - from the battery to the circuit material. And the potential difference that is now weighed in favour of this negative current wants to do exactly the same thing - just get back to the POSITIVE terminal of the circuit material to recombine those atoms. It no sooner gets there than the POSTIVE cycle kicks in. And so it goes.
So. The short answer is NO. There is no time for that chemical interaction to take place. Effectively the battery and the circuit material are both permanently imbalanced. And they both represent an energy supply source.
Golly. I wonder if this makes any kind of sense to anyone at all. I do hope so.
Regards,
Rosemary
BTW - I THINK this is what's happening. I don't know. It is, therefore, just my opinion - at this stage. This is where we need those chemistry experts.
Quote from: Rosemary Ainslie on April 25, 2011, 03:00:57 PM
So. The short answer is NO. There is no time for that chemical interaction to take place. Effectively the battery and the circuit material are both permanently imbalanced. And they both represent an energy supply source.
Golly. I wonder if this makes any kind of sense to anyone at all. I do hope so.
Regards,
Rsoemary
If you are saying that battery chemistry (and hence a physical "battery") is not a required element to produce this reverse-current effect in the circuit, then could some other DC voltage source be substituted for the battery and still have the circuit exhibit that reverse-current effect?
.99
@poynt99 .It`s not as complicated as it may seem . Will you please answer my question ,as posed in reply number859 , with a yes or no .
Quote from: poynt99 on April 25, 2011, 03:08:02 PM
If you are saying that battery chemistry (and hence a physical "battery") is not a required element to produce this reverse-current effect in the circuit, then could some other DC voltage source be substituted for the battery and still have the circuit exhibit that reverse-current effect?
.99
I suppose so. Yes. Einstein's mass/energy equivalence requires energy in ALL material. But. What we're exploiting here is the inductive/conductive condition of circuit material. Provided it can respond to a voltage imbalance - or provided it can allow a path for current flow - then, potentially, it is capable of inducing it's own potential difference - or its own current supply - from collapsing fields - just like the battery manages.
But the amount of imbalance in the circuit material is determined by the imposed imbalance from the battery in the first instance. It is a passive material. It is only activated by that imposed imbalance from the current flowing through it. The battery is only passive when it has FINALLY manged to alter ALL the electrolytes to neutralise that mix. In other words it can offer a continuous imbalance. The circuit - in response - cannot. It balances out in a heartbeat. But this redistributes that charge that it is now 'back at the battery' and ready to discharge.
Think of the energy from the battery as a kind of air pressure that gets concentrated at the source every time the circuit discharges its potential difference. And then when it discharges that energy again - then the concentration of that wind is back with the circuit material - and so on. It came from the battery - then it's returned to the battery by the force of a second wind from the circuit material. And those two winds actually never mix and marry. They just stay separate.
I've got a sketch of this somewhere. I'll try and find it. But it's represented - more correctly - as lines of magnetic dipoles. Hang ten.
I'll have to look for this in the morning. Can't find it in this light.
Sorry,
Regards,
Rosemary
Quote from: Rosemary Ainslie on April 25, 2011, 03:26:50 PM
I suppose so. Yes.
May we conclude then that substituting a lab DC power supply for the battery should/would produce a similar, if not identical wave form and net negative MEAN CSR voltage?
.99
Hi Rosemary,
What voltage and frequency do you need to replace the function generator? Pure sinewave or other waveform here?
Cheers,
Twinbeard
Quote from: Rosemary Ainslie on April 25, 2011, 02:34:23 PM
No. What's being designed is the use of MOSFETs without a signal generator. But I'm on such wobbly ground here. I shouldn't have mentioned it probably. I have NO idea what the circuit showed. But we'll post it when we've got something more stable. Some interesting early indications of that same oscillation. But no benefits. I think they're looking to modify the circuit.
Probably shouldn't have mentioned it. You'll need to be patient. I'll certainly have something to post within the next ten days or so.
Regards,
Rosemary
Regarding your attempt to produce similar results without the use of a signal generator, here is something I just tried, and it seems to work. You may want to pass this on to your team if they're interested to try it.
Note the polarity of Vbat2 (positive to ground), and heed the advice on the schematic. Lbias and Rbias could be a single "inductive" type resistor.
.99
I've got something slightly better than the above in the works.
Hang on to your chairs, as my friend Professor Lewin would say. ;)
.99
Quote from: poynt99 on April 25, 2011, 06:14:11 PM
I've got something slightly better than the above in the works.
Hang on to your chairs, as my friend Professor Lewin would say. ;)
.99
Professor Walter Lewin? He is a great guy and MIT is lucky to have him.
Bill
From the original "as-built" connections, I've analyzed the circuit and performed a bit of reverse engineering to come up with the underlying circuit and schematic. No function generator is required (similar to the above diagram I posted) for oscillation, only a second DC source capable of adjusting from about 3V to 10V.
In general, only a single MOSFET is required. Q1 is never in conduction and simply provides "negative" feedback via its body diode and channel capacitance for the Gates of Q2-Q5 (or just Q2 as I have shown).
Many questions and objections will be raised to this I'm sure, so I will put together a brief mosaic of diagrams depicting the progression from the original to what you see below.
There is one more final step in the progression, but I'll post that later once everyone has had some time to digest this and the mosaic first.
In the mean time if there are any questions about this, I'll try my best to answer.
.99
Here is that "mosaic" I promised. This will gradually take you through the progression from the original 5-MOSFET circuit to the single MOSFET equivalent. I opted to omit Q3-Q5 because aside from additional current capability and a lower frequency Fo, the circuit operation remains the same, or "better", depending on your perspective.
Fig1_prog.png illustrates the circuit in the original as-built form.
Fig2_prog.png shows the same circuit but with Q3 - Q5 omitted.
Fig3_prog.png explains why Q1 is always in an OFF state, and why other considerations are required regarding the role it plays in the circuit.
Fig4_prog.png depicts the circuit with Q1 removed and the equivalent functional components (the body diode and channel capacitor in parallel) in its place.
Fig5_prog.png illustrates and explains why we can replace the function generator with a negative DC source of about -5V. The negative DC source is then moved to the right (under the Q2 Source) which allows for a much clearer perspective of how the over-all circuit is functioning.
The final circuit drawing was posted above in the file Q1_schema04_reduced.png.
All questions welcome.
.99
Golly. This is a FIRST. A red letter day. I wake up to all these interesting variations - and everyone moving forward with ever better designs. This is just so wonderful. Tears in the eyes - Poynty Point. Hopefully and SOON I'll be entirely redundant to this exercise. Can't wait. It was where I was hoping to end up with the previous replication - only to discover that I actually had to salvage this from certain destruction. It needs lateral thinkers and some real skill. Sorely lacking in it's earlier presentations.
I can't impose your designs here Poynty. But I'll send all involved a copy of your posts. I have a sneaking suspicion that they're moving in the same direction. Thank you for this. I see how valuable is the use of simulations. I'm also still blown away that simulators even show a benefit.
Now Poynty. If you were to do some marginal editing on your blog - then I believe I could almost retire - and retire happily. I think I've covered just about everything that I can. All that's now needed is to try and get our academics to take note. And there are two such coming early next month. So. And HOW NICE IS ALL THIS?!?!
I'll wade through and see if there are any outstanding questions.
Kindest regards,
Rosie
ADDED ;D :D :) :-* ::) :D :)
and for clarity - it represents an emotional roller-coaster waveform. One full cycle with an average ending round about here.
:)
Quote from: poynt99 on April 25, 2011, 04:15:09 PM
May we conclude then that substituting a lab DC power supply for the battery should/would produce a similar, if not identical wave form and net negative MEAN CSR voltage?
.99
We've considered this but not tried it. My concern is that that a signal generator already has a rectified waveform. In effect the postive sine is routed clockwise, the negative anticlockwise. In effect you've already established a variation of those 'two winds' - so to speak. That may therefore - not work. But I suppose it's worth trying this out. I'll pass though. I'm reasonably certain it won't. But - as ever - I'D LOVE TO BE PROVED WRONG.
BTW I'm just waiting for daylight to see if I can find those downloads. Haven't forgotten this. It may explain things better.
Kindest regards,
Rosemary
Quote from: twinbeard on April 25, 2011, 04:16:13 PM
Hi Rosemary,
What voltage and frequency do you need to replace the function generator? Pure sinewave or other waveform here?
Cheers,
Twinbeard
Hello Twin. I missed this entirely. Ideally what's needed is a strong negative signal applied continuously at the gate - but with that transposed condition of the MOSFETs. Actually from Poynty's hard work here - it seems that we don't need that many put in parallel. And if you hold fire there - it's also possible that we don't need a functions generator at all. Let's see what our boffins come up with. I really am not qualified to answer this.
Kindest regards,
Rosemary
Quote from: neptune on April 25, 2011, 03:17:59 PM
@poynt99 .It`s not as complicated as it may seem . Will you please answer my question ,as posed in reply number859 , with a yes or no .
Neptune I think Poynty answered you earlier. There's a general concession that there's a correspondence of numbers between his simulations and our experimental evidence. But I'm reasonably certain that this is still with the caveat that there are no HIDDEN errors still to be uncovered. I think we'd all be a bit reckless to claim this as a FACT - certainly until our EXPERTS have a chance to comment.
But it's looking good. Still some work to do though - and still some careful analysis. Especially as it relates to determining the battery sustaining its charge. But the theoretical implications are that we can make good use of our SINE WAVES that are available from our plug points as well as substituting our utility supples here and there - with some battery supply sources. This latter may possibly also need a small solar panel to help sustain the required potential difference. And all this most certainly and at it's least requires some pause for thought.
Kindest regards,
Rosie
Quote from: Pirate88179 on April 25, 2011, 07:45:37 PM
Professor Walter Lewin? He is a great guy and MIT is lucky to have him.
Bill
Bill, - he's got some really interesting thinking related to Faraday vs Kirchhoff. And he argues that Faraday TRUMPS kirchhoff every time. Which is certainly NOT classical. Poynty et al discussed this at some length on his forum.
I agree. Nice to see that we still have independent thinkers amongst our learneds. He's up there.
Kindest regards,
Rosie.
Quote from: Rosemary Ainslie on April 26, 2011, 01:26:13 AM
snip...
I think we'd all be a bit reckless to claim this as a FACT - certainly until our EXPERTS have a chance to comment.
... snip
Whenever I see the word/s EXPERT/S, I can't help chuckling to myself. :D
That's because one of my father's favourite expressions has always been:
An EX-SPURT is just a drip under pressure. :P
He was a plumber ! :D
Sorry, off topic again .... KneeDeep
Cheers
Quote from: poynt99 on April 25, 2011, 09:44:47 PM
Here is that "mosaic" I promised.
...
Fig2_prog.png shows [...] circuit but with Q3 - Q5 omitted.
...
Fig5_prog.png [...] replace the function generator with a negative DC source of about -5V. [...] moved [...] under the Q2 Source
...
All questions welcome.
.99
ok, i see your transformation - comfortable with that
(holding 'Q1' gate-disconnect assumption to be valid)
nice work!
a couple questions right off the bat:
- asymemtrical behaviour of any oscillation across L2/Rl1 & CSR to be expected due to 'Q1' body diode
(eg. supporting ~6.25V peak -ve excursions on CSR)
does the data suggest a major player in supporting the ~1.8V peak +ve excursions on CSR - eg. C12, Q2 Cdg, etc?
- do you feel that there are any significant differences in the sim results between the Fig2 prog and the Fig 5 prog versions wrt net energy draw?
am i picking up on a general consensus for a way ahead here?
(glad the question re: optimum no. 'feedback' MOSFETs seemed to contribute to recent considerations)
thanks
np
http://docsfreelunch.blogspot.com (http://docsfreelunch.blogspot.com)
Rose , you seem much happier today , and with good reason . I predict that your technology will move forward more in the next month than it has in the last two years . I am very pleased to see the part that poynt99 is playing in moving the job forward, so praise where it is due . It is a shame that he feels that he can not speak to me , but hey , this is about the future of energy,not petty disagreements .Let us all drink to the future of "Free Energy".
Quote from: neptune on April 26, 2011, 06:59:28 AM
Rose , you seem much happier today , and with good reason . I predict that your technology will move forward more in the next month than it has in the last two years . I am very pleased to see the part that poynt99 is playing in moving the job forward, so praise where it is due . It is a shame that he feels that he can not speak to me , but hey , this is about the future of energy,not petty disagreements .Let us all drink to the future of "Free Energy".
Hello Neptune
My own hope is that the emphasis will get off the 'ra' circuit - because - in truth - it's nothing but a generic kind of prototype that only serves its purpose to point at the ease with which those negative numbers can be found. There are just so many other variations already on the internet. And here we have more. And the guys I'm working with have got others. And so it goes. In the limited range of that functions generator we can also find an almost infinite range of variations. And we're only just beginning. And that's where I find the most comfort.
And indeed it's timeous - if indeed Poynty's efforts have breached some credibility barriers here. But all of this is only on the internet. It's audience is just the smallest of small fractions of where it needs to go. If we were all to tell all our friends - say 20 each, and they then tell their frineds - another 20 each - then we're still hardly at 0.0001% of the global population. Meanwhile our lurkers are already working on trying to secure licensing rights. And I know for a fact that this is/has been discussed at a very prominent academy in England where its presentations were considered most seriously.
So. We've still got a long walk to get this to publication - and if we get THERE then there may well be way forward. And then, I sincerely hope that it won't be referred to as the RA circuit. Because - in truth - it is not. But I would most certainly like to be associated with that paper - only because that way the thinking behind all this may get some kind of consideration. And I'm reckless enough to think that all those concepts may yet be proved to be correct. I do hope so. Because that, in turn - points to a limitless supply of energy that even this little circuit is just the smallest of small tokens of all that potential.
So. Indeed. Exciting times. Just I'm not sure that it'll all be smooth sailing. But I don't think it's progress could have been much choppier than has already been evident on these forums. LOL. It's still belated - but I think we're getting there. And we DEFINITELY need all the talent that's available here to move this forward. Every bit helps.
Kindest regards,
Rosie
Quote from: hoptoad on April 26, 2011, 04:33:58 AM
Whenever I see the word/s EXPERT/S, I can't help chuckling to myself. :D
That's because one of my father's favourite expressions has always been:
An EX-SPURT is just a drip under pressure. :P
He was a plumber ! :D
Sorry, off topic again .... KneeDeep
Cheers
;D - interesting definition hoptoad. LOL.
Congratulations, Rosemary & Poynt99!
I know .99's critical skepticism frustrated you, but he only gives credence to your circuit and your theory, Rosemary.
And for your part, .99: playing the villain is by definition the least popular of sports. Kudos to you also, for sticking with it.
Thanks to both of you; this has been a most fascinating thread. You've provided me with an exciting first-foray into the field of circuits.
Regards, Mark.
@.99
You have turned it all round now, this thread was on its way out like all the others and now it's back and hotter than ever ;D finally things might get clear and simple ;D
I take back any disparaging remarks I might have made in the past.
Exceptional work Sir, hats off to you.
;)
@Rosemary Ainslie : There are just so many other variations already on the internet.
Could you name a few of these variations? (Currently I am not questioning the effect.)
Quote from: TheCell on April 26, 2011, 01:09:06 PM
@Rosemary Ainslie : There are just so many other variations already on the internet.
Could you name a few of these variations? (Currently I am not questioning the effect.)
@TheCell.
No actually. I can't. Or I can't be bothered. I'm useless at doing internet searches. And why aren't you questioning the effect? I would have thought that you would need to. We all do.
R
Quote from: Aphasiac on April 26, 2011, 08:37:07 AM
Congratulations, Rosemary & Poynt99!
I know .99's critical skepticism frustrated you, but he only gives credence to your circuit and your theory, Rosemary.
And for your part, .99: playing the villain is by definition the least popular of sports. Kudos to you also, for sticking with it.
Thanks to both of you; this has been a most fascinating thread. You've provided me with an exciting first-foray into the field of circuits.
Regards, Mark.
Aphasiac - I don't think you're entirely familiar with the level of 'attack' that was actively encouraged. I've just spent a couple of hours going over some of this. And it's been a salutary reminder.
But you're right. There is a tribute to be paid here and it's certainly with our Poynty Point. If I could trust him better I'd be glad to leave all this to him - quite frankly.
So Poynty? How about it? This thread is mostly read by you guys who do experimenting and who know considerably more about circuits than I'll ever be able to learn. Perhaps I can leave all this to you and just post here as and when we get updates? I'd be glad of this - if you can spare the time. At the least you'll be able to answer questions. The best I can do is refer them to our team. Just a real concern that Pickle is not let loose because he's utterly committed to denial. And I'm not sure that I could actually rest easy under those circumstances.
I have nothing really to contribute except that I know my way around the power measurents and can help out if anyone wants a particular test done. I would so like to concentrate my time on advancing this to our academics. And then I also want to start preparing a paper in earnest. Actually Poynty - I think we could make good use of your sims in that paper as well. If you're really on board - it would be a great help. Let me know.
Kindest regards,
Rosie
Quote from: nul-points on April 26, 2011, 05:12:43 AM
ok, i see your transformation - comfortable with that
(holding 'Q1' gate-disconnect assumption to be valid)
nice work!
Thanks!
Quote
a couple questions right off the bat:
- asymemtrical behaviour of any oscillation across L2/Rl1 & CSR to be expected due to 'Q1' body diode
(eg. supporting ~6.25V peak -ve excursions on CSR)
does the data suggest a major player in supporting the ~1.8V peak +ve excursions on CSR - eg. C12, Q2 Cdg, etc?
The positive peak excursion across the CSR resistor, is a result of the sharply cut off Drain voltage of Q2 when it turns ON. Prior to this when Q2 is OFF, the CSR's inductance is energized by the up-swinging Drain voltage (via the 'Q1' and Q2 capacitance), and so this sudden cut-off causes the CSR's inductance to reverse it's voltage across itself (Lenz's law), and this positive peak voltage is then "limited" by the forward-biased diode, which is why the positive peaks appear "squashed" and widened. This latter part happens when Q2 is ON, so the diode is forward-biased into a 0-volt potential, which is why it can limit the positive peak, even though it may only be a couple volts in amplitude.
Quote
- do you feel that there are any significant differences in the sim results between the Fig2 prog and the Fig 5 prog versions wrt net energy draw?
The sim results show no significant difference between the two circuit configurations in efficiency for power transferred to and dissipated in the load resistor.
Good questions np!
.99
I am having a glitch here on getting this to you all. I feel all gains in magnetics and other physics happen occur when beta decay happens and either a proton or neutrino are created.
AND I am happy to see your postings again Rosey. Island life has changed, gotten closer to a the gospel and this is good for me.
I know my realization on this point seems off topic but truely I feel it is what is happening at the sub atomic particial level on every device that achives over unity. Fermi was correct in his assumptions that this transmutation happened in the same exact space and time, but instantly a ( gap ) zero point is created between the new particials.
Quote from: Rosemary Ainslie on April 26, 2011, 01:16:32 AM
Hello Twin. I missed this entirely. Ideally what's needed is a strong negative signal applied continuously at the gate - but with that transposed condition of the MOSFETs. Actually from Poynty's hard work here - it seems that we don't need that many put in parallel. And if you hold fire there - it's also possible that we don't need a functions generator at all. Let's see what our boffins come up with. I really am not qualified to answer this.
Kindest regards,
Rosemary
That's correct Rose; to achieve constant oscillation, all one needs is a steady negative potential on Q1's Gate. However, as illustrated in the progression from the original 5-MOSFET version down the the single-MOSFET equivalent,
the Q1 MOSFET is essentially inactive in the process, and is required only for it's channel capacitance and body diode. This renders Q1 unnecessary if one replaces it with a capacitor and diode as I have depicted. You
can utilize Q1 though if you do not wish to replace it with the equivalent diode and capacitor.
So, when you look at the final circuit configuration and drawing, you see that the function generator (or fixed negative DC source) is actually effectively only applied to Q2's Source, and it is this negative Source-bias which partially turns Q2 ON which in turn causes the start-up and maintenance of the circuit oscillation.
.99
I've previously mentioned that there is one more simplification that can be made in this progression from the original 5-MOSFET circuit. Actually, there is another that I saw today.
I'd be interested in hearing if anyone can see either or both of these additional simplifications. Anyone?
There hasn't been much technical feedback since I posted the simplified schematic. Does everyone understand the circuit, and generally agree with the equivalence of the single-MOSFET version?
Don't worry about asking if you are unsure about something. There are probably others with the very same question. ;)
.99
Edit: deleted extraneous word.
Quote from: poynt99 on April 26, 2011, 04:43:03 PM
That's correct Rose; to achieve constant oscillation, all one needs is a steady negative potential on Q1's Gate. However, as illustrated in the progression from the original 5-MOSFET version down the the single-MOSFET equivalent, the Q1 MOSFET is essentially inactive in the process, and is required only for it's channel capacitance and body diode. This renders Q1 unnecessary if one replaces it with a capacitor and diode as I have depicted. You can utilize Q1 though if you do not wish to replace it with the equivalent diode and capacitor.
So, when you look at the final circuit configuration and drawing, you see that the function generator (or fixed negative DC source) is actually effectively only applied to Q2's Source, and it is this negative Source-bias which partially turns Q2 ON which in turn causes the start-up and maintenance of the circuit oscillation.
.99
Ok Poynty Point. Here's my take. Let me know if it's wrong. Through a miracle of misapplication - through the most fortunate of accidents - I set up the circuit with the Gate transposed directly onto the source rail. Through a second miracle of good timing I'm now using a functions generator and it is able to apply a negative signal. A combination of both these events induces a 'hitherto' unknown negative potential to develop through the circuit?
Now. Clearly - that is not the only way to 'expose' this current. You and others are working on more ways to get the job done. Which is a very good thing. And nor is it the only way to expose the benefit in this back emf. Bear in mind that the traditional one MOSFET plus spike - does the job. But it's restricted to the tolerances of that transistor. And - historically - these are not set at a required high value.
As I see it - traditional understanding of that 'spike' is that it's stored energy. But under these new applications it appears to become an energy supply source - all on its own. So. The questions are 'what' and 'why'? All I know is that if I have the circuit fully connected - yet I leave the functions generator off - then there is absolutely NO current flow. That generator acts to provide a 'bridge' which, in turn, then closes that gap and thereby closes the circuit. That applied signal is positive. And it's applied to the drain of the circuit. This then allows the flow of positive current.
Then - back to that accident. The signal then defaults to 'negative'. But now - just as that earlier 'Positive' signal closed the loop to let the battery deliver it's current flow at the drain - we then see that there has been a hidden source of negative current flow that is now fully enabled. And that
negative signal also closes the loop
to allow that negative current to 'bridge the gap' at the source. And this allows the flow of a negative current. We know negative current flow cannot be coming from the battery. And our numbers prove that nor is it coming from the generator.
So. What I think has actually happened is that the negative component was always there - but was, traditionally 'SNUFFED' as it was never required and certainly never anticipated. And I propose that this is that energy in the material of the circuitry - that I rather hoped was there from the get go. And that - only because it conformed to the thesis prediction. In other words it's gross evidence of the fact - where under traditional applications it was not.
Is that fair comment?
Kindest regards,
Rosie
edited
I believe that a clear understanding (by all concerned) of the circuit's operation is an important goal that we should strive to achieve.
Hopefully the key bits and pieces being put forward here are getting us closer to that goal.
Rose, are you commenting on the circuit's theory of operation?, and if so, is it from the perspective of your theses or from conventional electronics, or from some other?
I of course have been trying to provide insights into the circuit's theory of operation from the perspective of conventional circuit theory. I am hopeful (and hence the appeal for questions) that those interested, are gaining an understanding as to what the configuration is, why the measurements indicate what they do, and why the circuit oscillates the way it does.
.99
Quote from: poynt99 on April 26, 2011, 11:06:05 PM
I believe that a clear understanding (by all concerned) of the circuit's operation is an important goal that we should strive to achieve.
Hopefully the key bits and pieces being put forward here are getting us closer to that goal.
Rose, are you commenting on the circuit's theory of operation?, and if so, is it from the perspective of your theses or from conventional electronics, or from some other?
No Poynty. It's not an adequate explanation from either aspect. I know that. What I was intending was to distill the essence of this and make it clear. I would be sorry if this significance gets drowned out in technical references. It's just a reminder.
Quote from: poynt99 on April 26, 2011, 11:06:05 PMI of course have been trying to provide insights into the circuit's theory of operation from the perspective of conventional circuit theory. I am hopeful (and hence the appeal for questions) that those interested, are gaining an understanding as to what the configuration is, why the measurements indicate what they do, and why the circuit oscillates the way it does.
What you have not yet done Poynty Point is tell us if you think there is any advantage to this application. Nor have you dealt with its significance. I think, with respect, that we are all looking at that hooded cobra showing off its hat - it's head gear. The most of us are waiting to see which way you'll strike. I would be much more comfortable if I could gauge which side of the fence you're sitting on. And I certainly need to know if you give due cognisance to that 'negative' wattage value that you've pointed to. It's back to that question of trust Poynty Point.
My early preamble was actually intended to challenge you into a denial or an endorsement. Because my conclusion was a reminder that this points to a hitherto unkown energy supply.
Kindest as ever,
Rosie
Whether there is an advantage to this circuit (and by "advantage", I assume you refer to some factor of COP>1), is solely dependent on one's perspective, and what assumptions one may be making about the circuit and its operation.
The information being provided is intended to aid in the understanding of the circuit. Once all are "on the same page" in terms of how the circuit works and what functions certain components fulfill, then those so inclined will be sufficiently-equipped to answer the questions you've raised, for themselves.
The assumption I am making in offering all these posts, is that most here are interested in understanding the circuit well enough to decide for themselves if there is a benefit to the apparatus in terms of OU considerations.
.99
Quote from: poynt99 on April 26, 2011, 11:49:26 PM
Whether there is an advantage to this circuit (and by "advantage", I assume you refer to some factor of COP>1), is solely dependent on one's perspective, and what assumptions one may be making about the circuit and its operation.
The information being provided is intended to aid in the understanding of the circuit. Once all are "on the same page" in terms of how the circuit works and what functions certain components fulfill, then those so inclined will be sufficiently-equipped to answer the questions you've raised, for themselves.
The assumption I am making in offering all these posts, is that most here are interested in understanding the circuit well enough to decide for themselves if there is a benefit to the apparatus in terms of OU considerations.
.99
Golly. That's an interesting take. So. Let's start again. You showed a negative wattage as a product of vi dt - which essentially means that more energy is returned to the supply then first delivered from that supply. That result was unambiguous. You found it on your simulator. We find it REPEATEDLY on our own apparatus.
Yet. Notwithstanding - are you proposing that we may or may not accept this as a fact? Does experimental and simulated evidence matter so little? Is science to be determined by preference - or by evidence? Help us out here Poynty.
Rosemary
Quote from: poynt99 on April 26, 2011, 04:07:27 PM
Thanks!
The positive peak excursion across the CSR resistor, is a result of the sharply cut off Drain voltage of Q2 when it turns ON. Prior to this when Q2 is OFF, the CSR's inductance is energized by the up-swinging Drain voltage (via the 'Q1' and Q2 capacitance), and so this sudden cut-off causes the CSR's inductance to reverse it's voltage across itself (Lenz's law), and this positive peak voltage is then "limited" by the forward-biased diode, which is why the positive peaks appear "squashed" and widened.
For instance - this is a rather strange 'take'. You state that 'the CSR' or shunt - its 'inductance is energized by the up-swinging Drain voltage
(via the 'Q1 and Q2 capacitance),... What you fail to refer to is how come there's quite this much '
upswing'.
ALSO. You state that the 'CSR's inductance to
reverse it's voltage across itself' is due to '(Lenz's law) when I'm rather satisfied that it's due to
Faraday's Law.
And then you state that '... this positive peak voltage is then "
limited" by the forward-biased diode, which is why the positive peaks appear "
squashed" and "
widened".' Our evidence is that the positive 'excursions' as you refer to it - are neither 'SQUASHED' nor 'WIDENED'. Effectively there does not appear to be any restrictions to that postive 'excursion'. On the contrary. It's enabled - FULLY - as evidenced when we apply a full offset at the gate.
So. Moving on.
Quote from: poynt99 on April 26, 2011, 04:07:27 PMThis latter part happens when Q2 is ON, so the diode is forward-biased into a 0-volt potential, which is why it can limit the positive peak, even though it may only be a couple volts in amplitude.
There is no '
limit' to that '
positive peak'. You really need to try your simulator at higher values. The positive 'peak' is well able to exceed the battery voltage. And the signal that allows either the 'positive' or the 'negative' peak - depending on which charge is presented and where - at the gate - has nothing whatsoever to do with the the bias of the body diode. That NEVER CHANGES. Not on either setting. It never exceeds the reasonable tolerance of the transistor which limits it to about 6 volts max. Hardly consistent with the voltage that it's allowed at either side of that circuit.
Quote from: poynt99 on April 26, 2011, 04:07:27 PMThe sim results show no significant difference between the two circuit configurations in efficiency for power transferred to and dissipated in the load resistor.
And what is omitted here is something that SHOULD by rights be emphasised. Here it is.
The resistor on that first setting dissipates plus/minus 6 watts - depending on the 'level' or the 'excursion' of that peak voltage. Yet neither you nor I can find any evidence of this costing the battery anything at all. So. Poynty Point. If NP asked some appropriate questions - then can you explain how your answers are appropriate? Are you trying to diminish the significance of this circuit effect with the excessive use of 'innuendo'? Surely not. We were all so ready to trust your analysis.
Regards as ever - and in the rather reckless hope that you'll prove me wrong - YET AGAIN.
Rosemary
edited for emphasis.
and again. also for emphasis.
And this MileHigh is for you. Let me be the first to disabuse you of any of those fervent hopes of yours that the energy is coming from the functions generator. We now do this without any generator at all. And the results persist. Go figger!
And what's so much worse for you - Poynty doesn't need it either.
Rosemary
typo
Quote from: powercat on April 26, 2011, 10:43:09 AM
@.99
You have turned it all round now, this thread was on its way out like all the others and now it's back and hotter than ever ;D finally things might get clear and simple ;D
I take back any disparaging remarks I might have made in the past.
Exceptional work Sir, hats off to you.
;)
And Cat - this post worries me more than anything that Poynty writes. It means that the validity or otherwise of this 'effect' will only be endorsed if he endorses it? Is that right? Is there nothing in the evidence that speaks to you? Am I that ineffective that nothing I present makes a blind bit of difference to your 'beliefs'? Has that endless attack against my competence actually been that effective? That's a killer. More frightening than anything I've read yet. Because I'm reasonably satisified that there is a dedicated 'reach' to denying this technology and that it's a deliberate and orchestrated denial that has nothing to do with science. It has everything to do self-interest. I have no idea if it's jealousy - on the ridiculous assumption that this constitutes a discovery when it does not. Or if it's funded from interested parties who do not want to see OU progressed. Or if denial has simply become a compulsive illogical habit - a kind of addiction - like MileHigh has.
I assure you. There is NO WAY that one can get more energy returned to a supply than was first delivered without there being a second supply source. That's it. In a nut shell. And that's what we keep showing. But we're going to the 'heart' of classical argument because we're showing it with conventional measurement. I suspect that Poynty's stopped arguing the evidence - because there's just way too much of it. Now he's arguing the relevance. And when he uses spurious argument as he did to NP and when NP also feels flattered at the answer instead of alert and cautious - then we're SUNK. That is not what these forums are about. We're meant to be asking questions and giving all evidence due and proper consideration.
I could bore you all by showing you the kind of objections posed thus far - that has taken us to these 60 odd pages of writing - but it would take up too much time and more wasted space. But cast your mind back. Look at the facts. Try and remember what's been said. Those denials were based on incorrect science. YET you're more inclined to believe Poynty than our own presentations? Why? Because he denies the evidence? And that's more plausible? Golly. As I said. If that's the case - then we may as well close up shop - close down these forums - and just keep our findings to ourselves.
Kindest regards,
Rosie
Quote from: Rosemary Ainslie on April 27, 2011, 02:19:51 AM
...
[...] and when NP also feels flattered at the answer [...]
...
Rosie
LOL i'm several decades beyond the reach of flattery now
however, it seems that i'm not yet old enough to escape protagonists
from all sides getting in line to tell me what i feel or believe
i'm not sure whether to find this gut-bustingly funny or poignantly sad!
(but i'm sure someone will tell me which i think, soon)
have fun everyone
(i'll look back in from time to time, just to make sure everyone's eating properly, getting some exercise and keeping up with basic hygiene)
np
http://docsfreelunch.blogspot.com (http://docsfreelunch.blogspot.com)
Quote from: Rosemary Ainslie on April 27, 2011, 02:19:51 AM
And Cat - this post worries me more than anything that Poynty writes. It means that the validity or otherwise of this 'effect' will only be endorsed if he endorses it? Is that right? Is there nothing in the evidence that speaks to you? Am I that ineffective that nothing I present makes a blind bit of difference to your 'beliefs'? Has that endless attack against my competence actually been that effective? That's a killer. More frightening than anything I've read yet. Because I'm reasonably satisified that there is a dedicated 'reach' to denying this technology and that it's a deliberate and orchestrated denial that has nothing to do with science. It has everything to do self-interest. I have no idea if it's jealousy - on the ridiculous assumption that this constitutes a discovery when it does not. Or if it's funded from interested parties who do not want to see OU progressed. Or if denial has simply become a compulsive illogical habit - a kind of addiction - like MileHigh has.
I assure you. There is NO WAY that one can get more energy returned to a supply than was first delivered without there being a second supply source. That's it. In a nut shell. And that's what we keep showing. But we're going to the 'heart' of classical argument because we're showing it with conventional measurement. I suspect that Poynty's stopped arguing the evidence - because there's just way too much of it. Now he's arguing the relevance. And when he uses spurious argument as he did to NP and when NP also feels flattered at the answer instead of alert and cautious - then we're SUNK. That is not what these forums are about. We're meant to be asking questions and giving all evidence due and proper consideration.
I could bore you all by showing you the kind of objections posed thus far - that has taken us to these 60 odd pages of writing - but it would take up too much time and more wasted space. But cast your mind back. Look at the facts. Try and remember what's been said. Those denials were based on incorrect science. YET you're more inclined to believe Poynty than our own presentations? Why? Because he denies the evidence? And that's more plausible? Golly. As I said. If that's the case - then we may as well close up shop - close down these forums - and just keep our findings to ourselves.
Kindest regards,
Rosie
Hi Rosie
I don't think the conspiracy against you is as big as you think, many good people of this forum have tried making your circuit unfortunately they have not achieved the same results as you claim,
if anyone looks on YouTube for your circuit they will get 52 results posted in the last two years,
that in itself speaks volumes when you compare it with say the Bedini circuit.
http://www.youtube.com/results?search_type=videos&search_query=Rosemary+Ainslie+circuit&search_sort=video_date_uploaded&suggested_categories=28&uni=3 (http://www.youtube.com/results?search_type=videos&search_query=Rosemary+Ainslie+circuit&search_sort=video_date_uploaded&suggested_categories=28&uni=3)
Yes I understand your circuit is unconventional and almost impossible to measure correctly,but from where I am sitting .99 is only trying to improve the situation so that others can easily make the circuit and measure it correctly, yes you have supporters but I have yet to see their replication back up your claims.
I admire your dedication and very much it is what is needed to be successful and the other half is that people can easily understand your work and follow in your footsteps, .99 is only trying to help you in this.
;)
I think that there are several aspects of this circuit that makes it difficult to replicate at this stage by the average guy , In the past , there was the problem that we did not know about the strange accidental wiring of the mosfets .It would not be wise at this stage until poynt99 shows his final preferred circuit . The simpler the final circuit , the more chance of success .Not everyone has access to a function generator or a scope .I look forward to the day when a scope will not be essential . It would seem that already we do not need a function generator .In the past , I have built radio transmitters without this test gear .So I would expect to see several successful replications soon . In the meantime , I wonder if it would be possible to simulate this using caps instead of batteries , as these are easier to obtain and cheaper than batteries .
Quote from: powercat on April 27, 2011, 07:39:39 AM
Hi Rosie
I don't think the conspiracy against you is as big as you think, many good people of this forum have tried making your circuit unfortunately they have not achieved the same results as you claim,
if anyone looks on YouTube for your circuit they will get 52 results posted in the last two years,
that in itself speaks volumes when you compare it with say the Bedini circuit.
http://www.youtube.com/results?search_type=videos&search_query=Rosemary+Ainslie+circuit&search_sort=video_date_uploaded&suggested_categories=28&uni=3 (http://www.youtube.com/results?search_type=videos&search_query=Rosemary+Ainslie+circuit&search_sort=video_date_uploaded&suggested_categories=28&uni=3)
yes I understand your circuit is unconventional and almost impossible to measure correctly,but from where I am sitting .99 is only trying to improve the situation so that others can easily make the circuit and measure it correctly, yes you have supporters but I have yet to see their replication back up your claims.
I admire your dedication and very much it is what is needed to be successful and the other half is that people can easily understand your work and follow in your footsteps, .99 is only trying to help you in this.
;)
Thanks Cat. But power measurements are not difficult. It's just that for accuracy one needs good instruments. But I hear you. And I see how I've offended NP - not intended. Abject apologies NP.
And it is absolutely NOT true that no-one has replicated our results. But there too - it seems that we do this with ease where everyone else seems to battle. Perhaps that too is to do with the oscilloscopes that I've been privileged to access.
You only ever need a shunt in series with the negative or positive rail of the supply - to determine the rate of current flow. And this times the supply voltage - is the product - the amount of power delivered. No matter what system is being tested - this is absolutely all that's needed. I have never seen it applied to any of the tests that I've seen elsewhere. Not even on Lawrence's tests. I've seen that it may be there. I've seen motors that keep turning. But. For some reason - this definitive value is never actually shown. We show it.
It is understood that the amount of energy required to apply a signal at the gate - is nominal. But if this is contended as a possible source of energy - then it is relatively simple to measure this too. And we've done this. I'll need to look up those results again. But they were that insubstantial that we haven't even repeated those tests. And even then they were seen to be returning energy to the functions generator rather than being delivered.
In effect we have a net gain to the system. Not a disproportionate gain. Not a measurable >17 or >7 watts. But a net gain. A full on evidence of zero discharge from the supply. In other words Infinite COP. That in itself should raise eyebrows. Then the kicker. Poynty's sims and our own endorse this result. Which means that however those algorithms are determined - conventional or standard protocols actually do allow for this eventuality. That great big 'no no'. That never to be entertained possibility. That embarrassing result that no self-respecting electrical engineer is prepared to consider. Our machines are ignoring them. They're just showing us and they keep showing us that this result is just so available.
And then do yourself a favour - if you're really going to quote some stats. Check up on how many denials there are of this result - compared to how many endorse it. I'd say it's in the region of 10 against to every one that I post. And it's only me trying to do this. There is not one member of the team who are in the least bit interested in this 'internet event'. They get on with their lives and help me where they can. But they sure as hell aren't going to engage here - in public so to speak. That's my deal. I'm alone in this 'mission' to try and use 'dialogue' as a means to advance all this.
It's not the happiest thing that I've every tried to do - I assure you. What it has done has alerted me to the actual effectiveness of the internet as a medium to advance anything at all. I'm not sure that it's workable. And I'm seriously rethinking this. But what I do know is that it's a public record. If I die without any progress - then what I think or thought - is here recorded. Perhaps that has merit. Not sure. But one hopes.
Anyway. Enough said. I think we need to hear from Poynty. And I need some kind of reassurance. I took an unfortunate stroll through a couple of his threads last night. And those spurious and pretentious arguments against this and that clamorous reach to paint me an idiot - it's just so out of line. There is absolutely no reason for me to trust his intentions. Even if they were honourable - then why that post to NP? It's loaded with implication and it's all intended - yet again - to discount the evidence. Nowhere has there been open acknowledgement. I need to read that much - at least. Right now Poynty has not openly admitted that there's a gain. Why?
Kindest as ever,
Rosie
Quote from: Rosemary Ainslie on April 27, 2011, 12:35:31 AM
For instance - this is a rather strange 'take'. You state that 'the CSR' or shunt - its 'inductance is energized by the up-swinging Drain voltage (via the 'Q1 and Q2 capacitance),... What you fail to refer to is how come there's quite this much 'upswing'.
ALSO. You state that the 'CSR's inductance to reverse it's voltage across itself' is due to '(Lenz's law) when I'm rather satisfied that it's due to Faraday's Law.
And then you state that '... this positive peak voltage is then "limited" by the forward-biased diode, which is why the positive peaks appear "squashed" and "widened".' Our evidence is that the positive 'excursions' as you refer to it - are neither 'SQUASHED' nor 'WIDENED'. Effectively there does not appear to be any restrictions to that postive 'excursion'. On the contrary. It's enabled - FULLY - as evidenced when we apply a full offset at the gate.
So. Moving on.
There is no 'limit' to that 'positive peak'. You really need to try your simulator at higher values. The positive 'peak' is well able to exceed the battery voltage. And the signal that allows either the 'positive' or the 'negative' peak - depending on which charge is presented and where - at the gate - has nothing whatsoever to do with the the bias of the body diode. That NEVER CHANGES. Not on either setting. It never exceeds the reasonable tolerance of the transistor which limits it to about 6 volts max. Hardly consistent with the voltage that it's allowed at either side of that circuit.
And what is omitted here is something that SHOULD by rights be emphasised. Here it is. The resistor on that first setting dissipates plus/minus 6 watts - depending on the 'level' or the 'excursion' of that peak voltage. Yet neither you nor I can find any evidence of this costing the battery anything at all.
So. Poynty Point. If NP asked some appropriate questions - then can you explain how your answers are appropriate? Are you trying to diminish the significance of this circuit effect with the excessive use of 'innuendo'? Surely not. We were all so ready to trust your analysis.
Regards as ever - and in the rather reckless hope that you'll prove me wrong - YET AGAIN.
Rosemary
It appears you have misunderstood the gist of my post Rose.
The Drain indeed has about a
250V up-swing in voltage in my simulation, but np's question, and my subsequent response was regarding the positive portion of the voltage across the "
CSR".
In this regard, the effects I described are appropriate to the positive portion of the "
CSR" voltage, and what causes it.
@powercat, neptune,
Thanks for the constructive comments.
.99
Regarding those two additional (not yet implemented) simplifications;
Does anyone see the potential to re-locate the fixed 5VDC voltage source, yet not disturb the circuit operation at all?
.99
Quote from: poynt99 on April 26, 2011, 04:43:03 PM
That's correct Rose; to achieve constant oscillation, all one needs is a steady negative potential on Q1's Gate. However, as illustrated in the progression from the original 5-MOSFET version down the the single-MOSFET equivalent, the Q1 MOSFET is essentially inactive in the process, and is required only for it's channel capacitance and body diode.
Actually Poynty - this is entirely INCORRECT. The level of oscillation varies according to the level of the off set. This setting is altered radically on the application of higher energy output from the battery. And then one actually does NEED that Q1 MOSFET. Your cap will certainly NOT cut it.
Quote from: poynt99 on April 26, 2011, 04:43:03 PMThis renders Q1 unnecessary if one replaces it with a capacitor and diode as I have depicted. You can utilize Q1 though if you do not wish to replace it with the equivalent diode and capacitor.
LOL. Thank you for your permission. But actually as I've indicated earlier I'll hold onto that MOSFET for now. Until you can show how we can adjust that switch with that replacement cap and diode.
Quote from: poynt99 on April 26, 2011, 04:43:03 PMSo, when you look at the final circuit configuration and drawing, you see that the function generator (or fixed negative DC source) is actually effectively only applied to Q2's Source, and it is this negative Source-bias which partially turns Q2 ON which in turn causes the start-up and maintenance of the circuit oscillation.
Indeed. The applied negative signal at the gate is what does the trick Poynty. It's just that it enables that negative cycle - in the same way as the Q1 enables the positive cycle. Why are you trying to make this more complicated than it is?
Rosemary
Quote from: poynt99 on April 27, 2011, 08:33:10 AM
It appears you have misunderstood the gist of my post Rose.
The Drain indeed has about a 250V up-swing in voltage in my simulation, but np's question, and my subsequent response was regarding the positive portion of the voltage across the "CSR".
In this regard, the effects I described are appropriate to the positive portion of the "CSR" voltage, and what causes it.
.99
No. Not actually. I certainly understood your post. You haven't understood mine. Why have you referenced Lenz Law and omitted Faraday's. And why did you write '
The sim results show no significant difference between the two circuit configurations in efficiency for power transferred to and dissipated in the load resistor.' You're referring to sim results on just ONE setting. What happens to your sims Poynty - when you actually start applying an effective positive voltage at the gate that DOES result in an increase in energy? When that voltage across the shunt stays postiive for the duration of the 'on' period of each duty cycle?
With respect - a cursory reading of that comment of yours and one would almost think that there's no point to that Q1 MOSFET at all. Surely you're not being serious?
Rosemary
Which all brings me back to this answer to nul-points.
Quote from: poynt99 on April 26, 2011, 04:07:27 PM
The positive peak excursion across the CSR resistor, is a result of the sharply cut off Drain voltage of Q2 when it turns ON. Prior to this when Q2 is OFF, the CSR's inductance is energized by the up-swinging Drain voltage (via the 'Q1' and Q2 capacitance), and so this sudden cut-off causes the CSR's inductance to reverse it's voltage across itself (Lenz's law),...
- when I would have thought that the collapsing fields across the CSR result from Faraday's Inductive Laws.
And then
Quote from: poynt99 on April 26, 2011, 04:07:27 PMand this positive peak voltage is then "limited" by the forward-biased diode,...
when far from limiting this it would enable this.
And then
Quote from: poynt99 on April 26, 2011, 04:07:27 PMwhich is why the positive peaks appear "squashed" and widened. This latter part happens when Q2 is ON, so the diode is forward-biased into a 0-volt potential, which is why it can limit the positive peak, even though it may only be a couple volts in amplitude.
What 'forward-biased' diode is this? The zener body diode? Or the diode that you've now put across the cap to replace the Q1 MOSFET? Because if you left the Q1 MOSFET as was earlier shown - then you actually don't get any 'squashing' or anything other than that clean sinewave shape.
So. Again. I'm not sure that it's actually desirable to get rid of Q1 MOSFET. I can't see how you'll be able to vary the input voltage from the source to up the power dissipated at the load and on the circuit generally. So I'm not sure that it's a good idea to get rid of it. And I'm not sure that it's correct to claim that any of these effects are due to anything short of Inductive Laws. Unless of course Lenz Law allows for a complete breach of thermodynamic constraints. And while your simulators can most certainly mimic our results - I'm also not sure that the simulations will be able to compensate for the input power at higher levels. And I'm absolutely not sure what you actually think is going on here. Perhaps you can advise us.
Rosemary
Here's the kind of example that I'm trying to point to. At this level we're dissipating in excess of 80 watts. Just check out the math trace. And I absolutely do not know how we could get here without the Q1. I seriously propose that this is required. But I'm open to correction. Perhaps there's a way of doing it without that MOSFET.
Kindest regards,
Rosemary
Added
Sorry. This is not the one I meant to post. Here is only upwards of 40 watts. But I'm hoping it's pointing to the issue at hand.
Here's a better example where we're into wattage dissipation at something close to 80 watts.
Added. I've been going through the hundreds of samples that we've got. But the real 'runaway' numbers just happen too quickly to get a down load of the data. I could however get a screen shot and shall try and do so this week. The sample I've shown here is at a high frequency. We can get this at slower frequencies - but I need to be nimble. It often ignores the setting and then just keeps going north. And I'm not that keen on spoiling any more of those FETs.
All,
With reference to Q1's function in the circuit, I hope this helps:
How a diode can effectively convert a wave form with a mean value of zero, to one with a mean value that is non-zero. This is one of the two functions Q1 is performing in the circuit via it's internal body diode.
(The other function is to provide additional D-G feedback capacitance in parallel with Q2's own internal Cg-d).
This is a simple example that illustrates one of the effects Q1 has on the circuit. This ties in with my response to np's question about the positive portion of the "CSR" voltage. This hopefully gives you some insight into what can cause the MEAN negative voltage across the "CSR" resistor.
Let me know if anything does not seem clear and easy to understand.
.99
I encourage anyone following along and wanting to get the most out of the information being presented, they save and print out this diagram, which is the simplified single-MOSFET equivalent of the original 5-MOSFET version.
Please pay careful attention to the labeling and the connection/location of the "CSR" resistor (Lcsr1 and Rcsr1), and what used to be the function generator, and is now replaced with the fixed DC voltage source (Vbat2).
There are still a couple changes that can be made to simplify it even more, and I am still hoping one of the readers here might spot these. :)
.99
Quote from: Rosemary Ainslie on April 27, 2011, 09:47:40 AM
Which all brings me back to this answer to nul-points.
- when I would have thought that the collapsing fields across the CSR result from Faraday's Inductive Laws.
Faraday's law is of course responsible for the voltage across any inductor as a result of the current through it changing, but Lenz's law determines the
polarity of that voltage, and it is the polarity I was trying to emphasize.
Quote
What 'forward-biased' diode is this? The zener body diode? Or the diode that you've now put across the cap to replace the Q1 MOSFET?
The MOSFET body diode (if the Q1 MOSFET is used), and the diode I've replaced it with.
Quote
Because if you left the Q1 MOSFET as was earlier shown - then you actually don't get any 'squashing' or anything other than that clean sinewave shape.
I am of course referring to the "CSR" wave form "shape" we are quite familiar with now. I would encourage you to view my recent post illustrating how the said diode limits the positive voltage excursion (in both circuits). In this sense, it "squashes" the otherwise narrower, higher amplitude, positive peak.
.99
Quote from: poynt99 on April 27, 2011, 09:35:16 PM
I encourage anyone following along and wanting to get the most out of the information being presented, they save and print out this diagram, which is the simplified single-MOSFET equivalent of the original 5-MOSFET version.
Please pay careful attention to the labeling and the connection/location of the "CSR" resistor (Lcsr1 and Rcsr1), and what used to be the function generator, and is now replaced with the fixed DC voltage source (Vbat2).
There are still a couple changes that can be made to simplify it even more, and I am still hoping one of the readers here might spot these. :)
.99
My dear Poynty. You're trying so hard. Golly. You've shown us a schematic with two shunts - one at the negative and one at the positive rail of the battery. Could I impose on you to show us those voltages? That may go some way to answering MileHigh's obsessive concern that somehow the functions generator is 'fudging' the results. Because there is absolutely NO DIFFERENCE where you put that CSR.
Regards,
Rosemary
I'll get back to your other points in due course. Lots of errors there Poynty Point.
ADDED
BTW - if there is a variation here then it is not representative of what is happening on our circuit.and another point. This is the schematic I'm referring to.
« Reply #932 on: Today at 03:35:16 AM »
Well Poynty. It seems that you are entirely ignoring most of my questions and those that you do acknowledge are answered incorrectly. Pity.
So. I'll start with the one that I thought was clearest. Would you please oblige us by explaining how you plan to adjust the power from the supply without the use of what you refer to as Q1 - being the MOSFET that is positioned as traditionally applied? While I'd be delighted to see variations of this circuit - as I'm sure we all would - I earnestly recommend that they're still able to perform some reasonable level of work.
Then you say that Lenz Law determines the 'polarity"? Since when did that happen? Lenz law has nothing whatsoever to do with polarity. That polarity was determined by Faraday and defined in inductive laws. What Lenz law proposes is that the strength of those collapsing fields depends on the level of retained charge in those inductive components. In fact his arguments go some way towards establishing those dreaded Laws that were imposed on Mr Faraday's discoveries. Here's a Wiki link to this.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lenz%27s_law
So. With respect. I rather suspect that your reference to this was to endorse those very laws that your results appear to defy.
Kindest regards,
Rosemary
Quote from: poynt99 on April 27, 2011, 09:17:52 PM
All,
With reference to Q1's function in the circuit, I hope this helps:
How a diode can effectively convert a wave form with a mean value of zero, to one with a mean value that is non-zero. This is one of the two functions Q1 is performing in the circuit via it's internal body diode.
This is a little confusing. You show a CSR between two positive terminals of two separate
supplies. For any kind of current to flow you presumably have those batteries with different voltages. So. Let's assume that you can get a current to flow from the one to the other - then? You apply a switch? is that it? Or you change that signal to a negative? I would have thought that if you can induce that tiny bit of inductance in the CSR to 'reverse' it's voltage (Faraday's Law) then it is unlikely to return to its source. But. If you used something with a little more inductance in it then you would, theoretically - not only have generated a sine wave but you would also be able to re-energise that supply.
So. Far from
'converting a wave form with a mean value of zero' it's waveform would then first be greater than zero and then less than zero and theoretically a pure sine wave would be the consequence. This the more so as the voltage drop across the diode would apply in both directions.
I'm probably missing your point. But your recipe or explanation of 'How a diode can effectively convert a wave form with a mean value of zero, to one with a mean value that is non-zero' is posibly not the best example. And I certainly do NOT see that this is what Q1 is doing. On the contrary. Q1 is enabling the current from the battery supply. For some reason there is a small period where this conduction is prevented. That's where my own interest lies. Personally I think it is to do with the amplitude of the setting. But our amplitude is always 'full on' so that's still not the whole of it. Hopefully the Tektronix will get to the route cause better. At least we can experiment with shorter 'on' periods.
So. And again. This is absolutely NOT one of the two functions that Q1 is performing in the circuit via its internal body diode. If only it were that simple.
Quote from: poynt99 on April 27, 2011, 09:17:52 PM
(The other function is to provide additional D-G feedback capacitance in parallel with Q2's own internal Cg-d).
You really need to explain your terms. What is a D-G feedback capacitance? And why is this in parenthesis? Is it your fall back argument?
Quote from: poynt99 on April 27, 2011, 09:17:52 PM
This is a simple example that illustrates one of the effects Q1 has on the circuit. This ties in with my response to np's question about the positive portion of the "CSR" voltage. This hopefully gives you some insight into what can cause the MEAN negative voltage across the "CSR" resistor.
Let me know if anything does not seem clear and easy to understand.
So again Poynty Point. I'm sorry but you're dealing with a gross amateur here. If you can't be bothered to answer these points I won't blame you. I'm sure that everyone reading here fully understands you. But I don't. And I certainly don't agree with you. While I am delighted to see simplification of anything at all - I absolutely cannot follow this reasoning. The more so as Q1 which you're so ANXIOUS to dispose of - is CRITICALLY required to conduct at higher energies.
Kindest regards,
Rosemary
edited spelling.
Quote from: poynt99 on April 27, 2011, 09:35:16 PM
I encourage anyone following along and wanting to get the most out of the information being presented, they save and print out this diagram, which is the simplified single-MOSFET equivalent of the original 5-MOSFET version.
Please pay careful attention to the labeling and the connection/location of the "CSR" resistor (Lcsr1 and Rcsr1), and what used to be the function generator, and is now replaced with the fixed DC voltage source (Vbat2).
Which makes me rather alarmed Poynty Point - that you are now recommending this schematic to 'replace' our own. Modify our own - by all means. But I'm afraid if you go this route there is likely NO advantage whatsoever in this circuit.
I can't reference the diagram without seeing it but will do so when I've got that 'print out' that Poynty's recommending. But there are so many obvious glitches and I'd be rather concerned that anyone go to too much trouble to build this proposed circuit when the schematic will most certainly not do what is required. Unless I'm wrong. I do hope so. Doubly troubling - lol - when those 'pencilled in' comments all need such close review. I'll deal with it when I've managed to get a copy of it for reference.
;D
Kindest regards,
Rosemary
As I previously mentioned, Faraday's law states that a voltage develops across an inductor any time the current (flux) through it is changing, and it is Lenz's incorporated law which determines the polarity of that voltage.
From Hyperphysics page:
http://hyperphysics.phy-astr.gsu.edu/hbase/electric/farlaw.html
.99
So guys. It seems that the real danger is nothing to do with the actual circuit variations - but that the variations are then so 'off the mark' that they no longer have relevance to the original circuit objectives. That would be a pity. Because - in essence - what we've got here is a method whereby we can dissipate some hefty wattage at the load with apparently no energy expended from the supply.
I need to stress this point. There is nothing that this circuit does that cannot be done with the MOSFETs in the traditional setting. And I would re-iterate that the object of our demonstration was NOT to guage those high wattage outputs - but simply to resolve that extraordinary waveform. You see this I trust. The fact that we can exceed those equivalence principles then implies that the 'sky's the limit' when it comes to applying more energy. Or. Possibly it would be better to say that the amount of energy that is then dissipated is actually the next most challenging aspect to unfold. And THAT is when Q1 most certainly comes into play and - possibly - where we need to keep to some semblance of those early first principles used in that original design.
In any event. There is a gross tendency to 'wax obscure' especially when it comes to determining the properties and the functions of sundry transistors. The explanations becomes somewhat more confusing than the rather dark art that is applied to the manufacture of these transistors in the first instance. In the interests of keeping this explanation as simple as possible I'm therefore proposing my own 'take' which has the real merit of focusing on the measurable effects rather than proposals as to what or why these are happening. And more to the point. It's also all that's needed. Just follow the logic. It's straight forward.
We know that the circuit can be fully connected to the supply and yet - if the functions generator is not 'turned on' then the circuit remains open. I know this well. It's the easiest way for me to disconect things at the end of our tests and it's all I ever do. So. When we turn it on - we're closing the circuit. And we're first applying a positive signal to the gate of the FET. This provides that 'bridge' across a gap that then also allows current to to flow through the circuit. Under usual conditions the current then flows to the negative terminal and this persists until the end of that 'on' period. In effect, the applied voltage at the postiive terminal of the battery is able to bridge that open condition courtesy the positive signal applied at the gate.
Then the signal defaults to negative. Immediately the battery stops conducting and there is a return of negative voltage induced from the collapsing fields of all those circuit components. (Faraday's Law.) Now. Just as the positive charge was presented at the drain courtesy the MOSFET Q1 - now a negative charge is presented at the source courtesy of the MOSFET Q2 (and upwards as required). And in the same way that the Gate provided a positive charge during the 'on' time - it now provides a negative charge during the 'off' time. And appropriately, this is provided at the source which then allows for the 'negative' voltages throughout the circuit to flow freely. Prior to this - under usual conditions - only the reverse body diode allows this path. And while there is no 'problem' with using this path - it is also NEVER enough to fully allow that continuous resonating condition. We know this. We've tried it.
So. The actual focus is that there is this much negative voltage that then flows this freely as negative current. Of especial interest to me is that it also never seems to fully discharge without re-establishing the potential difference at the battery - which then needs to discharge. And on and on. What we have here is a continual current flow. And it's not a ripple - as was early argued all over the place. It's evidently energetic and it's most certainly sustaining a temperature at the load and, indeed, over some of the circuit components.
I'd be very sorry to find that we delve into an obscure explanation related to a lot of simulated schematics and consequent waveforms that also then took the focus off this point. There is a relationship established between the supply and the circuit components that seems to mutually re-inforce each other that the current can persist over some considerable time and to some considerable advantage to the energy supply source. What I personally, would like to resolve is how it is that there is this small 'window of opportunity' so to speak, in the setting of the 'offset' that also allows that oscillation at a zero discharge from the battery during the 'on' time and yet it fully enables the negative voltage and all the consequent oscillation. It is almost as if the circuit is able to get energised without a flow of current - and I can't see how that can be a realistic explanation. Nor, MileHigh, is it energy that is being delivered to or from the functions generator because, self-evidently, it can all be achieved without using one.
But having said all that. Please remember that we're not out to 'solve' the puzzle of that oscillation in our replications - for those of you who wnat to go this route. We're trying to maximise the energy output at the least possible cost to the supply. And for that you need that Q1 because you also need that initialising 'on' period with its consequent positive voltage during that time. And here there's a wealth of potential discovery. Because we've hardly opened the door a fraction.
Kindest regards
Rosemary
Quote from: Rosemary Ainslie on April 28, 2011, 09:59:29 AM
So guys. It seems that the real danger is nothing to do with the actual circuit variations - but that the variations are then so 'off the mark' that they no longer have relevance to the original circuit objectives. That would be a pity. Because - in essence - what we've got here is a method whereby we can dissipate some hefty wattage at the load with apparently no energy expended from the supply.
snip
Kindest regards
Rosemary
Rosemary,
Excellent post as usual.
Now for a builder, the logical schema at this time seems to be the two FET model, one forward, one backwards?
So what is the ratio of on time to off time for FET 1? I know you have said but if you could repeat once more please? And the voltage of the Function generator, is it plus minus 5 volts or 10?
What I was considering was doing away with the FG and using just a battery and a timed change over relay. Would this work? Has the group approached this from this angle?
Warm regards
Ron
Quote from: i_ron on April 28, 2011, 11:14:40 AM
Rosemary,
Excellent post as usual.
Now for a builder, the logical schema at this time seems to be the two FET model, one forward, one backwards?
So what is the ratio of on time to off time for FET 1? I know you have said but if you could repeat once more please? And the voltage of the Function generator, is it plus minus 5 volts or 10?
What I was considering was doing away with the FG and using just a battery and a timed change over relay. Would this work? Has the group approached this from this angle?
Warm regards
Ron
Hello Ron. What a pleasure to see that you're going to try this. I don' know how to do away with the functions generator. But Harti gave a schematic using a battery to supply the required signal. I'll see if I can find it. The guys have only got an oscillation at this stage. And it's not stable and it certainly is not able to show a gain. Still very much a work in progress. I'm a clutz at design - unfortunately. I was rather hoping that Poynty's schematics would evolve to something 'doable'. Perhaps that's still on the cards.
But if you can explore ways of doing this all with a switch and those 'back to front' FET's as you describe them - then that would be a good thing. Once you get testing you'll see the point of what I'm going to say here. It is absolutely IMMATERIAL what frequency you apply. It finds its own resonating frequency. What you WILL need is a reasonably good pot to explore all this potential. And it would be WONDERFUL if you could try this with batteries that are not quite as long lasting as our own. It would certainly answer some questions that keep coming up.
But let me see if I can find that schematic that Harti gave us. I'll get back here. Delighted to see that you're up for this.
Kindest regards
Rosie
Quote from: hartiberlin on March 25, 2011, 11:09:20 PM
Hi,
what about this circuit ?
Just use a 9 Volts battery and a pot to supply the
negative bias voltage at the gates.
To get it to oscillate you might need to switch the
9 Volts battery on and off a few times.
Then also as Humbugger said the shunt will only
have the battery current and not the 9 Volts battery current.
Well to measure also the battery voltage with a dual channel scope that
has a common ground you need to do this circuit then.
See attached picture.
Many thanks.
Regards, Stefan.
I can't do anything about posting over the schematic Ron. But this is the post
« Reply #347 on: March 26, 2011, 04:09:20 AM »
I think the same schematic is applicable - just add in that MOSFET.
I'll be able to get hold of the guys early next week and I'll ask them for that schematic they're trying out. Then I'll post it here.
Hope that helps. I'm afraid you'll need to be very creative as I absolutely can't help here.
Again, kindest and very best of regards,
Rosie
Quote from: Rosemary Ainslie on April 28, 2011, 12:00:34 PM
I can't do anything about posting over the schematic Ron. But this is the post
« Reply #347 on: March 26, 2011, 04:09:20 AM »
I think the same schematic is applicable - just add in that MOSFET.
I'll be able to get hold of the guys early next week and I'll ask them for that schematic they're trying out. Then I'll post it here.
Hope that helps. I'm afraid you'll need to be very creative as I absolutely can't help here.
Again, kindest and very best of regards,
Rosie
That sounds good to me Rosemary, thank you.
Harti's circuit is only a one polarity thing but is a starting point.
A logic FET switches at 5 volts but regular FETs like 10 or more to fully turn on, so we will see...
Warm regards,
Ron
I think it would be beneficial for all at this time to refresh ourselves with the workings of a N-channel MOSFET.
Rose, would you please explain for the readers in a paragraph or two, and in basic terms, how a MOSFET functions? With respect to it's 3 pins, describe what external conditions are necessary on each pin in order to enable the MOSFET to pass a significant current.
Thanks,
.99
Let's take a small step backward in the progression from the original 5-MOSFET circuit, to the single-MOSFET version I've provided, and re-insert the Q1 MOSFET in place of the parallel diode and capacitor. We can go back to that later.
The Simplification01_schema01.png illustrates this regression. Notice that I have redrawn the diagram slightly, but the connections are still the same as the original circuit.
As I've already well established the fact that only a DC voltage bias is required to set the circuit into oscillation, the function generator is omitted. Because the pulsed output and positive excursions are unnecessary for oscillation, the generator is not required. I trust this is seen by all as an important development.
Simplification01_scope01.png is a result of the simulation run and shows the "CSR" and "Vbat" voltage wave forms. Also indicated is the MEAN voltage of each, and note that the "CSR" voltage is about -56mV.
Following this is Simplification02_schema01.png. This diagram depicts one of the simplifications I've not yet shown. What you see is the DC bias source relocated to the "CSR" leg, and the DC bias source "flipped" over such that it's negative terminal is now connected to the circuit ground. Yet another important development in the progression.
The "CSR" and "Vbat" wave forms and MEAN values with this change are virtually identical to those in the Simplification01_scope01.png scope shot.
.99
Interesting Poynty.
I need to confirm your drain and you need to get rid of that cap across the load. Also. Your waveform shape is still wrong. But I think that's because you've placed the CSR in the wrong place.
I'll get back here.
Kindest regards,
Rosie
BTW - why aren't you showing the waveforms across that revised schematic. I'd be glad to see this if you'd oblige.
Ok Poynty. Here's the error. You need to shift that signal battery supply to the rail in series with Q2. Then you can leave the CSR where it is. Otherwise you need to move that CSR directly to the nagative rail of the source.
I can't get a printout so I'll probably edit here as well.
BRB
Rosie
Added. ALSO. You're showing the probe positioned at a NODE - YET AGAIN Poynty! And you need to lose that CAP. Why is it even there? The one across the load?
Nothing wrong with the probe positions - sorry. It's not a node. 'Me bad' as you guys say. lol.
I love the clarity of those FET positions. So readable. Thanks for that.
Ok Poynty Point. With those amendments I think we're good to go. I'd prefer to see the waveform across the load - if you can oblige. And I cannot see how that CAP can help anything at all.
Guys - I'm very aware of the fact that my comments are not appropriate without reference to a schematic. I'll get back here with some version of this - even if I have to draw it myself. But Poynty - thanks for your work here. There are a few aspects of your own schematic - which may work - but I'm not sure that it's what we're doing. In fact there are plenty of differences. But as ever I'm open to correction.
I'll get back here by midday at the latest. I'm now on a mission to learn how to 'sketch' these things more easily. lol. One hopes I'm not too old to learn. And I'm very grateful for your work here Poynty. As ever, you keep me on my toes.
Kindest regards,
Rosie
Quote from: poynt99 on April 28, 2011, 07:39:00 PM
I think it would be beneficial for all at this time to refresh ourselves with the workings of a N-channel MOSFET.
Rose, would you please explain for the readers in a paragraph or two, and in basic terms, how a MOSFET functions? With respect to it's 3 pins, describe what external conditions are necessary on each pin in order to enable the MOSFET to pass a significant current.
Thanks,
.99
I missed this. I absolutely cannot answer this with authority. But as I understand it the drain is always open until it's linked to the source through the applied charge at the gate. Those body diodes kick in when there's a reverse voltage and they're basically designed to 'snuff' all that counter electromotive force. BUT. The thing is this. With that transposition and with the applied 'negative' voltage - then the FET Q2 is actually operating precisely in line with it's polarities with respect to the drain. It just sees the drain as the source. But I'll sketch it. I've already done this. I just need to get this presentable.
Kindest regards,
Rosie
Guys - I had to get someone to do this. It was either that or one of my scribbles - and this way it's still legible. ;D Sorry to modify your excellent work there Poynty. Hopefully you'll not mind too much.
In any event - here's how the circuit actually looks. Except that the signal generating battery has replaced the functions generator. Ron. I hope you're getting this. I have no idea how one now applies that switch to get the modifications required for the input current from Vbatt source.
And Poynty. I hope this schematic makes it all clearer. In effect we have enabled that negative current flow through the simple expediency of changing the polarity of the MOSFET. It is still doing what it is expected to do but - relative to Q1 - Q2 is reading the charge in reverse.
In effect, the counter electromotive force is still 'positive' relative to the FET Q2. So that transistor component still conforms to its design intentions. Note that the Gate source has been shown as 'reversed' because relative to the signal generating battery - the FET Q2 - sees the source as the drain and vice versa.
Hope that helps.
Kindest regards,
Rosie
ADDED. Btw. There polarity of the zener at Q2 is not correct. Strictly speaking it should be shown in antiphase - I think. Am open to correction
Quote from: Rosemary Ainslie on April 29, 2011, 02:14:33 AM
I missed this. I absolutely cannot answer this with authority. But as I understand it the drain is always open until it's linked to the source through the applied charge at the gate.
This is getting to the essence of it's operation, but one or two key points are still absent in that description.
With respect to the voltage between the Gate and the Source (V
GS), have a look at this Wiki page where they show how the
Drain-to-Source channel is altered by the voltage applied to the Gate.
In the graph they are plotting I
D with respect to the applied V
G (V
G really means V
GS (Gate-to-Source voltage)).
What may we conclude from that animated graph? Is the MOSFET Drain-to-Source "channel" always connected, or is there a certain V
GS voltage that must be reached first?
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Threshold_formation_nowatermark.gif
.99
Rose,
Unless the demonstration video footage is not authentic, I have already painstakingly well established what the actual "AS-BUILT" circuit connections are and posted them. Have you seen those posts?
It is quite clear from the video footage that the actual schematic is per the one below, with the exception for the function generator, shown here as a fixed DC source. In particular, the CSR is most definitely connected to the Q1 source and Q2 Gate as shown.
Why are you changing the pin designation on "Q2-5"? The "g" means "gate", and "s" means "source".
Regarding that small capacitor in parallel with the load, it is of course not a discrete component of the load, but all inductors have some capacitance associated with them, and it was included only to allow for a more accurate simulation. The consequence however of removing it is minimal. It is of no concern in actuality.
.99
@poynt99 .Re the graph on the Wicki page you provided a link to . What I find hard to understand is this . The vertical scale on the graph shows drain current . But the higher numbers are at the bottom of the scale and the lower numbers are at the top . From this , I would deduce that the higher the voltage on the gate , the Lower the Drain current .This can not be true in the case of the type of Mosfet we are talking about . What have I missed and what is the significance of the letter "E" in the Drain current numbers . I think what you may be trying to say is that some current can flow between drain and source with zero gate voltage ? The animation however appears to show that about0.5 volts is needed on the gate to permit any drain-source current to flow .
Quote from: neptune on April 29, 2011, 09:31:38 AM
@poynt99 .Re the graph on the Wicki page you provided a link to . What I find hard to understand is this . The vertical scale on the graph shows drain current . But the higher numbers are at the bottom of the scale and the lower numbers are at the top . From this , I would deduce that the higher the voltage on the gate , the Lower the Drain current .This can not be true in the case of the type of Mosfet we are talking about . What have I missed and what is the significance of the letter "E" in the Drain current numbers . I think what you may be trying to say is that some current can flow between drain and source with zero gate voltage ? The animation however appears to show that about0.5 volts is needed on the gate to permit any drain-source current to flow .
The notation commonly used in science is a "scientific notation", whereby "exponents of powers of 10" are used.
So, a notation of
1E-14 means
1 x 10-14 and
1E-5 means
1 x 10-5. The latter expression is a much higher value.
So in summary, the Drain current indeed rises with the vertical axis in that graph.
.99
Quote from: poynt99 on April 29, 2011, 08:36:00 AM
This is getting to the essence of it's operation, but one or two key points are still absent in that description.
What may we conclude from that animated graph? Is the MOSFET Drain-to-Source "channel" always connected, or is there a certain VGS voltage that must be reached first?
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Threshold_formation_nowatermark.gif
These are not really relevant Poynt. In the first instance it's a description of a nanowire MOSFET - and in the second instance they're arguing that the 'bridge' is gapped with electrons. If you recall the entire premise of my argument is that there are NO ELECTRONS flowing in electric current flow. What I require are magnetic dipoles. And a magnetic dipole will bridge the gap across the gate in either direction - which is evidently what is happening. I'll go into these arguments again Poynty - but it's as clear as daylight to me that you have NEVER even bothered to read up what the thinking is behind all these circuit designs. How can you comment - if you don't even know the counter argument? I've taken the trouble to learn classical argument. Surely you can take the trouble to learn a variation of this? I'll presume to give you a link to this when I've concluded this post.
Then. I would be very glad to argue the condition of the circuit with you - and that at length. But I absolutely refuse to do so on the premise of that schematic that you keep giving us. It is ENTIRELY misleading. The CSR is on the negative rail of the supply. It is nowhere else. There is absolutely NO requirement for that cap that you persist in putting across the load. And the Q2 MOSFET does NOT have that zener biased as you've shown it. Then. The positioning of the source is TRANSPOSED on Q2 that it ACCEPTS the input from the 'negative signal' from the oscilloscope or the 'positive signal' from the battery - simply because - in terms of their polarities it is still positive according to the MOSFET. In other words - according to the transposition - the MOSFET now sees the negative as a positive. As in most things - charge is also relative. I know you know this.
So. What I'm really asking is WHY are you going through this circuitous circuit argument? And WHY do you keep putting that schematic in front of us? It's quite simply erroneous. PLEASE amend it as required. Then we've got a basis for discussion.
Kindest regards,
Rosemary
And just as a reminder - here it is again. But what it STILL NEEDS is the reversal of the diode at Q2. Otherwise it is precisely what is required. And it is PRECISELY what we've got on our circuit except that the zener at Q2 - as mentioned twice already - needs to be changed.
And here's that link. Please read it.http://newlightondarkenergy.blogspot.com/2011/04/101-repost-of-8-inconvenient-truth.html
Quote from: neptune on April 29, 2011, 09:31:38 AM
snip...
The animation however appears to show that about0.5 volts is needed on the gate to permit any drain-source current to flow .
Correct.
However, power mosfets, in general use with switched power circuits are usually biased at the gate with a nominal 10 volts or more.
With 10 volts or above, applied at the gate to source junction, the mosfet will perform as a "near perfect" switch, with the resistance between the source and the drain approaching zero as a result.
That's why they are so popular in switched power supply systems, e.g, the power supply running inside a desktop computer.
The gate voltage supply is normally current limited via a resistor between the gate and supply or signal.
Mosfets require only a small gate current, as the gate to source controlling junction is voltage not current dependent.
Cheers
The operation of any enhancement-mode MOSFET is equal on all accounts, except for the recent development of low-threshold varieties, shown in that graph. The important point is that the principle is the same for all MOSFETs.
The ID vs. VGS characteristic curve shown is valid and representative of the IRFPG50 MOSFET being used in this circuit. The point of the graph is to show the general relationship between the Drain current ID, and the applied Gate voltage VGS. Parameters vary by type of MOSFET, but the characteristics are similar in all.
In summary, the Drain-to-Source channel is "open", OFF (high resistance) when VGS = 0V. As VGS increases in a positive direction (N-channel), the channel resistance begins to decrease, until finally the Gate-to-Source threshold voltage is reached (VTH), and ID begins to substantially increase. In effect, the MOSFET is beginning to turn ON once the Gate-to-Source voltage VTH is reached.
.99
Quote from: hoptoad on April 29, 2011, 10:12:00 AM
Correct.
However, power mosfets, in general use with switched power circuits are usually biased at the gate with a nominal 10 volts or more.
Thanks for posting hoptoad.
In this circuit, the MOSFETs are being applied in more of a "linear" sense, and V
GS never (or rarely) approaches anything more that 5V, one polarity or the other.
.99
@poynt99 . Thankyou for answering my questions.
Quote from: poynt99 on April 29, 2011, 08:53:33 AM
Rose,
Unless the demonstration video footage is not authentic, I have already painstakingly well established what the actual "AS-BUILT" circuit connections are and posted them. Have you seen those posts?
It is quite clear from the video footage that the actual schematic is per the one below, with the exception for the function generator, shown here as a fixed DC source. In particular, the CSR is most definitely connected to the Q1 source and Q2 Gate as shown.
Poynty - it does not make a blind bit of difference to the waveform or the results whether the ground from the signal generator is directly on the shared negative rail or if it's in series with the shunt. The fact that it was set up that way at the demo was happenstance. The fact is that it's more convenient to keep the ground on that shared rail because we were running two oscilloscopes and 4 channels - concurrently. That made the junction at D rather crowded. In point of fact it is normally at the pin marked at D on the video. But that's because I usually only ever use the LeCroy. I've just checked the video and the board. Right now and for those shots I took to argue your 'undersampling' quibble -
it is and usually is positioned at D - in series with the shunt. I wonder what difference it would make to your waveforms if you placed it at the negative rail. I'd be interested to see.
I suspect very little. But in any event it's wrong. It is properly in series with the CSR.Quote from: poynt99 on April 29, 2011, 08:53:33 AMWhy are you changing the pin designation on "Q2-5"? The "g" means "gate", and "s" means "source".
I know this Poynty. That's exactly why I needed to transpose it. Think it through. We swap the Gate and the Source. We do not change the drain. Am I talking to myself here? Let me try this again. Q1 takes a positive current from the battery via a postive charge applied to the gate. That's during the 'on' time. Then. Let's just take it that we've got a battery signal source because that gets to the meat of the issue best. Q2 takes a positive charge from the signal supplying battery via a postive charge applied at the gate.
The same thing. I'ts only NEGATIVE relative to Q1. That transposition effectlvely generates a POSITIVE CHARGE at the gate. Which is precisely what the MOSFET wants. It's been built that way. I do hope the penny drops.
Effectively the MOSFET is reading the source as the drain and the drain as the source relative, that is, to Q1.Quote from: poynt99 on April 29, 2011, 08:53:33 AMRegarding that small capacitor in parallel with the load, it is of course not a discrete component of the load, but all inductors have some capacitance associated with them, and it was included only to allow for a more accurate simulation. The consequence however of removing it is minimal. It is of no concern in actuality.
Good. Let's get rid of it.
Kindest regards,
Rosemary
Added.And some more.
Now that the "as-built" circuit connections have been firmly re-established (reference diagram depicted in Simplification01_schema01.png), would anyone like to try and predict what changes might occur in the circuit operation if Q1 is completely removed from the circuit, and no capacitor or diode connected in its place?
.99
Quote from: poynt99 on April 29, 2011, 11:49:54 AM
Now that the "as-built" circuit connections have been firmly re-established (reference diagram depicted in Simplification01_schema01.png), would anyone like to try and predict what changes might occur in the circuit operation if Q1 is completely removed from the circuit, and no capacitor or diode connected in its place?
.99
Yes. I would. I already know. PROVIDED you keep the bias of the diode at the drain as per Q2 as you've SHOWN it and not as our circuit actually has it - then it won't make a blind bit of difference. The circuit will oscillate. But to what end?
This is where I get more than a little exasperated Poynty. Are we simply to attempt more and more schematics to generate an oscillation? Is that all the merit you see here? The POINT of the study of that oscillation was not HOW TO GENERATE IT - but to consider that it's there at all. I am reasonably satisfied that it will persist certainly as long as a charge is applied at the Gate. And when we do get that oscillation then we have current moving to and from the battery that has all kinds of conservation benefits. But we also need to 'up the ante' and that means that all this discourse could have been spent in studying how to get the 'extreme' values in those oscillations. For instance - at certain settings the voltage peak to peak across the CSR is 4 volts or thereby. But at other settings - usually with adjustments to the offset and the duty cycle - it's possible to get voltages that are 10 times that value and oscillations that are greater by a factor of 3. And so it goes.
We need to move on.
Rosemary
Quote from: Rosemary Ainslie on April 29, 2011, 12:05:17 PM
Yes. I would. I already know. PROVIDED you keep the bias of the diode at the drain as per Q2 as you've SHOWN it and not as our circuit actually has it - then it won't make a blind bit of difference. The circuit will oscillate. But to what end?
Could you explain in some detail for myself and the readers here, what you mean exactly?
The circuit is precisely as I have depicted it. Please indicate where it is that you are having difficulty seeing it, and I will try to make it more clear.
.99
Quote from: poynt99 on April 29, 2011, 12:13:26 PM
Could you explain in some detail for myself and the readers here, what you mean exactly?
The circuit is precisely as I have depicted it. Please indicate where it is that you are having difficulty seeing it, and I will try to make it more clear.
.99
Poynty - look at Q2 on that schematic that I modified of yours. You'll notice that the source and gate have been transposed. But there has been no change made to the drain. It is still biased to enable a 'negative' current and block a 'postive' current.
Rosemary
Poynty - here's the thing. I am very aware that I have no skills at circuit design. And frankly that's what's needed. You asked - some time back - where to from here? Well. I would dearly love to leave this thread to someone of your exceptional competence that you guys can brainstrorm and apply your collective skills and your knowledge to precisely this reach. And I know it'll be to good effect. But I'm concerned that you're chasing red herrings and I'm not sure why. Unless - of course - it's to further test the principles applied. But they've been done to death now. Surely?
I would dearly love to spend some constructive time in getting a paper prepared and in generally showing things to our learned and revered. And I can't do anything other than obsessively chase posts that may mitigate against the progress of this technology rather than otherwise.
Please let us know where you stand on this. If you can't take it over - is anyone else prepared to? I really have so much work I need to do. And I can't contribute any further here. It needs your kind of expertise and your kind of lateral thinking. Will you PLEASE help us.
Kindest regards,
Rosie
We can not arbitrarily at will relabel the pins on an electronic device such as the MOSFET. The industry creates the symbols for these components so that everyone is "on the same page" regarding the conveyance of information via circuit diagrams.
Look at the attached capture from the IRF document locate here:
http://www.irf.com/technical-info/appnotes/mosfet.pdf
It clearly indicates which pins on the symbol are the Drain (D), Gate (G), and the Source (S).
Also shown is that characteristic ID vs. VGS curve I emphasized earlier.
Note also the indication of current flow in the Drain...it is in the down direction.
.99
Quote from: poynt99 on April 29, 2011, 01:04:53 PM
We can not arbitrarily at will relabel the pins on an electronic device such as the MOSFET. The industry creates the symbols for these components so that everyone is "on the same page" regarding the conveyance of information via circuit diagrams.
I HAVE NOT RELABELLED ANYTHING. What is wrong with you? What we've done is PHYSICALLY SWAPPED the SOURCE WITH THE GATE. And what I've then done is relabelled the schematic accordingly.
Quote from: poynt99 on April 29, 2011, 01:04:53 PMLook at the attached capture from the IRF document locate here:
http://www.irf.com/technical-info/appnotes/mosfet.pdf
It clearly indicates which pins on the symbol are the Drain (D), Gate (G), and the Source (S).
Also shown is that characteristic ID vs. VGS curve I emphasized earlier.
Note also the indication of current flow in the Drain...it is in the down direction.
I there anyone out here who can explain it better? POINTY PLEASE LISTEN UP. The MOSFET IRFPG50 is designed that it can take a postive charge at the gate and then conduct a current through the device. We've positioned that IRFPG50 Q2 that it can take a POSITIVE CURRENT FROM THE BATTERY SIGNAL SUPPLIER and conduct a current through the device. That NEGATIVE CURRENT at the source is now a POSITIVE CURRENT with respect to the new positioning of the source and the gate. That MOSFET can still do what it does best. It's conducting a positive current. Proof is precisely when you place a battery in series with Q2. It takes that as a positive current. But it's negative with respect to the actual circuit and it's primary supply being the battery supply source. In other words Q2 sees the actual circuit DRAIN as the SOURCE. And there is no restriction to the current it can enable. Therefore it enables that current. But - relative to the primary battery supply - IT'S NEGATIVE.
Please just think it through. I can't explain it any better. Just think it through.
Kindest
Rosemary
Quote from: Rosemary Ainslie on April 29, 2011, 01:23:44 PM
I HAVE NOT RELABELLED ANYTHING. What is wrong with you? What we've done is PHYSICALLY SWAPPED the SOURCE WITH THE GATE. And what I've then done is relabelled the schematic accordingly.
If it is not clear, I have been, and am referencing the apparatus (and how it was connected) in the video demonstration.
If you are now discussing a different circuit connection from the one used in the video demonstration, then I believe it would be prudent to advise the readership to that effect.
.99
Quote from: poynt99 on April 29, 2011, 01:32:32 PM
If it is not clear, I have been, and am referencing the apparatus (and how it was connected) in the video demonstration.
If you are now discussing a different circuit connection from the one used in the video demonstration, then I believe it would be prudent to advise the readership to that effect.
.99
No. I am not referring to anything other than the 'modified schematic' that I posted - here today. I'll repost it for clarity.
I see you're getting angry there Poynty. And I also see that you're missing this all by a mile. Just look again at the positioning of the source and the gate. And then consider what it sees when it sees a postive charge from the signal generating battery. Just look at it upside down if you have to.
Here it is again. And, with the exception of the bias of that zener - it's precisely how our circuit is designed - up to and including the position of the CSR.
Quote from: Rosemary Ainslie on April 29, 2011, 01:39:58 PM
No. I am not referring to anything other than the 'modified schematic' that I posted - here today. I'll repost it for clarity.
Here it is again. And, with the exception of the bias of that zener - it's precisely how our circuit is designed - up to and including the position of the CSR.
Please then clarify for the readers; does your above diagram accurately depict the circuit connections for the apparatus in the video demonstration?
.99
Quote from: poynt99 on April 29, 2011, 01:54:01 PM
Please then clarify for the readers; does your above diagram accurately depict the circuit connections for the apparatus in the video demonstration?
.99
Yes. With the exception of the position of the ground from the signal generator. And there has to be a connection between those two (or more) MOSFETS that's omitted. And - correctly - the zener at the drain on Q2 needs to be reversed biased. Otherwise I think it's right.
Rosemary
ADDED. And that we're using a functions generator - obviously.
Quote from: Rosemary Ainslie on April 29, 2011, 01:59:46 PM
Yes. With the exception of the position of the ground from the signal generator. And there has to be a connection between those two (or more) MOSFETS that's omitted. And - correctly - the zener at the drain on Q2 needs to be reversed biased. Otherwise I think it's right.
Rosemary
ADDED. And that we're using a functions generator - obviously.
At a point not too long ago, the attached was the circuit connections diagram for that video demonstration.
Clearly the diagram you are now presenting, is substantially different from the original in the video.
Could you please, for the benefit of the readership here, explain how the CSR has been relocated to an entirely different position? Also, PLEASE provide
a complete schematic of the apparatus in the video demonstration, if the attached is not already one that is correct.
This is all not making much sense Rose, and I think you're losing not only readership here because of this, but losing everyone in general (including me), in terms of their understanding of what exactly you are trying to discuss here.
.99
Quote from: poynt99 on April 29, 2011, 02:17:07 PM
At a point not too long ago, the attached was the circuit connections diagram for that video demonstration.
Clearly the diagram you are now presenting, is substantially different from the original in the video.
Could you please, for the benefit of the readership here, explain how the CSR has been relocated to an entirely different position? Also, PLEASE provide a complete schematic of the apparatus in the video demonstration, if the attached is not already one that is correct.
This is all not making much sense Rose, and I think you're losing not only readership here because of this, but losing everyone in general (including me), in terms of their understanding of what exactly you are trying to discuss here.
.99
Guys - this is
STRANGE. I posted the following - post 964 - for those who would care to go back and check. In it, among other things I stated the following
"Poynty - It does not make a blind bit of difference to the waveform or the results whether the ground from the signal generator is directly on the shared negative rail or if it's in series with the shunt. The fact that it was set up that way at the demo was happenstance. The fact is that it's more conventient to keep the ground in the shared rail becaause we were running two osciloscopes and 4 channels - concurrently. That made the the junction at D rather crowded. In point of fact it is normally at the pin marked at D on the video. But that's because I usually only ever use the LeCroy. I've just checked the video and the board. Rght now and for those shots I took to argue your 'undersampling' quibble - it is and usually is positioned at D - in series with the shunt. I wonder what difference it would make to your waveforms if you placed it at the negative rail. I'd be interested to see. I suspect very little. But in any event it's wrong. It is properly in series with the CSR."I am absolutely not able to explain that. I need to reboot here. But there is no question that someone disabled that post in order to prevent me from referencing it. I see that there are two posts of mine missing. I'll see if this even shows up when I post it and will then get back here.
It appears that this post is definitely on public view. A friend of mine emailed it to me so that I could copy it over here. I'm not sure that this is clear. What has happened here is to two of my posts have been taken out of my own view and there are precisely 2 less posts in this thread than are available on on the public forum. Can anyone advise me? According to my own access here are only 974 posts. And available to the public are 976 (this one excepted).
Moving on. Poynty - I am entirely satisfied that you do not represent the 'readers' and you certainly do not represent the readers' interests. From where I sit you have only EVER become actively engaged when you've set out to disprove a claim. I won't go into the 'thinness' of your arguments used against me - and I certainly won't comment on where you've worked elsewhere - but there's one thing I'm curious about. How did you get that oscillation if you indeed did a copy of our circuit. Just that. How did you manage that early oscillation 'first off' as you put it?
Rosemary
According to what I see, that post was reply#961 Rose.
Someone else also mentioned that there seems to be a discrepancy in the reply number that is visible. It seems there is an offset of 3 replies.
The only explanation I have is that Stefan may have gone back and deleted a few posts in this thread today.
???
.99
When I am logged in, the number of replies says 975. When I am logged out, the number of replies says 978. That would explain it.
.99
Rose, could you please provide a response to this post? The readers here deserve to know the answers.
http://www.overunity.com/index.php?topic=10407.msg283609#msg283609
Thank you.
.99
Rosemary,
Is the attached drawing showing your most resent switch?
Regards,
Groundloop.
As a refresher for all, here is another re-draw of the circuit taken from the actual "as-built" connections shown in the demonstration video.
Notice the equivalence to the circuit posted in the demonstration report (minus the altered and now added connections of Q2-5).
.99
Quote from: Groundloop on April 29, 2011, 05:32:50 PM
Rosemary,
Is the attached drawing showing your most resent switch?
Regards,
Groundloop.
While we're waiting for some responses from Rose;
Thanks for the diagrams GL. That will be helpful to anyone that may want to build the full 5-MOSFET (or 2-MOSFET) version of the device presented in the video demonstration.
Your build diagram and schematic match my schematics exactly.
.99
Does anyone have a link to the video that poynt.99 is referring to?
Thanks Pete
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fyOmoGluMCc&feature=player_embedded
guys I need to post this quickly. They got into my computer last night. They've disabled something that I can't reference anything at all. Not only that but they're able to read these replies of mine. What happens is that I'm simply 'kicked out' of the internet link after a certain interval.
I need to get this compter 'cleaned'. They've also deleted my posts. But right now they've also managed to get into my second computer and disable that too.
I've got a lot to report on but it may take some time.
Just posting this to see if it'll 'take'
Rosemary
Just ignore these posts. I'm still testing. OK. So far so good. My second compter has been 'snarled' to death. Now I'm going to see if I can get to a 'reference'. brb.
Quote from: Rosemary Ainslie on April 29, 2011, 04:26:14 PM
Guys - this is STRANGE. I posted the following - post 964 - for those who would care to go back and check. In it, among other things I stated the following
"Poynty - It does not make a blind bit of difference to the waveform or the results whether the ground from the signal generator is directly on the shared negative rail or if it's in series with the shunt. The fact that it was set up that way at the demo was happenstance. The fact is that it's more conventient to keep the ground in the shared rail becaause we were running two osciloscopes and 4 channels - concurrently. That made the the junction at D rather crowded. In point of fact it is normally at the pin marked at D on the video. But that's because I usually only ever use the LeCroy. I've just checked the video and the board. Rght now and for those shots I took to argue your 'undersampling' quibble - it is and usually is positioned at D - in series with the shunt. I wonder what difference it would make to your waveforms if you placed it at the negative rail. I'd be interested to see. I suspect very little. But in any event it's wrong. It is properly in series with the CSR."
I am absolutely not able to explain that. I need to reboot here. But there is no question that someone disabled that post in order to prevent me from referencing it. I see that there are two posts of mine missing. I'll see if this even shows up when I post it and will then get back here.
It appears that this post is definitely on public view. A friend of mine emailed it to me so that I could copy it over here. I'm not sure that this is clear. What has happened here is to two of my posts have been taken out of my own view and there are precisely 2 less posts in this thread than are available on on the public forum. Can anyone advise me? According to my own access here are only 974 posts. And available to the public are 976 (this one excepted).
Moving on. Poynty - I am entirely satisfied that you do not represent the 'readers' and you certainly do not represent the readers' interests. From where I sit you have only EVER become actively engaged when you've set out to disprove a claim. I won't go into the 'thinness' of your arguments used against me - and I certainly won't comment on where you've worked elsewhere - but there's one thing I'm curious about. How did you get that oscillation if you indeed did a copy of our circuit. Just that. How did you manage that early oscillation 'first off' as you put it?
Rosemary
I think I'm up and running and ready to go. The only problem - right now - appears to be with my back up computer. I'll need to use yet another. And I still get kicked out of the system here when I reference a second internet link. Can't do the two simultaneously.
I also need to advise you all that this little 'repartee' with Poynty Point is going nowhere. I'm afraid I'll not be answering any more of his posts. I'll try and give a summation if I'm able to stay logged in here.
I still don't understand how my posts went missing. I believe they're still available to the public. I'll need to clear that. And I want to know how those posts could have been removed from my own view without Stefan's intervention. Any explanations here would be welcome.
Regards,
Rosemary
Ok everyone. It seems that this is going nowhere. Groundloop your positioning of the ground from the functions generator is how we configured it at the demo. This was simply because we ran out of space at link in series with the shunt. It already had 2 probes there to accommodate the two oscilloscopes we were using. But it can be put in either position. As mentioned it doesn't make a material difference to the results.
I had a long conversation with one of the guys last night. Apparently we're positioning the transistors as if the second Q2 is being used as a P FET. But that is NOT to say it can be replaced with a P FET. It may be possible. I just don't know. What I do know is that it's being triggered with a negative current and that the flow is then returning to the battery.
Poynt's schematic shows the Q2 being linked directly to the shared ground. This is wrong. Also. the Source and Gate of Q2 needs to be transposed. The diode at the drain remains the same. I'll post the revised schematic but PLEASE NOTE. The diode at the drain does not change. Only the diode at the gate. I can't even give you my own 'scribble' here because the second computer is pretty well 'fried' now and that holds my photobucket and sundry software.
I hope that clarifies things for now.
Thank you.
Rosemary
Quote from: Rosemary Ainslie on April 30, 2011, 03:08:14 AM
Ok everyone. It seems that this is going nowhere. Groundloop your positioning of the ground from the functions generator is how we configured it at the demo. This was simply because we ran out of space at link in series with the shunt. It already had 2 probes there to accommodate the two oscilloscopes we were using. But it can be put in either position. As mentioned it doesn't make a material difference to the results.
I had a long conversation with one of the guys last night. Apparently we're positioning the transistors as if the second Q2 is being used as a P FET. But that is NOT to say it can be replaced with a P FET. It may be possible. I just don't know. What I do know is that it's being triggered with a negative current and that the flow is then returning to the battery.
Poynt's schematic shows the Q2 being linked directly to the shared ground. This is wrong. Also. the Source and Gate of Q2 needs to be transposed. The diode at the drain remains the same. I'll post the revised schematic but PLEASE NOTE. The diode at the drain does not change. Only the diode at the gate. I can't even give you my own 'scribble' here because the second computer is pretty well 'fried' now and that holds my photobucket and sundry software.
I hope that clarifies things for now.
Thank you.
Rosemary
Rosemary,
So, what you are saying is that my circuit drawing repesent the actual circuit layout that
you used in the test and video, if I understand you correctly.
Groundloop.
Guys - I think what has happened here is a 'black swan' event. It's one of those things in history where a circuit is configured in an absolutely 'standard' way but it exposes an 'unexpected' result. I'm here referring to ALL those circuits that exceed unity. Typically this 'phenomenon' was uncovered by sundry amateurs and enthusiasts who do not get 'brain washed' by Thermodynamic doctrines.
To date these results have been successfully contended because the 'expertise' of the nay sayers, of necessity, exceeds the expertise of those amateurs amongst us. But there are three essential differences here. The first is that we ASBOLUTELY PREDICTED this result - which means that it was REQUIRED in terms of known physics. And the second is that our 'excesses' have been REALLY CAREFULLY MEASURED. And the third is that this has now been evaluated by some really respectable engineers. The only thing still lacking is to get it to the table of those acknowledged experts.
Another thing is this. When one offers up results then one also expects a certain amount of 'due dilligence' in the evaluation of those results. But may I refresh eveyone's memory here. Our own submission was followed by an onslaught first from TK and then from FuzzyTomCat and then from Pickle. In the background is Harvey and Laurel his wife who - to this day - still PM members who sound even marginally supportive to advise them of whatever it is that they refer to. Due dilligence is one thing. Outright calumny and character assassination is another. Their excesses are legendary and they effectively cost me a year off the internet and nearly a year off the campus experiments.
While it is always them who reference the fact that this knowledge has been on the internet for 10 years - the truth is that it has NOT been known of and not been developed - effectively - for more than one and half years. In that time I KNOW the word has spread because I also know how many people there are that follow this 'news' so to speak. So indeed it's working. The internet is an effective means of 'spreading the news'. But the attenddant dangers are manifold. And I realise that this particular 'unfolding' is likely to continue spawning these objections - the most of which have NOTHING to do with the technology but everything to do with my involvement in it.
But I am STILL being tailed by those anxious 'nay sayers'. Poynty has gone to some trouble to advise his members to 'RELAX' as he has everything in hand. That was for his public generally - but specifically for Fuzzy and MileHigh. They were both in a tail spin and rather concerned that Poynty had 'crossed the floor' so to speak. This follows on his equally 'public' statement that he is looking forward to 'DEBUNKING' this technology. He's tried this.
Let me 'recap'. He started first off by simulating that waveform. Unless he'd made the same 'transposition error' that I first made - then this would NOT BE POSSIBLE. I can't comment on how long he knew of this before his disclosure. But clearly - he has no intention of answering this question. Then he claimed that the placement of the probes across the battery would 'snuff out' the spurious osciallation. It did not. Then he claimed that the inductance over circuit components was simply distorting EVERYTHING and, somewhat amusingly, Pickle then suggested we remove ALL inductive components. Then it was the undersampling fiasco - and then - FINALLY it was the disclosure of that 'transposition'. And NOW, with rather effective ease he is insisting that his own rendition of the circuit is correct. It is not. For the reasons I've listed in the previous post.
But here I need to go on record. I do not have the required skills to show the circuit as it should be shown. Indeed this whole problem has only come up because Poynty forced the knowledge of that transposition when, frankly, I would have preferred to keep it quiet until it could be made really public. We all know that there are lurkers on these threads. But I know of their danger. it is a fact that there are those who are already canvassing one particular Government for 'licensing rights'. I know this because the main player here actually came to SA to discuss this with me. We were offered a 'role' to play here. Needless to say we declined.
But with that particular request came another disclosure which is that this technology is already being SERIOUSLY considered at a highly respectable institution in England. What this gentleman did not know was that transposition. And that's why I wanted to keep it under wraps. You see. Making knowledge available here is a good thing. But the readership here is SMALL. And the potential exploitation of this knowledge is VAST. But it really needs to be made readilly accessible to the public. And that's through our traditional media sources. Because otherwise the best will be 'cherry picked' and I'm not sure how much protection it will afford anyone if licensing rights are then imposed.
What I do know is that while our academia are perhaps 'reluctant' to acknowledge this 'black swan' event - once they've done so - then we're all as safe as houses. Because the knowledge is so quintessentially simple and it's applications that easy - that there will be no WAY that anyone can stop this particular revolution. And that, quite frankly, is all that I'm living for - right now. To advance this technology that we can get off grid.
But. I'm really sorry to say this. All our efforts here on these forums - while very valuable - are never going to constitute the entire study. I see, over and over, how ineffective I am at even giving the right schematic. I have 'no way' to explain what I see happening other than in terms that are 'non standard'. And I am challenged on accurate schematics when that is entirely outside my competence. All I can comment on with any degree of authority - is what comprises current flow - and where it moves through a circuit. Nor can I impose on our team to do this for me - because they have their own lives to live and their own livings to earn. Their interests are not on the internet. We're a small minority guys. Just the smallest fraction of our global population. Not enough to make a difference.
My own obsessive interests - notwithstanding - is to advance all this. It's fragile knowledge and it needs protection. And if we give any further space to Poynty et al - with their overriding requirement to deny all - then we will progress nothing at all. I, personally, would prefer it if you all just did your own experiments. It is better to use copper wire connections and the thicker the better as this develops more predictable results. Those small breadboards built with thin wires do not enhance repeatability which is required. I know this because we tried it. But PLEASE. Do not ask me about the finer details of schematics. I am not qualified to comment.
But this is the point. You DO NOT NEED TO TRANSPOSE THOSE FETS to get the same INFINITE COP. The standard 'spike' that we have always shown - is still well able to get to the required result. That's if you want to prove OU. If you want to develop an application - which would be WONDERFUL - then explore that transposition. It's able to tolderate much higher wattages. I - unfortunately - cannot help you with the schematics. I'll post the one variant on Poynt's schematic later on today. But you'll need to work out the attachments yourselves. I'll just alert you again - to where you need to still make some changes to that design which I've covered already. But repetition is probably required.
Kindest regards,
Rosemary
Quote from: Groundloop on April 30, 2011, 04:42:40 AM
Rosemary,
So, what you are saying is that my circuit drawing repesent the actual circuit layout that
you used in the test and video, if I understand you correctly.
Groundloop.
Hi Grounloop. Yes. It's the one used in our test video. But I'm saying that on the understanding that the source and gate have been transposed. Which also means that the drain has it's bias in the opposite direction to Q2. I would prefer it if you could just try and make sense of the attached circuit - because that's what's required and this is the only schematic that I can read. Sorry guys. But that's the best I can do.
Kindest regards Groundloop. I wish I could just leave all circuit commentary to you. I have not got the required skills and - with or without respect - I don't trust Poynt's representations of anything at all.
Regards,
Rosemary
Quote from: Rosemary Ainslie on April 30, 2011, 02:14:55 AM
I think I'm up and running and ready to go. The only problem - right now - appears to be with my back up computer. I'll need to use yet another. And I still get kicked out of the system here when I reference a second internet link. Can't do the two simultaneously.
I also need to advise you all that this little 'repartee' with Poynty Point is going nowhere. I'm afraid I'll not be answering any more of his posts. I'll try and give a summation if I'm able to stay logged in here.
I am certain many here would not agree. It is most unfortunate that just as we were about to make some small progress, that your computer somehow has become "unusable". ::)
.99
Quote from: Rosemary Ainslie on April 30, 2011, 03:08:14 AM
Ok everyone. It seems that this is going nowhere.
We
could make some real progress if you'd kindly answer some of the important questions put forward.
Quote
Groundloop your positioning of the ground from the functions generator is how we configured it at the demo. This was simply because we ran out of space at link in series with the shunt. It already had 2 probes there to accommodate the two oscilloscopes we were using. But it can be put in either position. As mentioned it doesn't make a material difference to the results.
In terms of the schematic, ground is ground. The question was clear, it deserves a clear response.
Quote
I had a long conversation with one of the guys last night. Apparently we're positioning the transistors as if the second Q2 is being used as a P FET. But that is NOT to say it can be replaced with a P FET. It may be possible. I just don't know. What I do know is that it's being triggered with a negative current and that the flow is then returning to the battery.
It is encouraging to see that my posts are apparently of some benefit to your team. They are "getting" the hints I've been offering in the schematics. The last "simplification" was intended to point out the use of Q2 as a pseudo-P-channel.
Quote
Poynt's schematic shows the Q2 being linked directly to the shared ground.
Could you please explain this?
Quote
This is wrong. Also. the Source and Gate of Q2 needs to be transposed.
What is wrong exactly?
The S and G of Q2 are connected as per the demonstration circuit, and as per GL's rendition of the same circuit.
Quote
The diode at the drain remains the same. I'll post the revised schematic but PLEASE NOTE. The diode at the drain does not change. Only the diode at the gate. I can't even give you my own 'scribble' here because the second computer is pretty well 'fried' now and that holds my photobucket and sundry software.
You are using unconventional terminology here. Also:
There is only ONE diode in the MOSFET Rose, and that is positioned from the MOSFET S-D pins, anode to cathode.
.99
Quote from: Rosemary Ainslie on April 30, 2011, 05:05:17 AM
Hi Grounloop. Yes. It's the one used in our test video. But I'm saying that on the understanding that the source and gate have been transposed. Which also means that the drain has it's bias in the opposite direction to Q2. I would prefer it if you could just try and make sense of the attached circuit - because that's what's required and this is the only schematic that I can read. Sorry guys. But that's the best I can do.
Kindest regards Groundloop. I wish I could just leave all circuit commentary to you. I have not got the required skills and - with or without respect - I don't trust Poynt's representations of anything at all.
Regards,
Rosemary
Rose,
The circuit as you have depicted it will not work. Not only is it incomplete, but you have flipped the fixed DC source so that it is providing a +5VDC voltage at the Source of Q2.
May I ask who advised you to alter this circuit in such a way?
I doubt very much that anyone will be able to make sense of your strange and erroneous edits to my diagram Rose. You should have left it as is, because that IS precisely what your circuit is that was used for the demonstration.
.99
For the record, I do not endorse any of the edits that Rose has erroneously made to any drawing I originated.
For the correct circuit connections of the apparatus used in the video demonstration, please refer to the "video_as-built_circuit_connections.png" circuit above, or any of several other drawings I have posted in this thread.
http://www.overunity.com/index.php?topic=10407.msg283640#msg283640
.99
Let's finally shed all doubt as to what the circuit connections are/were for the apparatus used in video demonstration Rose and her team gave. This is also presumably the same apparatus that has been used to acquire all the scope shots and "data" Rose has been posting over the last couple of months.
Compare this underside view of the perf-board connections they used to build the apparatus, to the circuit diagrams I have posted, in particular to the one attached here.
Are there any significant discrepancies between the two?
Note: M1 in my diagram = Q1, and M2 = Q2-Q5. The "CSR" in my diagram is lumped into one CSR, as all 4 resistors are in parallel.
.99
So Guys, it seems that this thread is also about to be derailed. I am not sure that it will matter much what I write. And it seems that Harti has given Poynt license to do his worst. I've often wondered exactly how committed this forum is to genuine advancement of this new age science. Here we have something of a conundrum. We have a forum that calls itself overunity.com - where the readers are interested in clean green and a group of self elected spokespersons are actively encouraged to derail each and every claim.
The truly extraordinary aspect of this is that the most outspoken of these spokespersons has not only simulated the results that 'defy belief' - that exceed that allowable limit in the transfer of electric energy - but has also openly acknowledged that result. Yet, far from being intrigued or even - in advancing this knowledge for everyone's benefit - he is now actively engaged in flaming these threads that he can 'get me out the picture'.
If you will recall - excactly the same thing happened before. We had a full on replication - and no sooner was it ready to go to 'print' so to speak - no sooner had we marshalled the argument and the evidence - than two key players joined forces and actively tried to separate me from the invention. Those players were Fuzzy and Harvey. They locked the threads here - then locked me out of EF.com - and then started their own thread where I was not allowed to comment. Their pretext was that I was generally too 'thick' to have managed the evidence in the first instance. That I was imposing a spurious thesis on their independent discovery - and that there was a real physical risk to generating those frequencies and that it could be construed a danger. They also implied that I had hidden patent interests and that my representations were not to be believed - in any context at all. And surprise - surprise - far from promoting the technology - they then set about removing the most of that data from easy public access.
And nor have their efforts waned. Take a look at the threads in Poynty's forum. Fuzzy screams abuse as loudly as ever and they have even made public a private video that they pestered me to give them to let them see what I look like. They had three threads running concurrently criticising either me or the claim - under various themes. Utterly unscrupulous and utterly immoral. Harvey or his wife Laurel only use this forum to access any posters who are supportive of me - to advise them not to be. And the real joke is this. Poynty complains that I don't respect him. Somehow he feels that he can advance whatever disrespect he chooses at a wanton disregard of his moderation requirements - and not have that disrespect returned?
It leaves me wondering if they're rather overly anxious to put a stopper on all this good news. LOL. Soon their efforts will be seen to be ridiculous. Not sure what they'll do then. I'm ENTIRELY satisfied that this will still reach those academic forums. And then I'll be able to relax. Right now it's uphill. But not for much longer.
I'll post later on what I see is actually going on in that circuit. Right now I'm still licking my wounds after that last slew of posts that Poynty et al have managed. He's got a team of at least 5 contributors helping him there. And the worst of it is that they're also crashing into this computer which makes my link here rather tenuous. But it seems they can't yet do lasting damage to my APPLE. What a brilliant thing. My other computer has now been entirely dysfunctioned and I'll have to get it 'cured' if that's the term - on Monday.
Meanwhile - I assure you. Nothing makes me quite as determined as this on going attack. I see it as the death rattle of old age physics. And in with the new. My job now is to convince you all of this. I'll do my best.
Kindest regards,
Rosemary
Quote from: Rosemary Ainslie on April 30, 2011, 10:47:20 AM
So Guys, it seems that this thread is also about to be derailed. I am not sure that it will matter much what I write. And it seems that Harti has given Poynt license to do his worst.
What Stefan has done by not interfering here, is to allow for a voice whose only concern is to promote the facts, the truth, and provide some important insights from the conventional circuit theory perspective. Surely, these should not be denied.
Quote
The truly extraordinary aspect of this is that the most outspoken of these spokespersons has not only simulated the results that 'defy belief' - that exceed that allowable limit in the transfer of electric energy - but has also openly acknowledged that result.
The
true fact is this: I have performed a simulation based on your exact circuit that produces the same results (wave forms) as yours when measured precisely the same way, at the same circuit nodes.
However, I have at no time stated that current or power IS going back to the battery (the "-192W" post was "tongue-in-cheek" and preceded by a post stating that -9.94W
appeared going back to the battery. The "-192W" was obviously meant to be taken in the same context).
Quote
And nor have their efforts waned. Take a look at the threads in Poynty's forum. Fuzzy screams abuse as loudly as ever and they have even made public a private video that they pestered me to give them to let them see what I look like.
The
true fact is that this video
is not posted on the OUR forum.
Quote
And the real joke is this. Poynty complains that I don't respect him.
I don't recall ever complaining to you about any such thing. Your disrespect for anyone that questions your claims is obvious but irrelevant. What IS relevant and ONLY relevant, is whether your claims have any credible evidence to support them, and thus far there has been none.
Quote
Right now I'm still licking my wounds after that last slew of posts that Poynty et al have managed. He's got a team of at least 5 contributors helping him there.
Do you have any proof to support that bogus claim? ::) I assure you, I have absolutely no one helping me here.
Quote
And the worst of it is that they're also crashing into this computer which makes my link here rather tenuous. But it seems they can't yet do lasting damage to my APPLE. What a brilliant thing. My other computer has now been entirely dysfunctioned and I'll have to get it 'cured' if that's the term - on Monday.
Again, do you have any proof to support that ridiculous and totally bogus claim? Good grief Rose, how far will this nonsense go?
.99
Rosie you're beginning to sound delusional :o
your accusations and assumptions are sounding childish not what one would expect from a woman of science. STOP IT
Quote from: Groundloop on April 30, 2011, 01:43:21 AM
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fyOmoGluMCc&feature=player_embedded
Thanks Groundloop
Pete
Rose, could you please provide a response to this post? The readers here deserve to know the answers.
http://www.overunity.com/index.php?topic=10407.msg283609#msg283609
Thank you.
.99
Quote from: powercat on April 30, 2011, 12:27:01 PM
Rosie you're beginning to sound delusional :o
your accusations and assumptions are sounding childish not what one would expect from a woman of science. STOP IT
How old are you... five?
Ron
Quote from: poynt99 on April 30, 2011, 12:57:35 PM
Rose, could you please provide a response to this post? The readers here deserve to know the answers.
http://www.overunity.com/index.php?topic=10407.msg283609#msg283609
Thank you.
.99
I am sure there is no need for your arrogant demanding queries.
Why don't you mock up the circuit in real hardware and report your actual findings here?
I am sure you could manage this in one post rather than the endless stream of drivel you post?
Ron
Quote from: i_ron on April 30, 2011, 02:17:12 PM
How old are you... five?
Ron
Have you read any of the last six pages,you seem to understand nothing about what is going on ???
of course you can show us your successful replication of this circuit and all that free energy you have ???
.
Stefan requested a final diagram of Rosemary over a month ago.
Why is there still no diagram from her, so that we may replicate her circuit ?
The Boss
Quote from: Rosemary Ainslie on April 29, 2011, 04:26:14 PM
- but there's one thing I'm curious about. How did you get that oscillation if you indeed did a copy of our circuit. Just that. How did you manage that early oscillation 'first off' as you put it?
Rosemary
All the circuit diagrams were posted for this first simulation circuit that oscillated. What is it that you still don't understand about that version? I'd be glad to explain it. In fact, I am going to see about getting it also to work without the function generator.
.99
Quote from: poynt99 on April 30, 2011, 04:06:28 PM
All the circuit diagrams were posted for this first simulation circuit that oscillated. What is it that you still don't understand about that version? I'd be glad to explain it. In fact, I am going to see about getting it also to work without the function generator.
.99
That would be most welcomed, something constructive.
Just that I see problems with what you have presented so far,
so an actual working circuit would clarify things considerably.
Ron
Quote from: powercat on April 30, 2011, 03:47:08 PM
Have you read any of the last six pages,you seem to understand nothing about what is going on ???
of course you can show us your successful replication of this circuit and all that free energy you have ???
Unfortunately I understand harassment and bullying all too well, that is why I replied to your unkind post
An apology would be more in order, rather than to try to shift the focus of blame on to me. It won't work.
Ron
edit
Quote from: i_ron on April 30, 2011, 04:42:45 PM
Unfortunately I understand harassment and bullying all too well, that is why I replied to your unkind post
An apology would be more in order, rather than to try to shift the focus of blame on to me. It won't work. I accept your contract, on the condition I may refuse at a later date .
Ron
If you think I'm trying to harass and bully,then you must believe there is a big conspiracy out to get Rosie anyway she certainly seems to believe it :o
I hope you can turn things around and successfully produce a circuit that does what she claims,
because Rosie desperately needs it.
If you haven't seen the videos from the last two years, here they are, some of these names you will recognise from this forum they are good and trusted members like yourself,unfortunately they had failed let's hope you succeed.
http://www.youtube.com/results?search_type=videos&search_query=Rosemary+Ainslie+circuit&search_sort=video_date_uploaded&suggested_categories=28&uni=3 (http://www.youtube.com/results?search_type=videos&search_query=Rosemary+Ainslie+circuit&search_sort=video_date_uploaded&suggested_categories=28&uni=3)
In looking closer at the first circuit Hum and I were using in the simulation, I would not recommend anyone try it.
Yes it oscillates quite happily, but the problem is with the inductance we purposely introduce in the Gate. This causes a huge VGS voltage (+20V down to -30V) swing on the MOSFET Gate-to-Source, and we know that the VGS should never exceed +/- 20V for safety of the device. If anyone has any suggestions to fix this problem (I've already tried 20V zeners across G-S, and it kills the oscillation), let me know. **
Either circuit I have shown (-DC voltage source in Q2 Source leg, OR +DC voltage source in the Q2 Gate leg) works well and doesn't even approach +/-20V VGS.
If anyone sees a problem with either of the aforementioned circuits, let me know and I'll do my best to explain them. They do work, but it is possible I've missed something.
.99
**This is a prime example of the awareness required when designing with SPICE. You can design something that is beyond the allowable limits of the components you are using (i.e. they won't "blow up" in the simulation). The version of PSpice I am using has "Smoke Parameters", but I am not sure that this includes an excessive VGS voltage (I rather doubt it). So that is why I checked the VGS voltage. ;)
Hi I-ron
totally in accordance with you
I follow this thread intermitently because the Rose's results seems very interesting to me.
And i am very surprised of the agressivity of the detractors of the presented technology.
And most of all, the tremendous package of theory (good or not good ) in comparison with the very few real life testing and results in those last time.
Groundloop recently offers a very easy to replicate shematic (5 mosfet and 4 resistors and some wiring wounded to a heating element ) seems not to be a very difficult and expensive experiment to realise . I think (with my very low electronic education ) i can do it (and probably will do it soon)
So to all the "könner " here, why don't you test it in real life and than bring back your results as Rose did .
I am a beginner but i need really good education and for me a good educator is somebody that stores real life experience in the pocket , all the rest is in my opinion , academic pleasure
good luck at all
laurent
Ok guys. I really need to move on. What I've done is this. I can't take a photo of the set up as it is at the moment because my other computer has been rifled and doctored with a virus. And that holds my photobucket software. But what I have done is a whole lot of tests to see if I can explain this. NOTA BENE ALL. The ground of the signal generator is MOST CERTAINLY at the point marked B on the video. In other words it's BEFORE THE CSR. And by the way - it makes not an ounce of difference if it's there or if it's positioned as shown in our DEMO diagram. So. Right now the CSR is precisely in series with and on the same rail as the negative terminal of the battery supply which then conforms to my circuit variation of 'a poynted revision' shown earlier.
Then. I took the tests through an extreme range of duty cycle tests - most on - most off. This shows the advantage of the oscillation as it relates to the temperature rise. THEN I did a whole lot more tests to show the subtleties of the off set. I took the temperature to 240 degrees and climbing. But I started melting the plastic container - so I filled it with water. It took the water temperature to plus/minus 80 degrees and climbing. I think I'm dissipating upwards of 120 watts - but will only confirm this in the morning. The test has been running for the last 4 hours. And right now - on the highest frequency setting I'm FINALLY seeing evidence of battery voltage actually climbing. So is the water temperature rising - and I'm not sure how much longer I can sit up. I'm exhausted and there's nothing interesting on television to ease the boredom.
The point is this. There is absolutely no difference in where we position the ground of the functions generator. With the exception of a short 5 minutes where the offset started rising (it gets a mind of its own) there have been absolutely NO VALUES of the cycle mean - the mean - or the math trace showing anything other than a negative value. And that's notwithstanding the clear evidence of dissipation of wattage in excess of 100 watts. And I am FINALLY seeing a stable 'kick off' voltage over the batteries. It needs a high frequency.
I'll do the downloads in the moring and walk you through the different settings as they relate to the temperature rise.
PLEASE DO NOT PAY ANY ATTENTION TO POYNTY's ENDLESS INNUENDOS AND HINTS AND INTERRUPTIONS. He is talking a whole lot of nonsense. When I've done those downloads - I will then walk you through my own take on what is happening. You can take it on board - or not - as required. And Peter and Ron - as ever. Thanks for the interventions. It gets rather lonely in this corner of mine. And I missed your post there woopy. Thank you. It's always heartening and frankly, was much needed.
I'm reasonably sure that there will be those readers here who will be delighted at this. And by the same token there will be those who are not. lol.
Kindest regards,
Rosie
Just checked. Water showing some really small bubbles. We're at sea level but the temperature reading is now 104 degrees c. Shouldn't it be boiling at this level? Anyway - the voltage on the batteries now at 60 from an early 59.7. I really need to turn it off. I'll do the screen shot downloads first thing tomorrow. I'm also not sure how much water in that container. I think it's about a litre. I'll check this tomorrow as well.
edited. Added comments and corrected the spelling - I hope.
Quote from: Rosemary Ainslie on April 30, 2011, 06:33:38 PM
The ground of the signal generator is MOST CERTAINLY at the point marked B on the video. In other words it's BEFORE THE CSR. And by the way - it makes not an ounce of difference if it's there of it's its positioned as shown in our DEMO diagram.
What is this in reference to? I certainly have not questioned the position of the ground for the function generator...has someone else? Could you please explain what it is you are trying to convey and why?
.99
Quote from: Rosemary Ainslie on April 30, 2011, 06:33:38 PM
The ground of the signal generator is MOST CERTAINLY at the point marked B on the video. In other words it's BEFORE THE CSR. And by the way - it makes not an ounce of difference if it's there or if it's positioned as shown in our DEMO diagram. So. Right now the CSR is precisely in series with and on the same rail as the negative terminal of the battery supply which then conforms to my circuit variation of 'a poynted revision' shown earlier.
Regarding the CSR, that is incorrect. You may wish to review your own diagram of the
as-built circuit (attached).
Where is the CSR (Rshunt) located in that circuit diagram Rose?
Unless you have physically re-configured the apparatus, the Rshunt is still where it is as shown on the attached diagram, i.e.
not in series with the battery as you believe.
btw, the function generator ground is supposed to be connected to point B in the diagram. Was it connected somewhere else all this time? Nonetheless, where the function generator ground is connected has no bearing on the electrical connections to the CSR shunt resistor array. You may also wish to review the snapshot of the underside of the perf-board as a reality check.
EDIT: I've looked at the video captures I have and it is clear that the function generator ground lead was connected to the ground BUS, which is in fact point
B (it always was). So what is all the fuss over this function generator ground connection?
EDIT2: For clarity, I have added the function generator ground to the
as-built circuit diagram. See attached.
.99
Quote from: i_ron on April 30, 2011, 02:24:11 PM
I am sure there is no need for your arrogant demanding queries.
Ron, do I have a quarrel with you? If not, kindly back off sir.
Quote
Why don't you mock up the circuit in real hardware and report your actual findings here?
Perhaps you might take the trouble to ask if this is already in the works before assuming it isn't. I'm waiting for some MOSFETs to arrive, as I could not locate my spare. btw, why haven't you posted your build and test results?
Along these lines, I would very much like to hear your thoughts on what you believe is going to be different in the actual results vs. the simulation results?
Quote
I am sure you could manage this in one post rather than the endless stream of drivel you post?
Ron
Have I missed your technical contributions in this thread?
If you have already covered all the material (or "drivel" as you put it) I've put forward in this thread, then could you please provide a few links so that I may save myself some time and effort, and just reference your work directly?
Thanks,
.99
Quote from: Rosemary Ainslie on April 30, 2011, 06:33:38 PM
snip
I'll do the downloads in the moring and walk you through the different settings as they relate to the temperature rise.
PLEASE DO NOT PAY ANY ATTENTION TO POYNTY's ENDLESS INNUENDOS AND HINTS AND INTERRUPTIONS. He is talking a whole lot of nonsense. When I've done those downloads - I will then walk you through my own take on what is happening.
Good work Rosemary!
Look forward to the morning.
I can't help but draw a parallel between your device and cold fusion.
Pons and Fleischmann announced over twenty years ago now and were promptly shot down by their critics. MIT put the "final nail" in their coffin.
Yet the E-Cat, the first commercial cold fusion device now numbers 94 and is running in 4 countries
http://freeenergytruth.blogspot.com/2011/04/97-e-cats-in-operation-right-now.html
All the nay sayers and agenda workers effort was for naught!!!
I predict a better future for you too, Rosemary, will keep the old fingers crossed!
Warm wishes
Ron
So sorry all. I've overslept - and we've got a gathering of the clan again as it's Sunday - so I'm busy until this afternoon. If I can make an early departure will do so. However. I should have enough time then to do the necessary.
Watch this space. ;D
If I sound excessively smug it's because the offset switch held for as long as it did. That was a first. Then the 'hammer head' oscillation shape has gone - so it was never due to a replacement MOSFET as I thought earlier. It must simply have been something in the other Functions Generator. And the final point is that it's now been taken to 'BOILING POINT'. That's a first. I only managed this because there was none of that 'slipping'. What happens is that the 'input' voltage during the 'on' time just keeps climbing and climbing the minute I give it a positive swing adjustment. BUT LAST NIGHT IT HELD - except for a brief interval. The temperature was very high - but none of that scarey 'runaway' effect.
Perhaps I'm getting some much needed assistance from our Good Lord. God knows I need it.
Take care everyone. And beware the forum 'LURKER'. ;D
Rosie
Sorry Ron. I skipped what I thought were simply posts from Poynty and have now seen your own good wishes. There is absolutely NO QUESTION that what is happening on this circuit is, to say the least, anomalous. And yes. I've also been following the 'cold fusion' news. But Pons and Flieishman were somehow persuaded to demonstrate a 'flop'. They'll need me DEAD before I oblige. I am decidedly NOT an academic. So I'm out of harm's way when it comes to peer pressure. And unlike them - there are more than just a 'handful of students' as mookie claimed, who are very aware of this technology. Let's hope we'll broaden the range of witnesses to include those academicians. And - if I can get my head around it - I'll try and get you all a schematic that you guys are more comfortable with. Poor knowledge of good circuit design - is my only weakness. lol. I wish! ::) But I'm rambling. And I've got to run. BRB
edited the word 'decidedly' - I think it had too many 'e's, lol. And I don't think I should have said BRB (be right back) but - perhaps - BBL (be back later). Love all this internet 'speak'. Soon we'll be able to do without any whole words at all. ;D
Ok guys. Here are those test results.
TEST
Difference in temperature rise between the extreme 'on' and 'off' settings of the duty cycle to the limit of the functions generator's capacity.
FIRST SETTING = longest on
SCRN.0336.JPG
DATE 2011/04/30
TIME 20.55.43
DUTY CYCLE 81.18% ON.
RESULTS
TEMPERATURE RISE +/- 20 degrees C greater ambient = plus/minus 2.5 watts.
MORE WATTAGE RETURNED TO V BATT THAN DELIVERED therefore INFINITE COP
SECOND SETTING = shortest on
SCRN.0339.JPG
DATE 2011/04/30
TIME 21:07:44
DUTY CYCLE 18.82% ON.
RESULTS
TEMPERATURE RISE +/- 49.8 degrees C greater ambient = plus/minus 8 watts.
MORE WATTAGE RETURNED TO V BATT THAN DELIVERED therefore INFINITE COP
One thing we may conclude form this test, is that MORE power and energy is dissipated in the load as the oscillation period increases, agreed?
Could you please explain why the oscillation does not occur during the time period the function generator is ON? This is clearly seen by your first test with the 81.18% duty cycle ON.
.99
Rose,
There has been at least one member here who has expressed an interest in replicating your apparatus. At this time however, you have not yet given assurance that any one circuit diagram posted in this thread is "the right one", despite several requests (including from Stefan), and several offered to choose from, including one of your very own edited to add Q2-Q5 with their true connections.
So for the benefit of the readers and those interested in replicating, I pose these two questions for you:
1) Do you want your apparatus replicated by others?
If the answer is "YES", then:
2) Is the attached circuit diagram (an edited version of your own) an accurate depiction of the apparatus used in the video demonstration?
A simple "YES" or "NO" will be great.
.99
What followed on from here is a series of shots to show the results from a minor adjustment to the offset. The first screen shot shows the limit of that adjustment. There was a second adjustment during the test procedure to re-adjust the offset to return the positive back to this position. I'll down load a few of these because I actually took 15 downloads showing the same thing, essentially, with an ever but slow increase in the rise of temperature. It rose from 66.9 degrees C to it's final temperature of 240 degrees C. That's when I put it in water. And then it took the water up to 80 degrees centigrade where it pretty well stabilised. I'll post in the time it took when I've checked the time on those downloads.
Also, NOTA BENE guys, the voltage across the batteries that I mentioned in my earlier post is wrong. But just note that the battery voltage both climbs and falls - on these slower frequencies. This is most clearly evident at the very slowest fequency which is when we get that delicious oscillation that just goes on forever.
Also. I've not posted all the downloads - 15 in all - as they're too repetitive. I downloaded a screen shot at certain intervals just to relate it to temperature rise. I think I'll post three as that should be fairly representative. So. The first is to show the 'offset' detail. And two others - at the beginning and near the end - when I had to immerse it in water. Again. The water temperature then stabilsed after an hour or so - at a little over 80 degrees centigrade.
ADDED
ALSO Please note. The actual level of oscillation across the CSR reduced at those higher wattage levels. But it did nothing to stop the temperature rise. The offset was pretty well stable but I think it may have ended up fractionally 'higher' than the start of these tests.
Sorry. I posted the wrong download for that conclusion. Here's the right one. Just for proof of how long it took to get the temperature stabilised.
Added.
SO. Say the start was at 21.27 hours - concluded at 22.56 hours - gives a time of about 1.5 hours.
Then Guys - and in conclusion - in the space of a few short minutes - with an increased frequency - it then took the temperature to boiling point - I think. It wasn't actually boiling but it had small bubbles. And the temperature recorded at 104 degrees C - or thereby, from memory. No noise, surprisingly - that one associates with a kettle at boiling point. Perhaps that's the lower wattage than our kettles put out.
Anyway here's that final screen shot. The battery voltage simply rose to 62 Volts (sorry I wrote degrees) and then stabilised at that value. I didn't get that final screen shot - but that was the voltage I posted before I went to bed last night.
ADDED
NOTE that at these higher frequencies the level of oscillation across the batteries and the CSR increase.
Also. I unfortunately did NOT take a screen shot at the conclusion of that test before I increased the frequency. Because it barely took 10 minutes to raise the temperature of the water from plus/minus 80 degrees C to that 104 degrees C. And the battery voltage was absolutely stable at 62 something. I should have made another screen shot.
AND MAY I ADD, lest anyone miss the significance here - this may be the first time in recorded history that water was taken to boiling point at an evident ZERO cost of energy from a supply source. That's got to give pause for thought. ;D
Quote from: Rosemary Ainslie on May 01, 2011, 11:35:31 AM
AND MAY I ADD, lest anyone miss the significance here - this may be the first time in recorded history that water was taken to boiling point at an evident ZERO cost of energy from a supply source. That's got to give pause for thought. ;D
Quote from: Rosemary Ainslie on May 01, 2011, 11:35:31 AM
Then Guys - and in conclusion - in the space of a few short minutes - with an increased frequency - it then took the temperature to boiling point - I think. It wasn't actually boiling but it had small bubbles. And the temperature recorded at 104 degrees C - or thereby, from memory. No noise, surprisingly - that one associates with a kettle at boiling point. Perhaps that's the lower wattage than our kettles put out.
Anyway here's that final screen shot. The battery voltage simply rose to 62 Volts (sorry I wrote degrees) and then stabilised at that value. I didn't get that final screen shot - but that was the voltage I posted before I went to bed last night.
ADDED
NOTE that at these higher frequencies the level of oscillation across the batteries and the CSR increase.
Also. I unfortunately did NOT take a screen shot at the conclusion of that test before I increased the frequency. Because it barely took 10 minutes to raise the temperature of the water from plus/minus 80 degrees C to that 104 degrees C. And the battery voltage was absolutely stable at 62 something. I should have made another screen shot.
AND MAY I ADD, lest anyone miss the significance here - this may be the first time in recorded history that water was taken to boiling point at an evident ZERO cost of energy from a supply source. That's got to give pause for thought. ;D
Good stuff!!! Rosemary that is food for thought, for sure. I am not clear what you are calling higher frequencies? But no problem for me to wait until the people away on holiday are back and can draw a representative circuit.
Take care
Ron
Lol. Thanks Ron. Now guys. About that circuit. I have no idea how the circuit should be configured. But these are the points that are critical. The CSR is positioned in series with the negative terminal - else the measurements there could be contended. That's why I went this route of experiments. I need to put paid to any implication that the voltage across the CSR is NOT representative of the current flow to and from the battery.
Then. What needs to be shown in any schematic is that confusing arrangement of MOSFETs. But when you actually physically move the ground of the Signal to the Gate of Q2 - it surely is clearer? In other words there is an applied negative signal directly to the gate of Q2. I'm aware that there's a link between the source and gate of both Q1 and Q2. But in my mind's eye I see them operating independently. Which is why I, probably erroneously, asked that the rails be entirely separated.
But having said that - I really need one of you to come up with the actual design. The Source and Gate of Q2 are transposed in relation to Q1. And there is no change to the Drain of either of them. If I get my computer up and running tomorrow I'll try and draw this all as I actually see it. otherwise, as Ron has mentioned - I'll need to wait for a friend of mine who's away at the moment. And failing that - that I'll need to ask someone on the team.
Groundloop - this all means that your schematic needs a minor modification. Sorry about that guys. But it's the best I can do.
Then about the voltage across the battery. Just ask yourselves if this is representative? If those voltages are simply a figment of the imagination or if they're actually indicative of the voltages measured there? If they are not then we've done something that is absolutely inexplicable. We've measured a voltage change - evident on both the source and the drain rail of a circuit supply - that we're being asked to believe has nothing to do with those actual battery voltages. Patently that's a whole lot of cobblers - or the standard method of measuring battery voltage is just FLAWED.
Then one must ask oneself if the current flow that measured through the shunt is also just a figment of the imagination - or if that is representative. Again. Unless we absolutely defy standard protocols for measuring current flow - then that too, is a spurious argument. It is indeed required to factor in for frequencies that vary the shunt's impedence. But that's calculable. But even then - it's hardly significant. Whether the voltages must be factored higher or lower makes NO DIFFERENCE to the direction of that flow. And more appears to be returned to the source than to come from the source. Which puts the sum of that current squarely in negative territory.
And finally one must ask oneself about the correctness in measuring the wattage dissipated at the load as a consequence of this applied voltage and applied current. As this dissipates some significant and measurable temperatures - then one can assume that at least some wattage is being dissipated. But no wattage is being measured to have been lost from the supply in generating all that work.
It's all good news guys. But I grant you. I need to resolve that MOSFET to make this clearer to you.
I'll get back here tomorrow.
Kindest again,
Rosemary
@ All readers,
So it would seem that Rose has now indirectly answered the question regarding her own published circuit diagram; it is apparently not representative of the apparatus shown in the video demonstration, even though the underside view of the board is verifiable proof that it in fact IS.
Rose is claiming that the CSR (Rshunt) is in series with the battery, when everyone can see in plain view that it is not. I would be interested to hear from ANYONE, their argument (with evidence) proving that the CSR (as seen in the video demonstration) is connected as per Rose's description, as opposed to how it is depicted in the last circuit diagram I posted, i.e. her own edited diagram "Protoboard_schema_added3.png".
In fact, I will pledge another $500 to this forum's overunity prize fund if anyone can successfully prove it.
.99
I have never been afraid to stick my neck out and risk making myself look foolish and this occasion is no exception . I may be missing something , but this is my take . If we compare the picture of the underside of the board with the diagram protoboard_scema_added etc , we notice one thing . In both cases all current entering or leaving the battery has to flow through the shunt [CSR]. The only possible exception would be if any current could flow through the function generator . So what did I miss?
Quote from: neptune on May 01, 2011, 02:23:38 PM
The only possible exception would be if any current could flow through the function generator .
;)
.99
To minimize any confusion about what is being disputed, here is a diagram showing the CSR in two very different positions, and they are referenced accordingly.
Based on Rose's edit of one of my diagrams and her descriptions, I believe the top diagram illustrates where she is claiming the CSR is connected. Rose can correct me if I am wrong.
ETA: I might add that the bottom depiction of where the CSR is located and how it is connected, is per this diagram when it was originally published on Rose's blog and in the demonstration video. In fact I took this graphic directly off the demonstration video myself. Edits were made to add Q2-Q5, a few node "dots", and most recently the FG ground.
.99
Quote from: Rosemary Ainslie on April 29, 2011, 04:26:14 PM
Guys - this is STRANGE. I posted the following - post 964 - for those who would care to go back and check. In it, among other things I stated the following
"Poynty - It does not make a blind bit of difference to the waveform or the results whether the ground from the signal generator is directly on the shared negative rail or if it's in series with the shunt. The fact that it was set up that way at the demo was happenstance. The fact is that it's more conventient to keep the ground in the shared rail becaause we were running two osciloscopes and 4 channels - concurrently. That made the the junction at D rather crowded. In point of fact it is normally at the pin marked at D on the video. But that's because I usually only ever use the LeCroy. I've just checked the video and the board. Rght now and for those shots I took to argue your 'undersampling' quibble - it is and usually is positioned at D - in series with the shunt. I wonder what difference it would make to your waveforms if you placed it at the negative rail. I'd be interested to see. I suspect very little. But in any event it's wrong. It is properly in series with the CSR."
I am absolutely not able to explain that. I need to reboot here. But there is no question that someone disabled that post in order to prevent me from referencing it. I see that there are two posts of mine missing. I'll see if this even shows up when I post it and will then get back here.
It appears that this post is definitely on public view. A friend of mine emailed it to me so that I could copy it over here. I'm not sure that this is clear. What has happened here is to two of my posts have been taken out of my own view and there are precisely 2 less posts in this thread than are available on on the public forum. Can anyone advise me? According to my own access here are only 974 posts. And available to the public are 976 (this one excepted).
Moving on. Poynty - I am entirely satisfied that you do not represent the 'readers' and you certainly do not represent the readers' interests. From where I sit you have only EVER become actively engaged when you've set out to disprove a claim. I won't go into the 'thinness' of your arguments used against me - and I certainly won't comment on where you've worked elsewhere - but there's one thing I'm curious about. How did you get that oscillation if you indeed did a copy of our circuit. Just that. How did you manage that early oscillation 'first off' as you put it?
Rosemary
Guys -
Please read this post carefully.I really need to STRESS this. My post 964 was REMOVED from my own view. Still is. I believe YOU can all still see this. I CAN'T. Perhaps someone out there can check. Where I could access view of this on a second backup computer - this has now been doctored with a virus that I can't open up anything at all. In other words I can't see that post. If I could I would shove it under Poynt's nose as continually and as often - as he shoves that
INCORRECT schematic under ours. I've answered this at length. He or Harti have removed my access to that answer. Can I make it any clearer.
Cat seems to think that I'm delusional in referencing these things. I wish I were - because its a delusion that both my computers share. And it's precisely the same delusion that sundry team members suffer from because they alerted me to the number sequence difference in the first instance. Then the delusion is also shared with that technician who doctors that virus. And - lo and behold - then my bank balance ALSO suffers from that same delusion. Because I have to make a withdrawal in the region of R400 to that technician. And finally my camera sees the same delusion. So. Here we have it. Delusion by contagion. ::) That's a new one for the books.
Now. What I've done is photographed the screen to show you my post numbers. I hope it's going to be clear enough. I know that I've used the high definition mode - so it should be. It will show you the DATE. And it will show you the number sequence of my posts. I have also photographed the number sequences here. I'll post that too. Then I will impose on you all to compare it to your own. You will see that I can no longer access my own post. It is not available to me when I 'log in' as a member to overunity .com.
BUT. I keep my software for the photo downloads on my OTHER COMPUTER. They've 'fried' that computer. So it'll take a day or two before I can post up that picture - assuming always that I'm not booted off here before then. I hope - by now - you're beginning to understand the sophistication and the 'orchestration' of this attack. All is achieved by INNUENDO and PROPOGANDA. I'm walking a very tight and very high wire. RIGHT NOW Poynty's 'bastion of final defense' is to keep posting that schematic. He has run out of all other argument. That's precisely why he needed to remove me from accessing that post of mine.
I've said this before. If I am suffering from some kind of paranoid delusion - then by the same token I'm deluded by an awful lot of evidence. So. Let me FINALLY state the relevance of that shematic. If it turns up again, and again AFTER THIS - then I will simply copy this post in reply. And this time I've taken the precaution of copying this post into my word documents. So. If this is also removed - then I can more easily access it to repost it as required.
Now. As he shows that circuit - THAT IS INDEED HOW WE CONFIGURED IT - BUT ONLY FOR THE TEST DEMONSTRATION - Poynty's inclusion of the Q2's excepted. THAT IS ALSO HOW WE DEMONSTRATED IT. But it is NOT how we have configured it in all other tests. Correctly and properly the ground of the functions generator is attached DIRECTLY to the Gate at Q2 -
MARK D on the video. And correctly - the shunt or CSR - is DIRECTLY IN SERIES WITH THE NEGATIVE RAIL OF THE BATTERY SUPPLY SOURCE. We were running 2 oscilloscopes for the demo. That rail at 'D' was too crowded. THEREFORE did we put in directly to the 'shared' node. It makes NOT THE SLIGHTEST DIFFERENCE TO OUR RESULTS. But it most certainly CAN be argued that the shunt is then not representative of current drawn from the battery - which is where they are trying to go with this argument.
Please understand this. His final argument rests on a 'quibble'. And he's attempting to confuse the hell out of you all. Just know this. The shunt or CSR is NOT where he keeps showing it. It is directly in series with the negative rail of the battery supply source. If it were not there the the voltages COULD be contended. The confusions of those MOSFET positionings I PROMISE YOU will be cleared up - hopefully earlier rather than later in the coming week.
Kindest regards,
Rosemary
Hi Rose post #964 is a post by Poynt for me?
Pete
poynt99
TPU-Elite
Hero Member
Posts: 1489
It's not as complicated as it may seem...
Re: Rosemary Ainslie circuit demonstration on Saturday March 12th 2011
« Reply #964 on: April 29, 2011, 11:49:54 AM »QuoteNow that the "as-built" circuit connections have been firmly re-established (reference diagram depicted in Simplification01_schema01.png), would anyone like to try and predict what changes might occur in the circuit operation if Q1 is completely removed from the circuit, and no capacitor or diode connected in its place?
.99
Quote from: vonwolf on May 01, 2011, 07:27:37 PM
Hi Rose post #964 is a post by Poynt for me?
Pete
Ok. That means they've now deleted that entire post. I'll give you the photos of this when I get that computer up. Just to assure you all that we are NOT deluded. LOL. Meanwhile just read the explanation of why that schematic is WRONG.
;D
Take care Pete,
Kindest regards,
Rosie
Quote from: neptune on May 01, 2011, 02:23:38 PM
I have never been afraid to stick my neck out and risk making myself look foolish and this occasion is no exception . I may be missing something , but this is my take . If we compare the picture of the underside of the board with the diagram protoboard_scema_added etc , we notice one thing . In both cases all current entering or leaving the battery has to flow through the shunt [CSR]. The only possible exception would be if any current could flow through the function generator . So what did I miss?
Hi Neptune. You're BANG ON. That's exactly right. And if you recall - Poynty's simulations show about 14 Watts COMING FROM the functions generator. Which is absolute nonsense. ALSO. It is now impossible to argue this because we are DISSIPATING IN EXCESS OF 100 WATTS. Where then did all that energy come from?
LOL.
Take care and thank you.
Rosie
Pete - if you're still there. Does this post now read 1032 on your computer?
Rosie
Hi Pete, Rose.
I've previously pointed out that there is a discrepancy in # of replies when comparing the total as you are logged on, and as you are logged off.
I have no idea why the difference, but that is the difference. Ask Stefan to check into it.
I would not worry too much about it.
.99
Quote from: Rosemary Ainslie on May 01, 2011, 07:40:29 PM
Pete - if you're still there. Does this post now read 1032 on your computer?
Rosie
Rose
Yep, well your question was post 1033.
Pete
Quote from: Rosemary Ainslie on May 01, 2011, 07:17:25 PM
Now. As he shows that circuit - THAT IS INDEED HOW WE CONFIGURED IT - BUT ONLY FOR THE TEST DEMONSTRATION - Poynty's inclusion of the Q2's excepted. THAT IS ALSO HOW WE DEMONSTRATED IT. But it is NOT how we have configured it in all other tests. Correctly and properly the ground of the functions generator is attached DIRECTLY to the Gate at Q2 - MARK D on the video. And correctly - the shunt or CSR - is DIRECTLY IN SERIES WITH THE NEGATIVE RAIL OF THE BATTERY SUPPLY SOURCE.
You changed the configuration, ok. Why was it so difficult to get you to simply admit that long ago, and
why have you changed it?
If that is what you have indeed done, then I will not question it, but I would like to see a new updated photo of both the top and bottom of the board. At the very least, could you please indicate on the drawing I made (which shows the CSR in series with the battery) where the probe is on the CSR, and which end has the probe tip and which end the probe ground? If you prefer just to tell us, that's fine too.
btw, is the Source of Q1 now connected directly to ground as the diagram shows?
Thanks,
.99
Quote from: Rosemary Ainslie on May 01, 2011, 07:40:29 PM
Pete - if you're still there. Does this post now read 1032 on your computer?
Rosie
I hope this takes. I saw your final answer there Pete. It's not in sync with my own numberings. I still have a post missing probably that very one. I've got to get out here because I think they're back into this computer. I can't find the 'reply' 'quote' buttons except on those earlier posts.
I WISH I could be cured of all these delusions.
LOL. I'll get back here tomorrow. If I've been 'expelled' then find me on my blog. Cheers guys
Rosie
With the changes then, this diagram is representative of how the circuit is now connected?
If so, could you please let us know the probe positions for the battery and CSR?
Thanks,
.99
Quote from: Rosemary Ainslie on May 01, 2011, 07:17:25 PM
Now. As he shows that circuit - THAT IS INDEED HOW WE CONFIGURED IT - BUT ONLY FOR THE TEST DEMONSTRATION - Poynty's inclusion of the Q2's excepted. THAT IS ALSO HOW WE DEMONSTRATED IT.
Oh, and thanks for
finally admitting that my circuit diagrams were indeed correct all along. ;)
ETA: I might also add that it is nice to see that your team is following our advice regarding the FG and CSR placements. ;) Keep up the good work. :) I trust we'll be seeing some rendition of the self-starter (i.e. no FG) version I posted some time soon as well. That's a relatively easy transition once you have the oscillation.
.99
Quote from: cHeeseburger on April 24, 2011, 02:29:06 PM
From Rose:
QuoteGuys - please note. There is absolutely NO WAY that one can do any power analysis on any circuit that has a waveform that is more complex than a direct current. Certainly it cannot be applied to the waveforms we're generating here. I do hope you realise this. And in as much as no-one has challenged all this nonsense I'm concerned that perhaps the most of you do not know this. If you doubt it - then look it up.
Where do we "look it up"?
WTF? Poynt is doing the exact same set of measurements at the exact same points in the exact same circuit you have been doing ever since day 1. And showing the exact same results. His use of averaging (being done AFTER the real-time point by point multiplying) is exactly the same as your own use of averaging: MEAN AFTER MULTIPLY.
That full set of measurement done the same exact way you have always done it serves only to show that the sim agrees rather precisely with your bench testing when done in exactly the same way.
Then, after doing the work to replicate your circuit, your tests and your results almost to the millivolt, showing the validity of the simulation rather convincingly, Poynt goes on to move the scope probes and the shunt to the proper locations to allow for a true direct unpolluted measure of the battery voltage and the battery current.
He continues to use the same real-time point-by-point sample multiplying technique just as you always have done and then takes the mean of the resulting power trace, just as you have always done. The results clearly show a large net drain from the battery and a very low efficiency of power delivery to the heating element through the circuitry.
HE CAREFULLY POINTS OUT AND AS TESLASET HAS CLEARLY VERIFIED (AND I VERIFY AS WELL) THAT THE PSPICE W PROBE USES THE CONVENTION OF STATING A DRAIN FROM THE BATTERY AS A NEGATIVE POWER.
Why don't you just quickly put your shunt right at the battery negative terminal itself and take a good look? It's not hard to do. It will show you immediately that the net current is draining the battery and not charging it. No need for lengthy battery runs at all. No need for further confusion.
Rosemary, your arguments are so thoroughly "straw-man" based and so poorly stated at that, that you really should take a break from your incoherent ranting and just try to absorb what has been clearly shown:
The simulation behaves exactly like your circuit. When measured wrongly, exactly as you measure, the results agree with your results. When measured properly, the very low COP and gross inefficiency of powering a heating element using MOSFET parasitic oscillations is revealed clearly. End of story.
No amount of rude insults, calling people dogs and vermin and stupid, will change these well-demonstrated facts..
Humbugger
That was a great post Hum! ;) Sorry it was missed.
.99
Quote from: Rosemary Ainslie on May 01, 2011, 11:35:31 AM
Then Guys - and in conclusion - in the space of a few short minutes - with an increased frequency - it then took the temperature to boiling point - snip
Next major problem for North American experimenters is the IRFPG50, there is no stock at Mouser, Digikey, Newark. Mouser has 400 on order... be here in August. The 2SK1365 is an equivalent, same deal, no stock. One can backorder, expected delivery 30 to 71 weeks!
This might slow me down a bit. Can we drop down to say 600 volt FETs?
Ron
@poynt99
Yes its a pity cheeseburger like my real ID here and many others got put in the sin bin.
@Rosie...i was delighted to see that you have devised a way to measure the heat output. Still no way to check the battery properly..however if the volts of the battery do increase and are maintained its a start in the right direction. One thing I am confused about...do you measure the battery voltage at the terminal of the battery? I am dumbing the questions down so the greater audience can break it down into simple terms that we can all understand.
Also what was the time it took to heat the water and the volume?
You made claims this was the first device using ZPE to heat water...technically you could be right if we assume what you have is working. But how far are we off for a practical application. The reason I ask is people like Rossi although have not demonstrated everything beyond reasonable doubt is getting main stream academics involved and to date he has something that goes close to ZPE as far as effect. he does use some hydrogen and nickle and a catalyst in small quantities but gets one hell of an effect. if his device or the black light power one pans out in the near future in reality it makes your project redundant other than a curiosity.
Kind Regards as always
Rosemary,
I have updated my drawing, is this correct?
GL.
Quote from: Groundloop on May 02, 2011, 01:22:16 AM
Rosemary,
I have updated my drawing, is this correct?
GL.
Not quite Groundloop. But I've thought of something. I could sketch what's needed - scan it and then send it to you. Then you could make sense of it better.
Many thanks for your efforts nonetheless.
Kindest as ever,
Rosie
added I should be able to do this during the morning. I still have your email address. I'll get back to you here.
Sorry - another problem It seems everyone is still on holiday. Labour day in SA - I'll need to get this to you tomorrow.
Quote from: i_ron on May 02, 2011, 12:41:54 AM
Next major problem for North American experimenters is the IRFPG50, there is no stock at Mouser, Digikey, Newark. Mouser has 400 on order... be here in August. The 2SK1365 is an equivalent, same deal, no stock. One can backorder, expected delivery 30 to 71 weeks!
This might slow me down a bit. Can we drop down to say 600 volt FETs?
Ron
And Ron, I'll see what I can sort out by way of a source. I'll email you as well. But I actually don't think it'll matter one little bit if you were to drop the votages. And nor am I sure that we need to use the IRFPG50. Perhaps we should explore other ways and means. In any event - let me first get my design to Groundloop. He'll know what to do and then you guys will be able to sort of what's required.
This is the one aspect of replication that always worries me. The point is only that we need to encourage that negative voltage. And this little circuit is simply a first. There are many other ways. But let me rally here. I'll see what I can do.
Take care there Ron,
Kindest regards,
Rosie
@eisnad Karm . Whilst I am a big believer in Rossi`s technology , I can not see how it makes Rosemary`s circuit redundant . Initially at least , the E-cat will be used to feed the grid I suspect . Rose`s circuit is much cheaper , and will lend itself to people living off-grid by choice or necessity
IRFPG50 Mosfets can be bought on Ebay from Hong Kong .
Quote from: i_ron on May 02, 2011, 12:41:54 AM
Next major problem for North American experimenters is the IRFPG50, there is no stock at Mouser, Digikey, Newark. Mouser has 400 on order... be here in August. The 2SK1365 is an equivalent, same deal, no stock. One can backorder, expected delivery 30 to 71 weeks!
This might slow me down a bit. Can we drop down to say 600 volt FETs?
Ron
Ron,
Please drop a few part numbers here that you wish to try, and I'll see how the results look in the simulation. Of course I can only try them if there is a model for them in PSpice. One favorite in these circles is the IRF840, but even they are difficult to get these days. Let me know.
I've never seen V
DS go above 250V, so I think 600V varieties should be fine.
.99
Guys - I need to share something with you all - at the risk of boring you all to tears. I have, once before, actively assisted in bringing a replication to full on view and proof here on these forums. What happened was I was persuaded that all parties involved were, indeed, active in their promotion of any new and challenging scientific truths. What I did, deliberately, was allow them to take over the commentry - and I did this, thinking that they would then use their skills to promote this.
To my horror - what actually happened, and that with relative ease, was at the conclusion of that 'replication' I was attacked as if I were some kind of harbinger from hell. There was a brutal attempt made to separate me from this work. Not a bad thing, in and of itself. Indeed, I'd welcome it. But this was then coupled with a DENIAL of any benefits in this technology and the systematic removal of the results from public view. You will remember - perhaps - how Ashtweth advised all and sundry - in terms that were utterly degrading - if somewhat inarticulate - that I was NOT TO BE TRUSTED. And this was followed by Fuzzy's absurdly colourful links and rather immoderate statements - painted loud and in colour - also followed by terse commentary that was certainly as inarticulate as Ashtweth's. Both showed a certain need for a more liberal use of a spell check and a basic schooling in simple grammer. But the truth is that any thinking person would be well able to discern those excesses. And certainly their arguments were based on entirely unsubstantiated allegation.
BUT IT WORKED. NOTWITHSTANDING. That's the point. Threads were no sooner opened than they were locked. Fuzzy rifled my photobucket - found out which institution was opening their labs to a review of these results - and then wrote to the parties concerned to advise them that I was stealing his technology and that I had no rights to refer to any paper at all. Can you, for a minute, just picture the damage this did? Fortunately those people who were approached - did their own review of the facts and those communications were dismissed - in their entirety. But that delayed things as our own project was replaced with others during that interval where they considered things. And I was left for the most part of that year without the supervision that would otherwise have been relegated. Then. As if that wasn't enough Laurel and Harvey systematically approached and still do approach - each and every member who shows/showed interest in this technology - on their private messaging system to advise them that I was/am a liar and that this technology was/is a hoax.
Eventually the only voice I still had was on Poynty's forum. But there were no threads unlocked - for my easy access - to discuss any developments at all. I was now on campus - full time -and had much to share. But my hints were ignored. And now I was now hounded by MileHigh, Pickle and anyone who chose to to say exactly what they wanted. There was no attempt to moderate and when I appealed to Poynty to do something was told that I should just 'cope'. Eventually I deregistered and - then - they went through that fiasco of abusing their knowledge of my internet address to lock me out of view of their threads while they discussed me at leisure. I then wrote Poynty to advise him that this was certainly immoral if not illegal and that I would take action. Whereupon he wrote me the most scathing of some many scathing emails that I've been in receipt of - to advise me that I am 'a fool' and that I am 'not a scientist'.
Now. This is and was really the point where there was a serious breach in our relationship. But I am only interested in the technology. I really don't care what part I play in this. And until these last interventions - I sincerely supposed that Poynt was looking to find the 'truth'. We all know he's talented. We also know that he's very interested. And he certainly, at it's least, also acknowledged those results on his simulator. So. There was hope. BUT. With these interventions into my computer - with these ridiculous attempts to separate me from my posts - with these endless references to entirely irrelvant schematics - with a fence straddling that should be doing him some serious physical damage - with this dialogue that presumes the RIGHT to question everything and SAY nothing - with the tolerance of some seriously questionable posts on his forum - with the laughable denial of my own answers - THEN WHAT? It would be reckless IN THE EXTREME to allow him license to take over this thread. And that's what I'm needing. I DO NOT HAVE THE TIME TO SPEND HERE. I don't have the skills that you guys are looking for. I need someone and - right now I don't know where to turn.
If I felt for one minute that there could be someone who could take over here then I could fade out. I have NEVER wanted 'fame' - certainly I don't want any more notoriety. It's no fun seeing the kind of extreme venom that results from all this polarised opinion. And more to the point. I'm just not that well. I don't have the energy levels needed to protect this technology. And again. What I'm seriously frightened for is that this fragile 'early' knowledge is then appropriated by anyone at all who then tries to 'make it their own' - as was attempted in that earlier replication.
So. My earnest request to you all is this. PLEASE. Ignore Poynt's posts. They are made in the sincere effort to flaunt a disrespect for me that they can then appropriate the technology AS REQUIRED. Just bear in mind that I do no-one any harm. I have unfolded some knowledge that has been hidden from convention because of certain 'mind sets' related to energy transfer. And my abilities at logic are really good. Nor does one need training for this. Just common sense. I am deserving of considerably more respect than either he or Pickle allow and considerably more than the poisonous slurs that they indulge in on their forum. But this appeal to discount his endless commentaries is not made on this basis. It's made on the basis that I sincerely doubt that he intends progressing anything at all. I suspect he has a mandate. And I'm sure he will champion that in favour of any genuine admission. And I see an entirely immoral and opportunistic use of whatever he needs to - to reach that object. And then - as happened before - he'll position himself to deny everything. I don't think this technology will survive another such attack.
Kindest regards,
Rosemary
ADDED
Quote from: poynt99 on May 02, 2011, 08:16:18 AM
Ron,
Please drop a few part numbers here that you wish to try, and I'll see how the results look in the simulation. Of course I can only try them if there is a model for them in PSpice. One favorite in these circles is the IRF840, but even they are difficult to get these days. Let me know.
I've never seen VDS go above 250V, so I think 600V varieties should be fine.
.99
Thanks for the offer, I will see what is around, probably just a matter of trying a few different ones...
Ron
And here is my own ham fisted attempt at explaining that MOSFET positioning. Until I draw this for Groundloop - it's the best I can do.
The standard NFET is designed to trigger a positive current by applying a positive charge at the gate. I don't know anything about PFET's. But I believe it, conversely, is designed to trigger a negative current by applying a negative charge at the gate. I am open to correction but PROVIDED that this is the case, by which I mean, provided that a PFET works in antipolarity to the NFET - then that's what we've done. We've effectively transposed the Gate that it reads the NEGATIVE charge as required to allow the NEGATIVE CURRENT FLOW from the source and from the collapsing fields during the 'off' period of the duty cycle.
I'm reasonably sure this is correct because what we've done is applied the positive of the lead from the functions generator to Q1 and the ground from that same lead - directly to the gate of Q2. In effect - while the source and ground of Q1 and Q2 are connected - they're also operating as if they were separate.
What is surprising is this. There is precisely as much energy or current flow that is enabled to flow anticlockwise through the circuit as there is energy or current flow that is enabled to flow 'clockwise'. And this is where the early 'thinking' kicks in. The whole reason for this circuit configuration is to somehow expose the 'hidden' energy supply source that was available in the circuit materials. Therefore - if there is this excess, then perhaps that is where it comes from. And that hidden supply is now given the required 'path' that it can actually do some work.
Then it also means that we need to 'enable' that energy. I know that most of you configure your circuits that they're made of rather thin wire. I have found that thick copper wire DEFINITELY enhances the effect. In other words - I think it's best to design your circuit with a liberal use of this. And I can't say that it's actually 'enhanced' as much as it seems to give results a better repeatability. I remember that when we used the 555 switch - results were haphazard - albeit beneficial. But with this rather robust apparatus that we're experimenting with at the moment - results are certainly repeatable and that's heartening.
Then. It's still early stages but the indications are that it's possibly preferred to increase the frequencies. At that last setting - from memory - we were switching at a frequency of 8.1 Hertz. Perhaps someone here can work out the actual frequency from that last screen download. That's not really that fast and certainly doable. But the actual frequency of the oscillation itself obviously is greater than this. But that finds it's own pace, so to speak, from the circuit itself.
About the load that you use. We all - earlier - assumed that the greater the inductance the better. This is wrong. It seems that it is FAR preferable to reduce the inductance rather than increase it. For some reason this seems to increase the efficiency of that heat that is generated across the load. The size of the load will depend on the size of the batteries that you use. If you're looking to use small batteries then I think it may be preferred to 'reduce' the amount of material in the resistor. I only say this because I know we're using some hefty capacity. That means it's potentially storing an equally hefty amount of energy. But we're also able to induce a returned energy that is equal to whatever is supplied. The idea is that this easily induces the potential difference over the circuit. I wonder if it's possible that with too little energy from the supply against too much material from the circuit - that there could be a switch in balance of that transfer that then results in a loss rather than a benefit to the supply. I don't know. I'm just voicing something that you may want to look into.
Finally I know that there is more than enough interest here to get replications up. I actively dissuaded this earlier because I did not want to make those oscillations public. But right now, as this information is 'out' then it's preferable that this is actively explored. I'm reasonably certain that you'll all find your own preferred frequencies as each circuit will find it's own preferred oscillation. It's intimately related to the quantities of material related to the circuit components - and, as mentioned, possibly also to the supply.
And for those of you who may have functions generators. This is a really easy way to show this benefit. But I have a friend who is trying out a circuit without this. And as soon as I have that circuit design, certainly by not later than the weekend - then I'll post it - or I'll ask him to post it.
Kindest regards,
Rosemary
Quote from: neptune on May 02, 2011, 07:06:19 AM
IRFPG50 Mosfets can be bought on Ebay from Hong Kong .
But can they be trusted?
"We have previously talked about the issue of fake IC’s. The problem continues to get worse, and is making more and more press. Almost 10,000 incidents of fake ICs were recorded by the commerce department in the US in 2008 (the most recent stats available). Each ‘incident’ is usually several thousand IC’s. Over 2 million fake IC’s are seized per years, on average one shipment per hour of fake IC’s is caught and seized. How many slip through is anyones guess, and likely much higher."
http://www.cpushack.com/2010/09/13/the-increasing-threat-of-fake-ics/
Ron
Quote from: Rosemary Ainslie on May 02, 2011, 09:50:05 AM
Guys - I need to share something with you all - at the risk of boring you all to tears. I have, once before, actively assisted in bringing a replication to full on view and proof here on these forums. What happened was I was persuaded that all parties involved were, indeed, active in their promotion of any new and challenging scientific truths. What I did, deliberately, was allow them to take over the commentry - and I did this, thinking that they would then use their skills to promote this.
To my horror - what actually happened, and that with relative ease, was at the conclusion of that 'replication' I was attacked as if I were some kind of harbinger from hell. There was a brutal attempt made to separate me from this work. Not a bad thing, in and of itself. Indeed, I'd welcome it. But this was then coupled with a DENIAL of any benefits in this technology and the systematic removal of the results from public view. You will remember - perhaps - how Ashtweth advised all and sundry - in terms that were utterly degrading - if somewhat inarticulate - that I was NOT TO BE TRUSTED. And this was followed by Fuzzy's absurdly colourful links and rather immoderate statements - painted loud and in colour - also followed by terse commentary that was certainly as inarticulate as Ashtweth's. Both showed a certain need for a more liberal use of a spell check and a basic schooling in simple grammer. But the truth is that any thinking person would be well able to discern those excesses. And certainly their arguments were based on entirely unsubstantiated allegation.
BUT IT WORKED. NOTWITHSTANDING. That's the point. Threads were no sooner opened than they were locked. Fuzzy rifled my photobucket - found out which institution was opening their labs to a review of these results - and then wrote to the parties concerned to advise them that I was stealing his technology and that I had no rights to refer to any paper at all. Can you, for a minute, just picture the damage this did? Fortunately those people who were approached - did their own review of the facts and those communications were dismissed - in their entirety. But that delayed things as our own project was replaced with others during that interval where they considered things. And I was left for the most part of that year without the supervision that would otherwise have been relegated. Then. As if that wasn't enough Laurel and Harvey systematically approached and still do approach - each and every member who shows/showed interest in this technology - on their private messaging system to advise them that I was/am a liar and that this technology was/is a hoax.
Eventually the only voice I still had was on Poynty's forum. But there were no threads unlocked - for my easy access - to discuss any developments at all. I was now on campus - full time -and had much to share. But my hints were ignored. And now I was now hounded by MileHigh, Pickle and anyone who chose to to say exactly what they wanted. There was no attempt to moderate and when I appealed to Poynty to do something was told that I should just 'cope'. Eventually I deregistered and - then - they went through that fiasco of abusing their knowledge of my internet address to lock me out of view of their threads while they discussed me at leisure. I then wrote Poynty to advise him that this was certainly immoral if not illegal and that I would take action. Whereupon he wrote me the most scathing of some many scathing emails that I've been in receipt of - to advise me that I am 'a fool' and that I am 'not a scientist'.
Now. This is and was really the point where there was a serious breach in our relationship. But I am only interested in the technology. I really don't care what part I play in this. And until these last interventions - I sincerely supposed that Poynt was looking to find the 'truth'. We all know he's talented. We also know that he's very interested. And he certainly, at it's least, also acknowledged those results on his simulator. So. There was hope. BUT. With these interventions into my computer - with these ridiculous attempts to separate me from my posts - with these endless references to entirely irrelvant schematics - with a fence straddling that should be doing him some serious physical damage - with this dialogue that presumes the RIGHT to question everything and SAY nothing - with the tolerance of some seriously questionable posts on his forum - with the laughable denial of my own answers - THEN WHAT? It would be reckless IN THE EXTREME to allow him license to take over this thread. And that's what I'm needing. I DO NOT HAVE THE TIME TO SPEND HERE. I don't have the skills that you guys are looking for. I need someone and - right now I don't know where to turn.
If I felt for one minute that there could be someone who could take over here then I could fade out. I have NEVER wanted 'fame' - certainly I don't want any more notoriety. It's no fun seeing the kind of extreme venom that results from all this polarised opinion. And more to the point. I'm just not that well. I don't have the energy levels needed to protect this technology. And again. What I'm seriously frightened for is that this fragile 'early' knowledge is then appropriated by anyone at all who then tries to 'make it their own' - as was attempted in that earlier replication.
So. My earnest request to you all is this. PLEASE. Ignore Poynt's posts. They are made in the sincere effort to flaunt a disrespect for me that they can then appropriate the technology AS REQUIRED. Just bear in mind that I do no-one any harm. I have unfolded some knowledge that has been hidden from convention because of certain 'mind sets' related to energy transfer. And my abilities at logic are really good. Nor does one need training for this. Just common sense. I am deserving of considerably more respect than either he or Pickle allow and considerably more than the poisonous slurs that they indulge in on their forum. But this appeal to discount his endless commentaries is not made on this basis. It's made on the basis that I sincerely doubt that he intends progressing anything at all. I suspect he has a mandate. And I'm sure he will champion that in favour of any genuine admission. And I see an entirely immoral and opportunistic use of whatever he needs to - to reach that object. And then - as happened before - he'll position himself to deny everything. I don't think this technology will survive another such attack.
Kindest regards,
Rosemary
ADDED
Dear Rosemary,
What is it going to take for you to leave Harvey and Laurel's names OUT OF YOUR COMMENTS on and off the forums? We are not having anything to do with you or your technology. I have sent YOU private e-mails asking you to LEAVE US ALONE! I guess our request now needs to be put out in the open for all to see that we have been requesting this from you for a long time now.
So Stefan, will you PLEASE let OUR REQUEST be made known to the readers of your forum in this thread that we just want Rosemary to LEAVE US ALONE. We have tried to be tactful in requesting this of Rosemary on a private level but it is not working.
Laurel
They have them at Newark.. I get stuff from them all the time.
http://www.newark.com/jsp/search/productdetail.jsp?id=06F7972
Mags
4 potential candidates as an alternative to the IRFPG50.
These are available from Digikey:
1) STP16NK60Z (Digikey P/N: 497-4372-5)
2) STP10NK60Z (Digikey P/N: 497-4117-5)
3) NDFO8N60GZ (digikey P/N: NDFO8N60ZG05)
4) IPW60R190C6 (digikey P/N: IPW60R190C6)
These are all 600V parts with varying current and voltage limits. I tried to find some with a relatively high Gate charge required and high Ciss. The ON resistance is a challenge in that most are relatively low compared to the IRFPG50, but this may not be an issue. I suspect that many if not all alternatives may oscillate at a much higher frequency due to their lower capacitance specs, so that may be a problem.
Will have to try a few as Ron mentioned, and see what works best.
.99
The quantity of the water that I cooked last night is exactly 0.7 of a litre by the way. I've just measured it. The plastic inside lining is buckled somewhat but no leakage. I think that vacuum lining is still in tact.
Also for those who are looking for the information - the resistor element is an INCOLOY alloy heating rod element threaded with nichrome resistive wire. Resistance is 11.11 Ohm. L = 2.23micro Henries. 200 watts. But don't get married to these specs. Frankly - if I had my 'druthers' I'd have chosen one of those pancake type elements that one gets from electric stoves. There's something about that shape that I think may help things along. Anyway. Small is good. And I'd be very interested to see what happens on smaller batteries.
Regards,
Rosemary
A Sincere WARNING!
I would advise anyone wanting to replicate this oscillator, you do so without the use of an expensive, prized or valuable (to you) function generator. With the generator connected to a MOSFET Source pin, there is the real potential for high currents to pass through it, and these may cause permanent damage to the function generator. (I think we have already seen the results of this potential issue with the previous function generator used.)
There is a much better way to use this circuit without the potential danger for damage to your function generator, and I have shown that method in a previous post. Please ask if you want more information on this.
Regards,
.99
Quote from: Magluvin on May 02, 2011, 12:40:58 PM
They have them at Newark.. I get stuff from them all the time.
http://www.newark.com/jsp/search/productdetail.jsp?id=06F7972
Mags
"Availability
Availability: N/A
No Longer Available
Price For: 1 Each
Minimum Order Quantity: 500
Order Multiple Quantity: 500
Price: N/A"
Ron
Possible sources for purchasing the IRFPG50:
http://www.questcomp.com/QuestDetailsAll.aspx?pn=IRFPG50&pnid=91660&stock=YesOnly
http://www.ibselectronics.com/search_r.asp?mfgpn=IRFPG50
http://export.farnell.com/_/dp/1704010
.99
Quote from: poynt99 on May 02, 2011, 06:56:30 PM
Possible sources for purchasing the IRFPG50:
http://www.questcomp.com/QuestDetailsAll.aspx?pn=IRFPG50&pnid=91660&stock=YesOnly
http://www.ibselectronics.com/search_r.asp?mfgpn=IRFPG50
http://export.farnell.com/_/dp/1704010
.99
.99
Good find!
On the heating element issue, I see there was quite a discussion on the other forum... did anyone consider that it was a DC motor home or live stock
water heater? At 11 ohms and 200 watts that works out nicely to being a 48 volt element. Just a thought.
Ron
Quote from: Laurel on May 02, 2011, 12:33:23 PM
Dear Rosemary,
What is it going to take for you to leave Harvey and Laurel's names OUT OF YOUR COMMENTS on and off the forums? We are not having anything to do with you or your technology. I have sent YOU private e-mails asking you to LEAVE US ALONE! I guess our request now needs to be put out in the open for all to see that we have been requesting this from you for a long time now.
So Stefan, will you PLEASE let OUR REQUEST be made known to the readers of your forum in this thread that we just want Rosemary to LEAVE US ALONE. We have tried to be tactful in requesting this of Rosemary on a private level but it is not working.
Laurel
Guys, for the record Laurel is also CatLady and CatLady is Harvey's wife. Harvey's relevance to this technology is as written. I have not done a total reveal of his duplicity but that is in the 'offing'. Meanwhile under the name CatLady or Laurel - on either Energetic Forum or on Poynty's forum - if you care to check this - you will be able to see the level of gratuitous remark that at it's least - constitutes hate speech. But, like Fuzzy and Ashtweth - their level of articulation is somewhat constrained by a poor grasp of language skills. And in CatLady's case - this is compounded by an even poorer grasp of what constitutes good poetry. LOL. Hate speech rendered in really bad verse. A new dimension absurditities.
I'm hoping that my constant reference to these posts will encourage Poynty to do some much needed 'scrubbing' of his forum content - if he hasn't done so already. I noticed - with some amusement that my view was 'blocked' again last night. It seems they 'conferred' behind closed doors. Thankfully it's back up again. I like to dip in there now and then to check out the level of their alarm. Shock and awe. It seems to have left them speechless. The dogs are no longer barking. I trust it will stay that way.
;D
Kindest regards
Rosemary
And Laurel, BTW. If you want to know what it will take to stop my public references. Here's the task. Get rid of all those poisonous public statements and get your husband to retract whole tomes of commentary that mitigate against this technology. It's that simple. It will then remove 90 percent if not more of all your own internet posts. Which makes me think that your internet presence is simply advanced to frustrate all this good news - within the absurdly trivial context of your absurdly trivial protestscorrected the spelling of the word commentary. :)
Quote from: Rosemary Ainslie on May 02, 2011, 11:38:57 PM
Guys, for the record Laurel is also CatLady and CatLady is Harvey's wife. Harvey's relevance to this technology is as written. I have not done a total reveal of his duplicity but that is in the 'offing'. Meanwhile under the name CatLady or Laurel - on either Energetic Forum or on Poynty's forum - if you care to check this - you will be able to see the level of gratuitous remark that at it's least - constitutes hate speech. But, like Fuzzy and Ashtweth - their level of articulation is somewhat constrained by a poor grasp of language skills. And in CatLady's case - this is compounded by an even poorer grasp of what constitutes good poetry. LOL. Hate speech rendered in really bad verse. A new dimension absurditities.
I'm hoping that my constant reference to these posts will encourage Poynty to do some much needed 'scrubbing' of his forum content - if he hasn't done so already. I noticed - with some amusement that my view was 'blocked' again last night. It seems they 'conferred' behind closed doors. Thankfully it's back up again. I like to dip in there now and then to check out the level of their alarm. Shock and awe. It seems to have left them speechless. The dogs are no longer barking. I trust it will stay that way.
;D
Kindest regards
Rosemary
And Laurel, BTW. If you want to know what it will take to stop my public references. Here's the task. Get rid of all those poisonous public statements and get your husband to retract whole tomes of commentry that mitigate against this technology. It's that simple. It will then remove 90 percent if not more of all your own internet posts. Which makes me think that your internet presence is simply advanced to frustrate all this good news - within the absurdly trivial context of your absurdly trivial protests
Dear Stefan,
It was my great mistake for making the question of " What is it going to take " a rhetorical question for Rosemary. I just ain't got them proper words in my's vocabulary to speak what I means to such a high learned woman likes she is.
Dear Rosemary,
You are bringing up posts and/or conversations from Many Many Moons ago. We have been "done" with you a long time ago and we have asked that you no longer reference us in your comments on or off the Forums. Its that simple. We know you are pushing for a legal battle and frankly you are just not worth our efforts. We asked you in private e-mails to leave us alone and now in a public arena to leave us alone. From yesterday forward we should not see you referring to us on or off the forums. Very plain and very simple.
Thank you Stefan for letting us post this public request.
Laurel
CatLady
Harvey's wife
Quote from: poynt99 on May 02, 2011, 04:16:44 PM
A Sincere WARNING!
I would advise anyone wanting to replicate this oscillator, you do so without the use of an expensive, prized or valuable (to you) function generator. With the generator connected to a MOSFET Source pin, there is the real potential for high currents to pass through it, and these may cause permanent damage to the function generator. (I think we have already seen the results of this potential issue with the previous function generator used.)
There is a much better way to use this circuit without the potential danger for damage to your function generator, and I have shown that method in a previous post. Please ask if you want more information on this.
Regards,
.99
And as for this piece of nonsense. I would have referenced this earlier but it seems that my Apple has finally been infected with those delusions that Cat tells me to stop mentioning. Right now I'm using yet another back up and I just hope i can finish here without infecting this one too. It seems that the name Rosemary Ainslie does not exist and when I do log in I reach some kind of internet link that I've never heard of before. It's a fascinating place this. LaLa land - where all is possible. It seems urgently required that these rather incontrovertible claims of ours - be associated with all kinds of madness. Golly.
In any event, to continue. If there were any dangers at all to the use of your functions generator then I can only advise you that those that I have, and have used in the past, are on Institutional Loan. They would not have been allowed - if there was ANY KIND OF DANGER AT ALL. So. Please be advised. I think Poynt is poynting you all away from what he also knows will work. And - whatever circuit he recommends. Take it with a pinch of salt and try your own. He's not an EX - SPURT as it's referred to here.
Anyway guys. I'm off to see if I can get these delusions out of these computers of mine. Golly. So busy these days. I wonder if that 'shock and awe' is now turning into a less hidden insurgency campaign. Nice when I get to see the tactics better. I'm growing weary - but much, much wiser.
Take care all. And BEWARE THOSE FORUMS LURKERS.
Kindest as ever,
Rosie
;D
Rose:
Google and get the free program "Malwarebytes". It will find just about anything that is on your system/s. Also, use Firefox as your browser unless you are already, not as easy to be attacked. Plus, you can block all of the adds and the pages load lightning fast. Just a few suggestions in an effort to help.
Bill
Actually,
Rose's haphazard use of her loaned function generators is immaterial to the facts.
It is common sense that we should not be driving a high current output INTO our function generators. Perhaps there are those not familiar with how MOSFETs or transistor circuits work in general, and they do not see the MOSFET Source as a high current output, but I assure you, it can be, and in this case it is.
Why is the original circuit (see below) shown with the CSR (current-sensing resistor) located in the MOSFET Source leg? Note also that the function generator is connected to the MOSFET Gate only, not the MOSFET Source.
.99
Quote from: poynt99 on May 03, 2011, 08:20:08 AM
Actually,
Rose's haphazard use of her loaned function generators is immaterial to the facts.
It is common sense that we should not be driving a high current output INTO our function generators. Perhaps there are those not familiar with how MOSFETs or transistor circuits work in general, and they do not see the MOSFET Source as a high current output, but I assure you, it can be, and in this case it is.
Why is the original circuit (see below) shown with the CSR (current-sensing resistor) located in the MOSFET Source leg? Note also that the function generator is connected to the MOSFET Gate only, not the MOSFET Source.
.99
.99,
I don't see it as a problem, this function generator thing, any FG I have seen has some form of a high current output buffer and as such is a SOURCE, not a SINK. The circuit topology precludes any reverse flow other than the amount designed into the buffer.
BUT, what you guys are missing here is a major major bomb shell. Forget about Rshunt, the circuit is a circle and Rshunt can go anywhere in the circle as long as you use isolated ground measuring techniques.
What everybody has missed is the schematic calls out 6 batteries and only 5 are used in the vid!!! Get it??? 6 on the drawing and only 5 used, wow
And to top it off... nearly dead flat batteries, gosh! 5 fully charged batteries would read 63,5 volts and just look at the voltage in the video.
The duplicity of this must rank up there with the second (or third) killing of osama or at the very least obama's fake birth certificate!!
Geez, someone needs to start a forum for this!
Ron (tongue in cheek, mostly cheek...)
Here is a little circuit I did draw just now. It can be used as a half bridge
switch if one choose to use a double power supply (+V to COM to -V) or
just use the top part as a single switch. In that case the load should be
in series with the plus rail. Analog opto couplers can be ready bought or
home made by using one Light Depended Resistor (LDR) together with
a Ultra Bright Light Emitting Diode (UBLED) inside a light insulated box.
GL.
Quote from: i_ron on May 03, 2011, 11:14:40 AM
I don't see it as a problem, this function generator thing, any FG I have seen has some form of a high current output buffer and as such is a SOURCE, not a SINK. The circuit topology precludes any reverse flow other than the amount designed into the buffer.
Actually, any FG with an output that is capable of swinging both positive and negative is both a SOURCE AND SINK respectively. We know that the FG Rose was/is using is capable of a negative swing. In fact, it is only when the FG output is negative that the oscillation occurs, so we can conclude from this that the FG is providing a path to its internal negative supply rail, most likely through the PNP transistor of a complementary push-pull output stage, or similar.
Quote
BUT, what you guys are missing here is a major major bomb shell. Forget about Rshunt, the circuit is a circle and Rshunt can go anywhere in the circle as long as you use isolated ground measuring techniques.
I am aware of where the CSR can go and how to measure across it. However, the problem is that the CSR was not in the proper location to measure battery current, and Rose recently admitted to this fact. Did you not read that?
Quote
What everybody has missed is the schematic calls out 6 batteries and only 5 are used in the vid!!! Get it??? 6 on the drawing and only 5 used, wow
Is there a significance to this? I was aware of the differeing battery voltages btw. They actually have used 5 AND 6 batteries in two slightly different tests. Did you watch the demonstration video?
Quote
And to top it off... nearly dead flat batteries, gosh! 5 fully charged batteries would read 63,5 volts and just look at the voltage in the video.
60V, indeed. That would equate to about 12V each battery. It would be premature to assume that these batteries are "nearly dead flat" without knowing the particulars of these batteries.
Quote
Ron (tongue in cheek, mostly cheek...)
Careful with that cheek; you'll probably still need it for a while. ;)
.99
Quote from: poynt99 on May 03, 2011, 12:55:14 PM
Is there a significance to this?
.99
Yes, it is called humor. It points out some of the "how many fairies can dance on the head of a pin" arguments in these threads, but of course one needs a sense of humor to begin with.
Ron
Quote from: poynt99 on May 02, 2011, 06:56:30 PM
Possible sources for purchasing the IRFPG50:
http://www.questcomp.com/QuestDetailsAll.aspx?pn=IRFPG50&pnid=91660&stock=YesOnly
http://www.ibselectronics.com/search_r.asp?mfgpn=IRFPG50
http://export.farnell.com/_/dp/1704010
.99
Just a report on the first two links...
Quest have them for $3 each for 3, but they have a $25 dollar minimum charge. In an effort to get the order up to that I looked up some IL710's,
wow, $10 each. and "ships in five days" Digikey have them for less than $3.
Same with the rest of the things I looked up, way over priced and long delivery times.
Next I tried ibs, $17 something for three but $25 dollar delivery (snail mail) or $61 for bandit delivery.
So ended up with an order to Digikey for the STP16NK60Z and some other supplies.
Ron
Quote from: poynt99 on May 03, 2011, 08:20:08 AM
Actually,
Rose's haphazard use of her loaned function generators is immaterial to the facts.
It is common sense that we should not be driving a high current output INTO our function generators. Perhaps there are those not familiar with how MOSFETs or transistor circuits work in general, and they do not see the MOSFET Source as a high current output, but I assure you, it can be, and in this case it is.
Why is the original circuit (see below) shown with the CSR (current-sensing resistor) located in the MOSFET Source leg? Note also that the function generator is connected to the MOSFET Gate only, not the MOSFET Source.
.99
Just out of curiosity I connected up a FET, driving a load and applied first 9.5 volts positive to the gate and then 9.5 volts negative to the gate though a DMM set on the lowest scale, 2 mA and noticed that there is no measurable current flowing into or out of the gate.
In the sketch below it matters not that the FG ground lead is connected to B or D, except for a matter of .25 ohms.
Ron
PS:"Note also that the function generator is connected to the MOSFET Gate only, not the MOSFET Source." With statements like this can you not see the glorious humor of my 5/6 battery parody? LOL
Quote from: i_ron on May 03, 2011, 02:24:07 PM
Just out of curiosity I connected up a FET, driving a load and applied first 9.5 volts positive to the gate and then 9.5 volts negative to the gate though a DMM set on the lowest scale, 2 mA and noticed that there is no measurable current flowing into or out of the gate.
Correct.
Quote
In the sketch below it matters not that the FG ground lead is connected to B or D, except for a matter of .25 ohms.
Ron
Depends.
It
can matter if the FG is at a high frequency, OR if the circuit is self-oscillating (such as the case with Rose's actual circuit) when the CSR has even a tiny bit of inductance associated with it, which of course is not shown on that particular diagram.
.99
Quote from: i_ron on May 03, 2011, 02:24:07 PM
[...]
noticed that there is no measurable current flowing into or out of the gate.
[...]
good on ya, Ron, for trying out some tests with actual components!
throughout the mountain of posts relating to the RA circuit(s), i don't think there's been any issue with the single MOSFET example as far as the drive conditions are concerned
the possible issue with the FG o/p, here, is down to the build 'mistake'/ 'happy accident' which meant that the gate of the 1st device (Q1) got connected to the load via the Sources of Q2-Q5 whenever there was a suitably positive voltage on the Gates of Q2-Q5
because of the original placement of Rshunt (CSR), this suitably positive voltage could occur when the FG o/p (& therefore Q1 Gate) was negative
the negative FG o/p would then be connected via its total Q1 Gate drive impedance, to the load (receiving current i/p as a result)
this 'unintended' system connectivity appears to be largely, if not completely, responsible for these particular oscillations of the MOSFETS, thus the FG o/p could be subjected to a repetitive injection of current at a frequency of several MHz
in addition to the potential issue for the FG o/p - a side-effect of this Q2-Q5 switching of current cycles from load to Q1 Gate - with the original placing of Rshunt - is that any such 'unplanned' switched current path effectively by-passes Rshunt
the data collected on Rshunt would therefore *not* represent the total current flow across the battery stack (because there is now a switched parallel path across Q1 Gate-Drain)
the original Rshunt data can not therefore be used as intended in order to calculate the total energy draw from/to the battery
i hope that i've presented a fair and accurate summation of the situation with the system - as tested on March 12th - and relating to the issue with the FG o/p using the schematic as at that test
suggestions have been made from all concerned, and are possibly being followed up, as to how to avoid the issues i've just tried to summarize
right - back in the box for me
cheers all
np
http://docsfreelunch.blogspot.com (http://docsfreelunch.blogspot.com) [edited to remove superfluous 'from']
Quote from: nul-points on May 03, 2011, 03:25:40 PM
good on ya, Ron, for trying out some tests with actual components!
snip
i hope that i've presented a fair and accurate summation of the situation with the system - as tested on March 12th - and relating to the issue with the FG o/p using the schematic as at that test
suggestions have been made from from all concerned, and are possibly being followed up, as to how to avoid the issues i've just tried to summarize
right - back in the box for me
cheers all
np
http://docsfreelunch.blogspot.com (http://docsfreelunch.blogspot.com)
NP,
Yes, I agree to a certain point but no real numbers have come out of this.
But as .99 chose this particular sketch to illustrate his argument, I was more or less confining my rebuttal to this sketch... meaning that the FG as source or sink hypothesis is not applicable here, likewise the placement of Rshunt.
Ron
Golly. I think I'm in. Slow register though. And I still can't see any pictures. And no 'reply' quote buttons But there's a reply at the top of the page that I can use.
Guys - not sure if this is going to 'take' but I see that Poynty is still going on and on about that schematic. Here's what I think. I think that you should try whatever you want. And it is ABSOLUTE nonsense that there's any significant current going into the FG. I will give you proof of this when I get easier access to my computers.
I saw your comments there Bill. I'll try it out. But I can't get this done before Thursday. Please ask Harti to answer my email. I need to know who's removing my posts. I think it may just be my own view though. Is that even possible?
Groundloop I can't see the schematics that I assume you've added. I wonder if I can impose on you to email this to me. My other computer is absolutely OFF LIMITS. I don't think I would be able to stand having that one corrupted. It holds my email. But I can also be reached on rosemaryainslie@gmail.com - which is here on this 'corrupted' version. So. Groundloop - if it's not too much of an imposition I'd be very glad to have a look. Sorry I didn't get around to that sketch. I've been up to my ears all day. I solemnly promise to do this tomorrow. Not that it'll help - but I'm sure you'll see where I'm going.
Kindest regards
Rosie
You are bringing up posts and/or conversations from Many Many Moons ago. We have been "done" with you a long time ago and we have asked that you no longer reference us in your comments on or off the Forums. Its that simple. We know you are pushing for a legal battle and frankly you are just not worth our efforts. We asked you in private e-mails to leave us alone and now in a public arena to leave us alone. From yesterday forward we should not see you referring to us on or off the forums. Very plain and very simple.
This quote from Laurel is rather amusing. It requires a really adventurous definition of 'many moons' ago. LOL. I think those many moons was as recently as 24th of this month - which only goes to show that time is relative. She really needs to remove a whole slew of her rather public comments and she needs to stop PM'ing our members about me. It constitutes ABUSE. Then indeed - she can pretend to all that absurd self-righteous indignation. What idiocy. But at least I've had another good laugh.
Regards guys - and delighted to find a voice. Just can't see those schematics. I'd love to see Groundloop's. I'll only get the computers cleaned on Thursday. So, until then I'll struggle on here. VERY SLOW. But it's getting through. I think the 'corruption' has been via my password. I've changed it now. But the previous internet link is still impassable. It gets into a kind of 'freeze mode'. And I can't get into my blog AT ALL. I think I'll need to re-register.
Rosie
You did see Groundloops last version of your circuit and this was your comment ??? :o
since then he has only posted a circuit to protect a function generator.
Quote from: Rosemary Ainslie on May 02, 2011, 01:43:00 AM
Not quite Groundloop. But I've thought of something. I could sketch what's needed - scan it and then send it to you. Then you could make sense of it better.
Many thanks for your efforts nonetheless.
Kindest as ever,
Rosie
added I should be able to do this during the morning. I still have your email address. I'll get back to you here.
Sorry - another problem It seems everyone is still on holiday. Labour day in SA - I'll need to get this to you tomorrow.
Cat? I can't see the schematic. I assumed there was a variation. If it's the same circuit then there's a problem. I'm not sure how often I must say this but I'll download a photo of this when I can get up and running there. FIRST OFF - The ground of the FG is directly on the shared ground which is also directly in series with the gate of the MOSFET on Q2. THEN. ALL THIS IS IN SERIES WITH THE CSR which - in turn - is in SERIES WITH THE NEGATIVE RAIL OF THE BATTERY.
IT MAKES NO DIFFERENCE TO THE RESULTS WHETHER THE GROUND OF THE FUNCTIONS GENERATOR IS at the 'Position marked 'D' in the video - or if it's in position marked 'B' in the video. The results are the same. But Poynty et al will use that positioning at 'D' to argue that the results are WRONG. Therefore have I gone to some considerable trouble to show this in that test where we took water to boiling point.
And again - because clearly Poynty either cannot read or he depends on the rather slim hope that no-one else can read - here is it again. THE ONLY REASON THAT WE POSITIONED THE PROBE AT B DURING THE DEMO VIDEO WAS BECAUSE WE RAN OUT OF SPACE AT PIN D. We were running two scopes.
Golly. I wonder if all this 'antagonism' is somewhat inappropriate. I am only doing my best to advise you all that you're being hoodwinked by Poynty into considering these results as immaterial, irrelevant and incorrect. Right now he's the only one who's 'shaping' opinion here. Which is a DISASTER. They are NOT incorrect. They have been CAREFULLY CONSIDERED by authorities well in excess of Poynty's 'EX SPURT'ise - and they absolutely DEFY classical prediction. And it's not bad news. It's really good news. And why - in God's name - should I bother to keep answering these absurd objections? You'd think I was trying to capitalise on this. Or that I was trying to claim it as my own discovery.
The fact is that I'm hoping against hope that you'll either try it out - to prove it yourselves - or just sit back and wait for it. We've got some accreditation due. You guys are something else. I'm trying to advance a much needed solution to global warming. From the reception here you'd think I was out to con you all out of your hard earned savings. I am just way too old to spend my time on something that isn't appropriate and significant. Dear God. These results have not ONLY BE SEEN BY ME. What is wrong with you all? If it were a con - then I'd be after your money. If it were some sort of bid for fame I'd first need to claim all this as a discovery. If I were anxious to hide the benefits then - indeed - you'd have cause for complain. I'm trying very hard to make them as freely available as is humanly possible. Give me a break.
Rosemary
Quote from: i_ron on May 03, 2011, 04:16:22 PM
NP,
Yes, I agree to a certain point but no real numbers have come out of this.
We certainly agree on that.
Quote
But as .99 chose this particular sketch to illustrate his argument, I was more or less confining my rebuttal to this sketch... meaning that the FG as source or sink hypothesis is not applicable here, likewise the placement of Rshunt.
Ron
My 'argument', which included this rhetorical question:
QuoteWhy is the original circuit (see below) shown with the CSR (current-sensing resistor) located in the MOSFET Source leg? Note also that the function generator is connected to the MOSFET Gate only, not the MOSFET Source.
was to illustrate that this is the correct manner in which the shunt can be positioned, AND the correct manner in which the Gate should be driven.
As such, the FG output
should not be tied to the Source lead of any MOSFET whatsoever, and if the shunt
is not connected either in series with the battery or in the Source leg of the current-carrying device, i.e.
Q2, then the results indicated from the shunt will be inaccurate.
Make sense Ron?
.99
After reading reply #1077, I am simply at a loss now as to how any part of the circuit is connected.
For example:
1) were the CSR connections changed or not?
2) where is the FG ground lead connected?
3) how is Q2 connected?
Can anyone here elucidate on the above?
.99
As such, the FG output should not be tied to the Source lead of any MOSFET whatsoever, and if the shunt is not connected either in series with the battery or in the Source leg of the current-carrying device, i.e. Q2, then the results indicated from the shunt will be inaccurate.
And here it is. The FG input is connected to the GATE of the MOSFET Q1. The FG output is connected to the GATE of the MOSFET Q2. The FG output IS NOT on the SOURCE RAIL of Q2.
I've just checked this. If my computer hadn't been hacked then I could have also photographed it. But when I'm up and running I'll even take the trouble to VIDEO it.
Rosemary
BTW that highlighted number on my previous post was a quote from Poynt. I hope that's clear. I can't access the 'reply' 'modify' buttons because they've been taken out of my access.
Quote from: Rosemary Ainslie on May 03, 2011, 07:19:38 PM
BTW that highlighted number on my previous post was a quote from Poynt. I hope that's clear. I can't access the 'reply' 'modify' buttons because they've been taken out of my access.
Hey Rose
This should be a simple fix. The problem is that pictures have been disabled in your browser. When pics are disabled, so are the buttons. They are pictures.
What browser are you using?
Mags
Hi Mags. If you don't mind I'd rather not say. I think they're getting in via my browser because the previous one I used is no longer available. I get re-routed. But right now it's getting PAINFULLY sticky. I think there's tracking me again.
I'm out of here.
Hey Rose
If its internet explorer....
Go to tools menu, click internet options.
Select the tab that says Advanced, then scroll down to Browsing. There you will see if pictures are enabled.
If its Firefox....
Go to tools menu and click Options.
Click the tab that says Content and you should see Load Images Automatically. Put a check in the box if the is not one.
Restart the browser. May not need to. ;]
Mags
Also
If your really interested in protecting your computer, get Zone Alarm Extreme. Its like $39 for a year for the Extreme version . Worth every penny to protect your baby. ;]
http://www.zonealarm.com/
Mags
One more easy option it to do a System Restore. Just restore back a month. It wont erase data. It just restructures how the computer is set up and what programs are loaded.
Its an Apple? I dont know if apple has that function.
If it wont let you restore, you may have been hit with malware or virus. So best not to lay blame yet. Malware happens. Just depends on where youve been. ;]
I use Avast antivirus free home version and Zone Alarm Pro.
Mags
Nobody is tracking you and there is not any MIB's waiting around the corner... There are plenty of normal reasons for computer problems. But if you feel you are being tracked there are some precautionary measures you could take like using anti keylog software a good strong firewall and check your computer periodically to make sure that all your remote connections are in fact connections that you are willingly engaged in.
Quote from: nul-points on May 03, 2011, 03:25:40 PM
the data collected on Rshunt would therefore *not* represent the total current flow across the battery stack (because there is now a switched parallel path across Q1 Gate-Drain)
the original Rshunt data can not therefore be used as intended in order to calculate the total energy draw from/to the battery
i hope that i've presented a fair and accurate summation of the situation with the system - as tested on March 12th - and relating to the issue with the FG o/p using the schematic as at that test
cheers all
np
That is a fair summary np. ;)
.99
Quote from: Rosemary Ainslie on May 03, 2011, 07:17:36 PM
The FG input is connected to the GATE of the MOSFET Q1.
Agreed. This has never been disputed by me.
Quote
The FG output is connected to the GATE of the MOSFET Q2. The FG output IS NOT on the SOURCE RAIL of Q2.
This of course is only possible IF you have physically changed some connections on the apparatus since the demonstration video was made. In that case, it would be quite helpful to see an updated photo of the top and bottom sides of the perf-board.
Thanks,
.99
I just noticed this;
Rose is using the terms "FG output" and "FG input".
::)
.99
Quote from: poynt99 on May 03, 2011, 07:02:00 PM
We certainly agree on that.
My 'argument', which included this rhetorical question:was to illustrate that this is the correct manner in which the shunt can be positioned, AND the correct manner in which the Gate should be driven.
As such, the FG output should not be tied to the Source lead of any MOSFET whatsoever, and if the shunt is not connected either in series with the battery or in the Source leg of the current-carrying device, i.e. Q2, then the results indicated from the shunt will be inaccurate.
Make sense Ron?
.99
But .99, there is no Q2 on the schematic in that post
Ron
Quote from: i_ron on May 03, 2011, 08:47:10 PM
But .99, there is no Q2 on the schematic in that post
Ron
I think you know what I am getting at. If not then I'll certainly try my best to help you understand.
.99
@All,
If you are so inclined, let it be known what you think of this apparatus and the state of affairs surrounding it at this present time. Make your selection at the following poll:
http://www.overunity.com/index.php?topic=10689.msg284161#new
.99
Quote from: poynt99 on May 04, 2011, 09:19:17 AM
@All,
If you are so inclined, let it be known what you think of this apparatus and the state of affairs surrounding it at this present time. Make your selection at the following poll:
http://www.overunity.com/index.php?topic=10689.msg284161#new
.99
what is that all about? an opinion poll??? wtf!?!? what in the flying spaghetti monster does an appeal to popularity have to do with any of this? ::)
Quote from: poynt99 on May 03, 2011, 08:53:58 PM
I think you know what I am getting at. If not then I'll certainly try my best to help you understand.
.99
Yes, all too well. But what you may have missed here is it is all right if you post one circuit and talk about another, I'm supposed to understand. Yet if Rosemary where to post similarly, then it is the end of the world.
Ron
The confusions that have been visited on this really simple circuit are confusions that Poynt is relying on â€" in his efforts to utterly obfuscate this circuit design.
Guys â€" look at his post 994 â€" if it is still post 994. Otherwise â€" the post thereby â€" that shows the underside of the circuit board. NOTA BENE. The ground is shown on the far side of the CSR. That IS how we configured it for the DEMONSTRATION â€" because we ran out of space on the only available NODE. That is NOT how we configure it for our ongoing standard tests where we ONLY USE THE LECROY.
SO. Here’s how it’s ALWAYS configured AND NOT AS IT WAS CONFIGURED FOR THE DEMO.
Q1 GATE to Q2 SOURCE
Q1 DRAIN to Q2 DRAIN
Q1 SOURCE to Q2 GATE.
Functions Generator INPUT to Q1 GATE
Functions Generator GROUND to Q2 GATE.
THAT’s how it’s configured. And that’s how it needs to be configured. HOWEVER â€" if you â€" for any reason CANNOT put the ground directly onto Q2 Gate. NO PROBLEM. Just put it onto the source rail directly â€" in front of or after the CSR. IT MAKES NO DIFFERENCE TO THE RESULTS â€" Just marginal variations at BEST.
Regards,
Rosemary
Quote from: i_ron on May 04, 2011, 11:59:56 AM
Yes, all too well. But what you may have missed here is it is all right if you post one circuit and talk about another, I'm supposed to understand. Yet if Rosemary where to post similarly, then it is the end of the world.
Ron
Noted. I will try to do better in the future.
However, you DID understand, and I suspect most everyone did also. I think you made a mountain from a molehill, and really didn't establish the point you had intended.
Now, if you would see fit to afford Rose the same scrutiny you just did to my post, it might help move this topic in a forward direction.
.99
Quote from: poynt99 on May 04, 2011, 12:50:59 PM
. I think you made a mountain from a molehill
.99
Coming from you that's rich.
Well Poynty Point. I’m not sure that anyone’s holding a knife to your throat. If you don’t like me and you don’t approve of this technology â€" then there’s a simple solution. Just go away. I believe you’ve got your own forum where you and your cronies can rabbit on about the stupidity of over unity claims - for as long as like. And then you can bore yourselves to tears and feel very superior while you’re at it.
For some reason there’s an ardent over commitment to protect us from our own interests. And I think that the most members on this forum can tolerate the fact that I am an amateur because the most of them are only really interested in the facts of this experiment. And while I’m an amateur â€" those who have assisted me in this development â€" most certainly are not. And even as an amateur it seems that I have MUCH to teach you. Let me remind you about your undersampling claims, among many other rather deliberate obfuscations.
Just go away Poynty Point. And leave us all with our freedoms to decide what we want to discuss â€" or not. It seems that the only people dedicated to stopping this discussion is you and Pickle. Others who don’t care enough just don’t bother to ‘dip in’ here. That’s how it should be any democratic forum. Unless of course, you’re trying to turn this into a tyranny â€" where only you have a voice. Where only your opinion matters. Unless you’re trying to derail this thread because you JUST really need to keep a lid on things.
I would have thought â€" in general â€" that if this is all nonsense â€" then it will all just ‘die a natural death’. Truth, on the other hand, seems to survive all kinds of attack. So. Let the story unfold â€" as indeed it will. Just stop trying to tell us what that truth is. You clearly ignore even the truth of your own simulation results. I’m not sure that you’re equal to this particular truth. So. Just exercise your own democratic freedoms of choice and GO AWAY. It’s simple.
Rosie.
I poynted out that the poll topic started by Poynt has 7 questions...one of which is positive, one is neutral, and the other five are negative. Sounds a little biased to me. Pollsters frequently do this when they want the results to match their prior beliefs so they can justify them.
Bill
@All,
I have made a new drawing of the RA switch based on email information from Rosemary.
The function generator signal input is on the gate at Q1 and the reference of the function generator
is on the gate on Q2 etc. The shunt resistors are in series with the minus rail on the batteries.
GL.
Quote from: Rosemary Ainslie on May 04, 2011, 01:36:00 PM
Just stop trying to tell us what that truth is. You clearly ignore even the truth of your own simulation results. I’m not sure that you’re equal to this particular truth.
The truth is that your inability to understand what you are looking at and measuring on your oscilloscope, is what is keeping you from seeing the truth about this apparatus.
I'll try to spell it out for you Rose:
Those "results" in the simulation are very similar to your "results". Granted, and I am delighted that you see that and agree with that. However, you should know that a simulation of a real circuit could never truly provide overunity results. The simulations I have run of your circuit, (including the slight variations I've come up with) DO NOT in reality indicate an overunity result.
The "results" I have shown in the simulation using the same measurement as yours, are no more "overunity" (or COP>1) than they would be if you were to place one scope probe on the Vbat 60V (or 72V) battery feed as before, but for the second probe you placed it across one of the batteries
in reverse (with an isolated probe so as not to ground-short the system). If you now multiplied these two probe voltages together (60V x -12V), then applied a MEAN function, you would have a "result" equating to approximately -720W
appearing to go back into the battery!
The truth is that this "result" is not representative of anything meaningful at all.
It is simply an arbitrary figure obtained by multiplying one relevant voltage by one irrelevant voltage, and that is precisely what is going on with your measurement (and mine in the sim).
I have shown with the simulation results, that there is simultaneously a "result", and a true result. The true result was obtained by using the built-in wattage probe placed directly on the battery. The meaningless "result" was obtained by multiplying the battery voltage, by the CSR voltage as it is incorrectly placed and connected in your circuit. These two results are miles apart, and only one is correct.
.99
Quote from: Pirate88179 on May 04, 2011, 02:05:07 PM
I poynted out that the poll topic started by Poynt has 7 questions...one of which is positive, one is neutral, and the other five are negative. Sounds a little biased to me. Pollsters frequently do this when they want the results to match their prior beliefs so they can justify them.
Bill
I stated that I would
add any selections that are required. I am giving you license to influence the poll as you wish, as long as the selection is not a repeat of what is already there.
.99
Those were supplied as requested. They were ignored. None of the supplied questions were repeats of the existing questions. They just were not biased toward the negative like the originals.
Bill
The "results" I have shown in the simulation using the same measurement as yours, are no more "overunity" (or COP>1) than they would be if you were to place one scope probe on the Vbat 60V (or 72V) battery feed as before, but for the second probe you placed it across one of the batteries in reverse (with an isolated probe so as not to ground-short the system). If you now multiplied these two probe voltages together (60V x -12V), then applied a MEAN function, you would have a "result" equating to approximately -720W appearing to go back into the battery!
Guys - what Poynty is trying to say here is that the positive of the probe across the CSR is directly on the NEGATIVE RAIL of the battery and that the ground is between the CSR and the Gate of Q2. I ASSURE YOU THIS IS ABSOLUTE NONSENSE. The positive of the probe from the Scope is on the Far side of the CSR - near the gate and the GROUND of the SCOPE is up against the negative terminal. I will photograph this if required. But will only be able to upload all tomorrow. THIS BECAUSE I'VE BEEN HACKED TO DEATH.
Groundloop I see your post but not the schematic. If you can email this I'll be glad. But I'm ABSOLUTELY SATISFIED that it'll now be correct. Many thanks indeed for your input.
Kindest as ever,
Rosie
Quote from: Pirate88179 on May 04, 2011, 02:37:57 PM
Those were supplied as requested. They were ignored. None of the supplied questions were repeats of the existing questions. They just were not biased toward the negative like the originals.
Bill
I honestly have not looked at that thread for a while. I am at work, and when I have a moment, I have been analyzing Rose's latest connection diagram, kindly provided by GL.
I'll go look at your proposed additions momentarily. Your patience in getting those added is appreciated.
.99
And what in Heaven's name is all this nonsense about a poll? Are you trying to determine my rights to post here on this forum. Good heavens. I don't think that's in dispute. And, in any event, Harti is the one who decides that.
It just beggars belief. I'm a well meaning - in fact an 'ardent' - promoter or some really required technology - and instead of being welcomed and protected Poynty's now subjecting me to the embarrassment and indignity of an opinion poll. I wonder if his excesses are now getting grossly out of hand. I'm not sure that my efforts are deserving of so much flagrant disrespect. Come on guys. Is this a forum for discussion or an arena for assassination? This is absolutely untenable.
Rosemary
And just to round off the discussion. I saw Poynty's argument coming at me with all the subtlety of bull elephant charge. Here's the FACTS.
The shunt resistor has an inductive component. That needs to be factored into all analysis of the current flow. BUT. The position of the shunt directly on the negative rail of the supply source is THE CORRECT way to determine the flow of current through and from that supply. There is NO OTHER WAY. And lol. I am CERTAINLY capable of putting the probes in the wrong positions. But I would be very sorry if you thought that our team members are likely to.
Actually it's nice to see how desparate are these objections. And how facile. I'm beginning to feel a bit more relaxed about things. lol.
Kindest regards
Rosie
Quote from: Rosemary Ainslie on May 04, 2011, 02:46:41 PM
And what in Heaven's name is all this nonsense about a poll? Are you trying to determine my rights to post here on this forum. Good heavens. I don't think that's in dispute. And, in any event, Harti is the one who decides that.
It just beggars belief. I'm a well meaning - in fact an 'ardent' - promoter or some really required technology - and instead of being welcomed and protected Poynty's now subjecting me to the embarrassment and indignity of an opinion poll. I wonder if his excesses are now getting grossly out of hand. I'm not sure that my efforts are deserving of so much flagrant disrespect. Come on guys. Is this a forum for discussion or an arena for assassination? This is absolutely untenable.
Rosemary
The poll is not about stopping you posting or getting you band, it is about whether the members here believe your circuit does what you claim.
Quote from: Rosemary Ainslie on May 04, 2011, 02:41:22 PM
The "results" I have shown in the simulation using the same measurement as yours, are no more "overunity" (or COP>1) than they would be if you were to place one scope probe on the Vbat 60V (or 72V) battery feed as before, but for the second probe you placed it across one of the batteries in reverse (with an isolated probe so as not to ground-short the system). If you now multiplied these two probe voltages together (60V x -12V), then applied a MEAN function, you would have a "result" equating to approximately -720W appearing to go back into the battery!
Guys - what Poynty is trying to say here is that the positive of the probe across the CSR is directly on the NEGATIVE RAIL of the battery and that the ground is between the CSR and the Gate of Q2. I ASSURE YOU THIS IS ABSOLUTE NONSENSE. The positive of the probe from the Scope is on the Far side of the CSR - near the gate and the GROUND of the SCOPE is up against the negative terminal. I will photograph this if required. But will only be able to upload all tomorrow. THIS BECAUSE I'VE BEEN HACKED TO DEATH.
Groundloop I see your post but not the schematic. If you can email this I'll be glad. But I'm ABSOLUTELY SATISFIED that it'll now be correct. Many thanks indeed for your input.
Kindest as ever,
Rosie
Rosemary,
I have emailed you a copy converted to JPG.
GL.
Well Cat - if that's the case then I wonder what on EARTH has belief got to do with science. Isn't it rather dependent on EVIDENCE. Isn't belief something that has everything to do with philosophy or even theology and absolutely NOTHING WHATSOEVER with SCIENCE?
GOLLY. Next we'll be determining the proof of dark energy through public opinion poll. What a laugh. Science - not only by consensus but requiring nothing more than popular support. It rather corrupts the purity of it's rather contentious truths if science must first be subjected to a political forum. And I think that if science were still to be evaluated by some kind of democratic principle then we're really in deep water. Didn't we leave that mind set behind with the Middle Ages?
Is that what the poll is? I can't read it. I'll check it out in the morning. ROLL ON THURSDAY when I'll get my computers cleaned.
Regards,
Rosie
edited. Much need spelling correction :)
Quote from: Rosemary Ainslie on May 04, 2011, 02:56:23 PM
The position of the shunt directly on the negative rail of the supply source is THE CORRECT way to determine the flow of current through and from that supply. There is NO OTHER WAY.
I've been meaning to address this, and since this is the second time you've mentioned it, I'll ask this now:
Since the CSR has apparently recently been relocated to a different position with different connections (and hence different measurements), is the above an assertion which constitutes an open admission that all the previous "results" (with the previous configuration) obtained and illustrated both via scope shots, and the demonstration video are no longer accurate and valid?
.99
This is your comment Poynty.
Since the CSR has apparently recently been relocated to a different position with different connections (and hence different measurements), is the above an assertion which constitutes an open admission that all the previous "results" (with the previous configuration) obtained and illustrated both via scope shots, and the demonstration video are no longer accurate and valid?
.99
And I've answered it here. And this is just one of MANY such references. I'll dig them all out when this computer is less 'sticky' and I can find them all.
THAT’s how it’s configured. And that’s how it needs to be configured. HOWEVER â€" if you â€" for any reason CANNOT put the ground directly onto Q2 Gate. NO PROBLEM. Just put it onto the source rail directly â€" in front of or after the CSR. IT MAKES NO DIFFERENCE TO THE RESULTS â€" Just marginal variations at BEST.
Clearly you either don't read what I write or you can't or you won't or you do but just pretend that you don't. Golly. That's quite a lot of options. In any event. It would help if you'd read them first off because then we'd be able to eliminate 2/3's of this already overly large thread - and we'd be able to get back on topic. So. All in all, I'd recommend it.
Rosie
Quote from: powercat on May 04, 2011, 02:58:54 PM
The poll is not about stopping you posting or getting you band, it is about whether the members here believe your circuit does what you claim.
Talk about "nuspeak" The ones who made the pole, with their own preconceived ideas, are the ones who will vote in the poll. Ergo, the pole will be close to 100% in favor of disbelief... amazing!
Ron
Ron,
You seem like a fairly level-headed individual, and since you are active in this thread and seem to understand Rose, I have a sincere request:
Could I impose on you to provide a synopsis for the above "answer" Rose offered to my question?
Much appreciated,
.99
Quote from: i_ron on May 04, 2011, 05:05:18 PM
Talk about "nuspeak" The ones who made the pole, with their own preconceived ideas, are the ones who will vote in the poll. Ergo, the pole will be close to 100% in favor of disbelief... amazing!
Ron
Rosie is one that is claiming OU for the last two years.
I feel I have now seen more than enough to form my own conclusion (it doesn't work as claimed)
It is indeed very interesting research but Rosie is claiming OU not me
so can you Ron substantiate that claim of OU, if you can you have done something that other members like Woopy, Gotoluc, TinselKoala have missed in the last two years.
Good luck with this one Ron, you persevered with Thane Heins maybe you'll get lucky with Rosie
Rosie's work is very interesting and I'm learning a lot but that aside, claiming OU for the last two years ::)
hi all
So far ,my small intelligence is able to think that , when people are not interested in a subject , normally they leave it, and the sayd subject desapears from itself
.
very simple isn'it ?
But in the Rose's subject not only it does not desapears , but the subject seems so important that it requires a POLL , to see if the members of this forum apreciate or not the discussion or the proposed and defended object. DU GENRE "good or not good "
We are going to court here. OOUUUPSS !!! I did not know that a forum could go so far !! Simply ridiculous at my eyes sorry !!
Another time this circuit seems not so difficult or too expensive to replicate for such elevated and educated people as you P.99 and others here
.
Why don't you test it in real life ? so everything would be OK .
So we could be clear if the circuit is in accordance with what Rose claims , or not and BASTA !
good luck at all
Laurent
Wow Rose your work is really interesting and provoque a huge interest
I am indeed trying to establish what the circuit connections are so I and others can build it.
An appeal to all;
Does this circuit diagram accurately depict Rose's "new" circuit connections?
.99
PS. As shown, I was not able to get the circuit to oscillate in the simulation.
Quote from: Rosemary Ainslie on May 04, 2011, 12:20:46 PM
SO. Here’s how it’s ALWAYS configured AND NOT AS IT WAS CONFIGURED FOR THE DEMO.
Q1 GATE to Q2 SOURCE
Q1 DRAIN to Q2 DRAIN
Q1 SOURCE to Q2 GATE.
Functions Generator INPUT to Q1 GATE
Functions Generator GROUND to Q2 GATE.
THAT’s how it’s configured. And that’s how it needs to be configured. HOWEVER â€" if you â€" for any reason CANNOT put the ground directly onto Q2 Gate. NO PROBLEM. Just put it onto the source rail directly â€" in front of or after the CSR. IT MAKES NO DIFFERENCE TO THE RESULTS â€" Just marginal variations at BEST.
Regards,
Rosemary
:o ??? :o ???
Can anyone make any sense of that last part?
Here is my own precarious take on it:
QuoteJust put it onto the source rail directly
By "source", does Rose mean battery ground, or the Source pin of one of the MOSFETs?
If my above diagram is correct, then placing the FG ground lead on either end of the CSR is a very different connection than placing it on the Q2 Gate.
I am open to any corrections.
Thanks,
.99
Quote from: powercat on May 04, 2011, 06:51:16 PM
Rosie is one that is claiming OU for the last two years.
I feel I have now seen more than enough to form my own conclusion (it doesn't work as claimed)
It is indeed very interesting research but Rosie is claiming OU not me
so can you Ron substantiate that claim of OU, if you can you have done something that other members like Woopy, Gotoluc, TinselKoala have missed in the last two years.
Good luck with this one Ron, you persevered with Thane Heins maybe you'll get lucky with Rosie
Rosie's work is very interesting and I'm learning a lot but that aside, claiming OU for the last two years ::)
An interesting comment PC, gotoluc worked with Thane just before I did, yet I have never heard him speak one way or another on Thane. I quite like gotoluc's channel and subscribe. I think he does a lot to further interest in this fascinating field.
If you look at my video's you will see my first love is still Veljko's pendulum, followed by Flynn/Hildendrand motors, with a wee bit of coil shorting thrown in.
BUT, I am not really interested in OU, I just like building things. It leads to all sorts of specialized knowledge, keeps the grey matter active! Yes, I am still learning things at my age, plus I get to try out some totally new chips, it is fascinating.
I have followed Rosie's device for years. I have read all the forums, I know people who have tried this... with no success, so what is it you are trying to tell me? Only experiment with known proven devices like the wheel or kleenex? Never ever venture into unknown territory? Stay inside the box, do not have any thoughts of your own that are contrary to you peers?
I do this because its fun. I will form my own conclusions when I am ready to. I enjoy meeting and working with these kind of people, who like to contribute to society with their original ideas. I learn things.
Ron
Edit: 13,000 hits on my pendulum build and 10,000 on my coil winder, I find that incredible... but notice TK was the only one to seriously question my mentality... now I will be able to add you guys to the list also
Golly - all that I see is more and more polarised opinion. Actually PC - there have been many replications and validations. Let me list them.
BP South Africa, ABB Research (NC), SASOL (SA) (who also offered a bursary award to UCT - which was declined), Spescom (SA), CSIR (SA) (confirmed an anomaly but confined comments to one insignificant result ONLY) And between this lot - not less than 18 qualified electrical engineers - at least. Other smaller companies and their engineers - not less than plus/minus 60 engineers - at least.
Then. AT PUBLIC DEMONSTRATIONS - including a demonstration held at MTN Sciencentre in CT where the viewers were numbered in their hundreds. Unfortunately no academics and no experts. Also, an earlier demo held at the conference rooms of Price Waterhouse Coopers, at least 50 members of the public and two academics. The one academic deferred to his colleague - Professor Green who refused to comment other than saying that there were probably measurement errors. Professor Green absolutely refused to investigate the matter further.
THEN on the INTERNET. FuzzyTomCat who was guided into the required waveforms by myself over many, many, many hours of discussion via SKYPE - who then replicated, allowed his data to be referenced in a paper and then systematically withdrew his data and proceeded to deny my rights to reference the work at all - notwithstanding some earlier disclosures on open source. And that evidence was seen and made available in a detailed paper which was, in turn, seen by about 3000 people on SCRIBD. Then I had my own version of the paper at SCRIBD which was withdrawn by SCRIBD on claims of plagiarism by FuzzyTomCat. Approximately 5000 hits prior to withdrawal.
And still on the subject of publications - we also had a publication in Quantum Magazine where there was a readership in the thousands. And the publication of that paper on the internet has drawn a readership - probably upwards of of 10 000. All culminating in our DEMO held on the 12 March, 2011 - at CPUT - where we had 15 qualified electrical engineers view the historical event of COP INFINITY - and subsequent reports and discussions of this which is certainly upwards of 1000 a day and climbing.
I need to remind you all about this. Because what happens is that a handful of individuals including the following, Poynty, Harvey, Ion, Pickle, MileHigh, CatLady, FuzzyTomCat, Ashtweth, Mookie, Peterae and possibly a few others here - all vociferously and unfailingly and somewhat disproportionately and certainly very, very urgently - deny all. Which inclines me to suppose that there is possibly an agenda in all their denial. I think I've covered it all. Hope so anyway,
Kindest regards,
Rosie
Edited layout and emphases. Should have added many more who've seen this and stand by these numbers but the subject is getting boring.
Guys - Poynty's simulations are meaningless. He's been 'hoisted by his own petard' in as much as he's duplicated the waveforms from the 'get go'. And he could not have done that without the transpositions of the MOSFETS.
But I grant that there are ongoing confusions. If there are any related to how we've positioned those MOSFETs - then please just do this. Put the one to the other Q1 and Q2 - Gate to source, drain to drain, Source to Gate. That way you'll have configured it as required. When it comes to an illustration of this - then, convention mitigates against a clear presentation. This because the 'gate' is conventionally shown as being between the source and the gate legs.
Then - it is more than likely that I'm describing this wrongly. I'll ask my team how I should describe it. But here's what I mean. There are two leads off the functions generator. The one 'positive' goes to the gate of Q1 - the second whether it's properly described as 'ground' or 'negative' or whatever, - that one goes to the gate of Q2. Sorry guys. It's the best I can do. And that's only if you use a functions generator at all. I'm absolutely not able to assist when it comes to moving away from a functions generator - or at it's least - a 555. But there's a way of doing this too. And I'm rather relying on your own skills here to find out how to get some energy into the system that may at least be usable. I think thay Groundloop may have some interesting thoughts here.
What we need to do is move away from any more discussion with Poynty - as it relates to those simulations. If he could oblige us here then that would be appreciated. Unfortunately it's what he knows and what he does best. What would be far more to the desirable is if he takes the trouble to build a replication or even a variation. I confidently predict that he will NOT find benefit because that conforms to his agenda. But it would be nice to be proved wrong. If he sees no value in doing this - then, as I've said, move away that we can move on. Otherwise we'll be spending another 2 years discussing the correct diagrammatic illustration of the FETs when we should be discussing how to apply this.
And what I assure you is that there are some hefty energies available in our little circuit and there is no limit to the number of ways this can be configured. And that's its strength. It is only a kind of generic illustration of how that BEMF can be exploited. And there are a lot more of generating this BEMF than is traditionally expected.
Kindest regards,
Rosemary
Edited. Spelling and gramma ;D
;D
It seems either I or this poor little circuit of mine is again under discussion at OUR.com. POYNTY? Am I again denied access? Are you AGAIN conferring behind closed doors?
Whatever next? ::)
Guys - it seems that Poynty is playing his cards rather close to the chest. If any of you can see what gives there I'd be very glad if you could email me with some copies. My best email is ainslie@mweb.co.za. Otherwise they'll be 'plotting' and I won't be able to discover their 'next move'. LOL
Unless, of course, OUR.com is no longer public. That would be a really good thing.
Regards,
Rosemary
Quote from: woopy on May 04, 2011, 06:54:29 PM
hi all
So far ,my small intelligence is able to think that , when people are not interested in a subject , normally they leave it, and the sayd subject desapears from itself
.
very simple isn'it ?
But in the Rose's subject not only it does not desapears , but the subject seems so important that it requires a POLL , to see if the members of this forum apreciate or not the discussion or the proposed and defended object. DU GENRE "good or not good "
We are going to court here. OOUUUPSS !!! I did not know that a forum could go so far !! Simply ridiculous at my eyes sorry !!
Another time this circuit seems not so difficult or too expensive to replicate for such elevated and educated people as you P.99 and others here
.
Why don't you test it in real life ? so everything would be OK .
So we could be clear if the circuit is in accordance with what Rose claims , or not and BASTA !
good luck at all
Laurent
Wow Rose your work is really interesting and provoque a huge interest
;D
Thanks Laurent.
Guys - I'm risking my only working computer to post this. I've finally seen that poll. I have no objections to it. It's just a generalised attempt at finding out what the public think of me. And that's not really the issue here. So. It's of some kind of dubious relevance - and it will only help to progress the knowledge. Strange but true. All publicity is good publicity. Even BAD publicity. lol.
MrMag. I read your comment. I'm sorry you've not seen my argument related to battery draw downs. Your opinion is shared by many. And - indeed you're right. On record everyone. I'll do those battery draw downs with PLEASURE - if I also get the outright endorsement that those results will be accepted as ABSOLUTE PROOF of breaching those infernal energy barriers. At issue is the requirement to prove that it can exceed its watt hour rating. And that test is most certainly DOABLE. Expensive to monitor - but it can, indeed, be done. But I'm not foolhardy enough to simply invest time and money in all those tests - without the certain and written assurance that our academics will then accept this as conclusive proof. Else, yet again I'll be wasting my time.
Regards
Rosemary
Quote from: i_ron on May 04, 2011, 10:46:47 PM
An interesting comment PC, gotoluc worked with Thane just before I did, yet I have never heard him speak one way or another on Thane. I quite like gotoluc's channel and subscribe. I think he does a lot to further interest in this fascinating field.
If you look at my video's you will see my first love is still Veljko's pendulum, followed by Flynn/Hildendrand motors, with a wee bit of coil shorting thrown in.
BUT, I am not really interested in OU, I just like building things. It leads to all sorts of specialized knowledge, keeps the grey matter active! Yes, I am still learning things at my age, plus I get to try out some totally new chips, it is fascinating.
I have followed Rosie's device for years. I have read all the forums, I know people who have tried this... with no success, so what is it you are trying to tell me? Only experiment with known proven devices like the wheel or kleenex? Never ever venture into unknown territory? Stay inside the box, do not have any thoughts of your own that are contrary to you peers?
I do this because its fun. I will form my own conclusions when I am ready to. I enjoy meeting and working with these kind of people, who like to contribute to society with their original ideas. I learn things.
Ron
Edit: 13,000 hits on my pendulum build and 10,000 on my coil winder, I find that incredible... but notice TK was the only one to seriously question my mentality... now I will be able to add you guys to the list also
Nice post Ron
I'm trying to tell you that no one on this forum has been able to match that claim of OU,
clearly this is not a concern of yours and I wish you all the best
Quote from: Rosemary Ainslie on May 05, 2011, 01:19:47 AM
But I grant that there are ongoing confusions. If there are any related to how we've positioned those MOSFETs - then please just do this. Put the one to the other Q1 and Q2 - Gate to source, drain to drain, Source to Gate. That way you'll have configured it as required. When it comes to an illustration of this - then, convention mitigates against a clear presentation. This because the 'gate' is conventionally shown as being between the source and the gate legs.
Is there anyone here that understands this para? If so, could I impose on you to kindly elucidate on it? Thank you. I believe I have connected the Source and Gate pins as described. No one yet has commented if my diagram is correct.
Quote
Then - it is more than likely that I'm describing this wrongly. I'll ask my team how I should describe it. But here's what I mean. There are two leads off the functions generator. The one 'positive' goes to the gate of Q1 - the second whether it's properly described as 'ground' or 'negative' or whatever, - that one goes to the gate of Q2. Sorry guys. It's the best I can do.
Again, I believe I've shown the connections as described. Corrections?
Quote
What we need to do is move away from any more discussion with Poynty - as it relates to those simulations. If he could oblige us here then that would be appreciated. Unfortunately it's what he knows and what he does best. What would be far more to the desirable is if he takes the trouble to build a replication or even a variation. I confidently predict that he will NOT find benefit because that conforms to his agenda. But it would be nice to be proved wrong. If he sees no value in doing this - then, as I've said, move away that we can move on. Otherwise we'll be spending another 2 years discussing the correct diagrammatic illustration of the FETs when we should be discussing how to apply this.
Indeed, I am wanting to build it, but again, I do not have a diagram to do so. Could someone kindly provide a link to a diagram OK'd by Rose?
From the above though, any results I may offer have been pre-disqualified by Rose.
.99
Quote from: poynt99 on May 05, 2011, 08:22:15 AM
Is there anyone here that understands this para? If so, could I impose on you to kindly elucidate on it? Thank you. I believe I have connected the Source and Gate pins as described. No one yet has commented if my diagram is correct.
Again, I believe I've shown the connections as described. Corrections?
Indeed, I am wanting to build it, but again, I do not have a diagram to do so. Could someone kindly provide a link to a diagram OK'd by Rose?
From the above though, any results I may offer have been pre-disqualified by Rose.
.99
.99
Here: http://www.overunity.com/index.php?topic=10407.1095
Post: Reply #1101 * RAmCirc3a.gif (20.26 KB, 823x775 - viewed 84 times.)
GL.
Quote from: Groundloop on May 05, 2011, 08:31:24 AM
.99
Here: http://www.overunity.com/index.php?topic=10407.1095
Post: Reply #1101 * RAmCirc3a.gif (20.26 KB, 823x775 - viewed 84 times.)
GL.
Hi GL.
I've seen your diagram, but I've not seen Rose's "OK" of it afterward. I know it was based on a drawing she emailed you, but I think it is wise to wait for her approval first.
Moreover, if that is indeed the new circuit, I'll need to see a photo of the new setup (top and bottom) before I build that version.
I am more inclined at the moment to build the version demonstrated in the video because we know the circuit, and there is a lot of data posted about it. At present time, Rose's claims of overunity made in reference to that demonstration still stand.
She has not retracted those claims reference the demo, and therefore it stands as a valid circuit to build and test.
.99
Quote from: poynt99 on May 05, 2011, 09:04:56 AM
Hi GL.
I've seen your diagram, but I've not seen Rose's "OK" of it afterward. I know it was based on a drawing she emailed you, but I think it is wise to wait for her approval first.
Moreover, if that is indeed the new circuit, I'll need to see a photo of the new setup (top and bottom) before I build that version.
I am more inclined at the moment to build the version demonstrated in the video because we know the circuit, and there is a lot of data posted about it. At present time, Rose's claims of overunity made in reference to that demonstration still stand. She has not retracted those claims reference the demo, and therefore it stands as a valid circuit to build and test.
.99
.99
Rosemary has "OK" of it to me by email.
GL.
Quote from: Groundloop on May 05, 2011, 09:32:49 AM
.99
Rosemary has "OK" of it to me by email.
GL.
Sorry Groundloop. I was in the process of posting this 'good to go' notice, and got sidetracked. For the record guys - I am absolutely happy with Groundloop's representations. And frankly Groundloop - I'd very much welcome any technical support and advices that you can offer. I entirely trust your interests here and your representations. Perhaps you could guide anyone with enquiries that I can't deal with. I'm only good at measuring those energy values guys. That's just about it. Unless you'd like me to bore you all to tears on a dissertation of zipons. Be happy to oblige. lol.
I've had the smallest of small glimmers of hope here guys. It seems we may find some really appropriate interest in all this VERY SOON. I do hope so. It certainly looks as if things can, pray God, be moved forward.
Anyway - I'll tell you all more when I, myself, know more. A 10 day wait. But that's already 10 days better than I've had yet.
Kindest and best,
Rosie
I have a very real problem in being denied access to Poynty's forum. It seems that this is public to the world. But not to me. I am entirely satisfied that this is immoral - if not illegal. I would earnesly propose that while there is all this level of duplicity in Poynt's dealings with me that he really also disqualifies himself from comment here. It's one thing to hold up everything with his endless and spurious comments and objections - still to be listed by the way - but am getting there. It's an entirely different thing to pose as a 'replicator' when this much antagonism is flaunted and quite this publicly.
Rosemary
Quote from: Groundloop on May 05, 2011, 09:32:49 AM
.99
Rosemary has "OK" of it to me by email.
GL.
That's a good first step GL.
However, as I mentioned, I will not be building that version until I see an updated photo (top and bottom) of the apparatus. It would also be quite beneficial to see scope shots (close-ups) and probe positions both on the apparatus and on an approved diagram.
In the mean time, I'll be building and testing the circuit from the demonstration video, as this is the only one actually verified at this time.
Also, pending a retraction of her claims with reference to the demonstration video and all the results associated with it, it still stands as the de facto proof of COP>1 according to Rose.
.99
Well sorry Rose I deregistered from there yesterday when the Poynted one PM'd me over there to threaten me about a post I made over here, now it seems I too am banned, Not to worry everyone knows how it goes at our. They just seem to like to hear each other drone on and on about denying any claim of OU regardless of thier merits. I know I won't miss that forum.
As allways good luck Rose Pete
oops wrong "hear"
Quote from: vonwolf on May 05, 2011, 10:38:23 AM
Well sorry Rose I deregistered from there yesterday when the Poynted one PM'd me over there to threaten me about a post I made over here, now it seems I too am banned, Not to worry everyone knows how it goes at our. They just seem to like to here each other drone on and on about denying any claim of OU regardless of there merits. I know I won't miss that forum.
As allways good luck Rose Pete
Pete? Sorry to hear you're also being victimised. There's no QUESTION that pressure is put to everyone to conform to the 'poynted viewpoynt'. The overarching reach of the overbearing tyrant. It will brook no argument. But my endless concern is just that he doesn't effectively derail things here.
There's good news in the offing Pete. I'll PM you later.
Take great care of yourself,
Kindest as ever,
Rosie
Quote from: poynt99 on April 03, 2011, 10:24:13 AM
Then would you agree Stefan that it is imperative to obtain an accurate measurement of INPUT power from the battery?
Here is a method that appears to work well, without the need for an oscilloscope:
http://www.overunity.com/index.php?topic=10564.msg280282#msg280282
.99
any more news on this? sorry for posting here, but you had stephan lock that thread after telling us you were going to work on it that weekend. last post was almost a month ago...
Quote from: vonwolf on May 05, 2011, 10:38:23 AM
Well sorry Rose I deregistered from there yesterday when the Poynted one PM'd me over there to threaten me about a post I made over here, now it seems I too am banned, Not to worry everyone knows how it goes at our. They just seem to like to here each other drone on and on about denying any claim of OU regardless of thier merits. I know I won't miss that forum.
As allways good luck Rose Pete
Actually Pete, the truth is you left on your own after I questioned you on your comment. I don't believe I threatened you in any way. As you left on your own accord, I deleted your account.
Public viewing at OUR is back up, except of course for those that have had their IP's banned for one reason or another.
.99
Quote from: WilbyInebriated on May 05, 2011, 10:46:21 AM
any more news on this? sorry for posting here, but you had stephan lock that thread after telling us you were going to work on it that weekend. last post was almost a month ago...
Good question.
I have been working very hard to get a commitment as to the working circuit connections so that I (and others) may replicate and test. This circuit will be the one used to test the proposed INPUT power measurement, as well as showing a few other pertinent measurements relative to the claims. As per my recent posts, I'll be building the circuit as per the video demonstration.
The purpose for using this circuit, is that it operates at over 1MHz frequency, which is one of the questionable issues of the proposed method. One other very good reason, is that it represents a circuit that presently has claims of COP>1 associated with it.
.99
Quote from: poynt99 on May 05, 2011, 11:50:55 AM
Actually Pete, the truth is you left on your own after I questioned you on your comment. I don't believe I threatened you in any way. As you left on your own accord, I deleted your account.
Public viewing at OUR is back up, except of course for those that have had their IP's banned for one reason or another.
.99
I deleted my account you then banned me, no reason to ban my ip I was respectful but ban you did, I even wished you good luck. Your right no threat just your usual bullying that you so often try to do, only problem was your forum holds no interest to me anymore.
Pete
like sands through the hourglass, so are the days of OUR lives... ;)
Guys - more good news. A friend of mine has done a full on replication. I've downloaded waveforms. I'll post it later. All negative values. Two fets attached to a common heatsink running a standard 9 Ohm 12 volt automotive soldering iron. It was cooking - but we didn't have the means to measure the heat. Actually we did. Just forgot to do this. Too hot to handle - in any event. Probably in the region of 80 degrees or more.
Anyway he did a short video on this. I'll upload it when I get my computer back. And I'll upload the screen shots tomorrow morning. Very simple config. I think it's going to be very easy for you guys to replicate this. Crocodile clips - crude connections - but everything working. And everything permanently in NEGATIVE - as with our own tests. You should also be able to see the required waveform on your standard oscilloscopes.
Anyway. That's the first FULL ON replication.
Kindest regards,
Rosie
Sorry I should have added. He used our functions generator to drive the switch. But he's getting his own. But it's JUST SO EASY everyone. Simple and easy. He wired the required 'legs' together and then applied the signal from the generator to both those gates. IT WORKS FINE. And the oscillations are PERFECT. Again, interestingly, better results at higher frequencies. He was running it at 800 Hz.
Abject apologies guys. It seems I didn't get that download onto my flashdrive. Am mortified. I'll see if we can redo his test this evening or at the weekend. I've asked him to become a member here - which will be WONDERFUL. Then he can do his posts directly. He has many ideas to take this to application phase.
But I'll get those waveforms to you as soon as I have them.
Kindest regards,
Rosemary
added : BTW - I'll take the trouble then to measure the temperature. I've got a little 'testo' probe that I use for ambient temperature which I forgot about. Not keen on dismantling the temperature probe on my artefact - because it's been fixed there to keep a reference for our controls.
Just as a general discussion related to the energy in that circuit vs battery 'mass' that I've been referring to - here's something of interest.
The first 'load' on that replication test was a simple light bulb. Can't quite remember the required voltage but I think it was 24v or thereby. In any event - this did not result in those 'negative' cycle mean or mean average voltages. Interestingly the math trace did stay negative which is a discussion all on its own. But the light filament itself is very small. And it was barely alight. Flashed at low frequencies - steady at high frequencies as expected. But very little evident light output at either switching speeds.
Then when we applied the soldering iron as the load - there was an immediate reversal of the numbers that the cycle mean and the mean average AND the math trace just moved into and stayed at NEGATIVE. Not only that but the level of heat dissipated on the iron was extreme. And it could be adjusted in either direction. Resistance of that iron was 9 Ohms. In effect the amount of wattage dissipated appeared to be greater over the load that also had the greater mass.
I wonder if there is a ratio to applied voltage and the actual material mass of the load. I suspect so. It seems that the greater the mass the greater the energy available. Not so much related inductance - but actual mass. Then maybe there's more energy available to 'return' during the 'off' period of the duty cycle. Just a thought.
Again, kindest regards
Rosie
Guys. I've just thought of an easier way to describe this eccentric MOSFET positioning. It's not back to front - not upside down - it's HAND TO HAND. lol. In effect what was done in the replication was this. Two mosfets put side by side and attached to the surface of a shared heat sink. Q1 on the left - Q2 on the right. Legs facing the same same direction. Then using approximately 6" of copper wiring (about 0.25 gauge) x 3. The first wire soldered to the gate of Q1 (far left leg) then connected and soldered to the source of Q2 (far right leg). The second wire solder to the drain of Q1 (middle leg) to the drain of Q2 (middle leg). The third wire soldered to the source of Q1 (its right leg) and then to the gate of Q2 (its left leg). Sort of holding hands. And if I had my PC I'd have given you either a sketch or a photograph. But it's been taken away for forensic analysis! lol.
If you can visualise that - or even sketch it - then that's the required positioning and linkage between those legs. THEN. Put the lead from the signal generator Positive to the GATE of Q1 and Ground to the GATE of Q2. THEN , nota bene guys or Poynty et al will SCREAM DENIALS - put your shunt resistor in series BEHIND that FG's ground and directly in series with the negative rail of the battery supply.
Then. Adjust your duty cycle that it's OFF for a longer period than it's ON - and then SIT BACK and enjoy the show. You'll see everything just oscillating and oscillating. Finer adjustments still required - but that's a good 'kick off'. Thereafter you adjust your 'offset' to get the optimised power values. That may take some time to assess. But if you get to this point then perhaps I can help you out here.
I confidently predict that this is going to be MUCH, MUCH easier to put together than the 'single' spike number that we showed earlier and it'll be easier to prove those gains. And I absolutely do not think you need to get married to that IRFPG50. Use anything that has a zener body diode. On that replication we had a maximum peak to peak voltage from the supply at 3 times the average supply voltage. And on the 24 volts applied that gave us a peak to peak of about 72 volts. That's well within the tolerance of most of those NFETs.
The only downside, perhaps, is that I can't give you an alternative to the functions generator. Not yet anyway. The one that we tried gave us a rather messy waveform and dubious returns. But I know that with the talents available here - then one if not more of you - will find some solutions.
Hope that helps.
Kindest regards,
Rosie
added. And if I may quote what my friend kept saying. 'It's so easy. I can't believe it. There it is. It's so EASY'. lol
Rosemary,
You can also put the transistors like this onto a heat sink.
GL.
Quote from: Groundloop on May 06, 2011, 04:39:16 AM
Rosemary,
You can also put the transistors like this onto a heat sink.
GL.
That's bang on Groundloop. Excellent. My friend had them separated by about 4 inches. But it's the same thing.
Many thanks. A picture's always worth a thousand words.
Kindest regards,
Rosie
;D
Added.
And just to let you know. We'll do a repeat of that replication on Sunday afternoon. Solemn promise, thereafter I'll post those screen shots. Don't know why I didn't manage it yesterday. Could be that the flashdrive is full. But I've got another. Sorry about that.
@Groundloop . I could be wrong here , but is the body of the mosfet that bolts onto the heatsink internally connected to one of the pins? If it is , then 2 separate heatsinks would be needed .
Quote from: neptune on May 06, 2011, 07:18:07 AM
@Groundloop . I could be wrong here , but is the body of the mosfet that bolts onto the heatsink internally connected to one of the pins? If it is , then 2 separate heatsinks would be needed .
Hello Neptune. I might have the answer here. All that's needed is as Groundloop has shown - that there's insulation between the body of the FET and the sink itself. We used an insulation paste - but possibly better as Groundloop's shown it.
regards,
Rosemary
Quote from: neptune on May 06, 2011, 07:18:07 AM
@Groundloop . I could be wrong here , but is the body of the mosfet that bolts onto the heatsink internally connected to one of the pins? If it is , then 2 separate heatsinks would be needed .
@neptune,
The "white" stuff under both transistors is conducting heat but not electricity.
So the metal under the transistor is not in direct contact with the heat sink.
Regards,
GL.
The metal backing and tabs of these devices are usually connected to the Drain (or Collector in the case of BJT's), so it isn't normally a problem if they are connected through the heat sink when they are already connected in the circuit, provided the entire Drain-loop is not too large.
.99
GUYS - I've been alerted to the following. Here's the VIDEO
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dDW_OfkIaIU
Here's the LINK
http://www.overunity.com/index.php?topic=3842.60
This has GOT to be the MOST SIGNIFICANT THING THAT HAS COME OUT OF THIS FORUM EVER. Most definitely a self - runner. I'm going back there to read the entire thread. Needless to say I also came across this little analysis by? 10 Brownie points, as MileHigh says - if you've guessed Poynty. DOES HE GET IN JUST EVERYWHERE? PLEASE. JUST GO THERE AND READ ALL ABOUT IT. IT ABSOLUTELY OUTPERFORMS OUR OWN LITTLE DEVICE.
Quote from: poynt99 on May 05, 2011, 08:07:27 PM
Looping or using a scope to measure the output power will tell the true story.
The input power (~ 11.3W) is going to be fairly accurate because of the DC source. However Gyula, you should be aware that multiplying an average current by an average voltage of an output produced by induced currents in a coil, is not going to have a power factor of 1, and therefore the simple product of 24W will not be accurate.
Judging by the intensity of the bulb and assuming the efficiency to be 80%, the true output power is likely closer to 8W or 9W.
Nice job on the build R. :
What a joke. The only significant fact is that it's a SELF RUNNER. And you can't get that with an 80% efficiency.
Anyway - for some reason that thread topic by Romerouk (hope I've spelt it right) is not being noticed. It's REALLY wonderful. Go there and take a REALLY GOOD look. Golly. All this good news! ;D But our poor Thermodynamic Laws must be rather feeling the need for some air. LOL
HOW WONDERFUL IS ALL THIS?
;D ;D
Kindest regards,
Rosie
Well. I've read it through - cover to cover. WHAT WONDERFUL NEWS. I never even knew about the Muller device. And I've never actually put my mind to motors - because I just assumed that it wouldn't work. I'm now wondering even about poor Mylow. Did his motor perhaps work after all? To his credit - I see that Poynty has actually today - posted news of ths on his forum. Perhaps he'll give it some 'daylight'. lol. I don't think his best skills could silence this evidence. JUST REALLY GOOD NEWS EVERYONE. I've now got to see if this has got to EF.com. May have some competition there.
I'm a little bit concerned that it'll probably make our evidence somewhat obsolete - almost IMMEDIATELY. But that's a good thing too. Every bit helps if it systematically errodes the idea that electric energy is eventually going to cost anything at all. And WHAT will it do to our utility suppliers? And our oil producers? And as Romerouk has open sourced everything - then, there again, it's not likely to be stoppable. Wow. Friday 06th MAY, 2011. It's a BIG day in my life.
Kindest again,
Rosie
;D ;D ;D
Quote from: Rosemary Ainslie on May 06, 2011, 02:51:36 PM
Well. I've read it through - cover to cover. WHAT WONDERFUL NEWS.
Kindest again,
Rosie
;D ;D ;D
Rosie, I am glad you took that the right way! I have built Muller gens before but never with the degree of success that Romero has had here. Indeed it is great news and doesn't eclipse your wonderful device, but rather compliments it. Just imagine a romero device powering an RMA device to heat ones house!!!
On the brightside, "you know who" will be torn between which device to attack now and so this will take the pressure off of you, lol
Keep up the good work
Ron
Quote from: i_ron on May 06, 2011, 03:40:34 PM
Rosie, I am glad you took that the right way! I have built Muller gens before but never with the degree of success that Romero has had here. Indeed it is great news and doesn't eclipse your wonderful device, but rather compliments it. Just imagine a romero device powering an RMA device to heat ones house!!!
On the brightside, "you know who" will be torn between which device to attack now and so this will take the pressure off of you, lol
Keep up the good work
Ron
I'm not sure that you're right Ron. Surely Romero's is a generator? Potentially? That's all that's needed - I'd have thought. And certainly a rotor's going to have better uses for our cars. I'd FAR sooner this get promoted than our own - if it gets to the application that much sooner. Because that's really all that matters. And I feel 'free' now to concentrate on my own evidence. The point is that all that returning energy on the negative cycle speaks to my thesis - both in the excess of energy and in the heat that's dissipated at the load. And that's actually where my interest lies. But it's small change compared to this motor - in terms of its application.
And guys - Ron, everyone, this Romero number is WONDERFUL. I see it putting paid to monopolies and carbon pollution - in a few easy steps. Surely? And that's where the real 'stranglehold' has been. It's a light in the tunnel. A HOPE. And God knows we need it. It would be so nice to think that we humans who, apparently, have been given authority over everything earthly - actually start exercising a little bit of responsibility along with all that control. Long overdue.
It's really good news. If I had company with me at the moment I'd have opened a bottle of wine. As it is I'm toasting all this with a cup of coffee and a rare and special sense of relief. I suspect we'll be owing Romerouk BIG TIME.
As ever Ron, take care.
Kindest regards
Rosie
Rose don't sell you're work short if it can boil water then all the current infrastructure can still be used hopefully with no fuel or much less anyway. Boiling water is what its all about on a large scale well you know what I mean anyways no need to go over it all again.
It figures I'd get banned over there and miss the show, they're going to be doing some real tap dancing and I'm going to miss it. This is going to be really interesting for a while.
Pete
Quote from: vonwolf on May 06, 2011, 04:52:02 PM
Rose don't sell you're work short if it can boil water then all the current infrastructure can still be used hopefully with no fuel or much less anyway. Boiling water is what its all about on a large scale well you know what I mean anyways no need to go over it all again.
It figures I'd get banned over there and miss the show, they're going to be doing some real tap dancing and I'm going to miss the show. This is going to be really interesting for a while.
Pete
Hi Peter Petes, This is amazing news. But don't get me wrong. I'm really not selling myself short. Far from it. I really need our evidence for my thesis. But it's nowhere near as useable as Romero's. But of course it'll play some part in things. One can always make use of what nature gives us. And I agree. It won't be long now and poor Poynty et al will have to argue with the entire world and all that evidence that's now going to bubble up all over the place. That will be so nice. And so INTERESTING to see how he'll tackle this. It's likely to catch him on the back foot - standing on the crumbling pillars of Thermodynamic Laws. What fun. I just wonder what MileHigh will have left to live for. lol. At the moment his raison d'etre is as he put's it 'flying by the seat of his pants' in those explanations for HOW THINGS WORK. Very clear expositions of entirely meaningless science. And as for FuzzyWuzzy. Moral destitution to intellectual suicide in one fell swoop. They'll have to change their theme topics because they've shown themselves somewhat underqualified to comment on New Age Physics. And that's ALL OF THEM. Just so nice.
But Ron is right. This new development will take the focus off this thread - I trust - and then I can rabbit on - at ease and out of focus. And, God willing, we'll be able to take this to explanation - even if applications are somewhat obsolete - ALREADY? Golly. Where will all this end?
Anyway. I can't stop smiling.
Take good care.
Kindest as ever,
Rosie
Quote from: vonwolf on May 06, 2011, 04:52:02 PM
It figures I'd get banned over there and miss the show, they're going to be doing some real tap dancing and I'm going to miss it. This is going to be really interesting for a while.
Pete
LOL, just checked out OUR and I am banned too!!! The poor dears are having a wake over there I guess, and don't want us to see the tears!!!
All the best
Ron
Quote from: i_ron on May 06, 2011, 09:13:03 PM
LOL, just checked out OUR and I am banned too!!! The poor dears are having a wake over there I guess, and don't want us to see the tears!!!
All the best
Ron
Golly. No end to Poynty's punishments. You and Pete banned from seeing their latest discussion on - wait for it - POLITICS. lol. It's hilarious. They've given up on science and are now assuaging their bruised intellects by talking philosophy. With all the pretensions that they used to give to science. Anyway. I better not gloat. It's bad manners. But IRRESISTIBLE. Just so NICE to see a RARE victory for COP INFINITY.
But I assure you both. You're missing NOTHING.
Kindest regards,
Rosie
yep I saw that too,its not hard to get around a ban. oh well
Well guys - it seems that Romerouk's device is now getting all the attention it deserves. That is so nice. And PRECISELY because it's a self runner it'll be impossible to explain this away as a measurements error. Not that they're not trying this. I must hand it to MH that he's engrossed in a tangled monologue about RMS values. Never one to entirely abandon the classical approach. He's committing a minor heresy at OUR by claiming that one cannot determine power measurements through averaging. Poynty will no doubt rap him over the knuckles and poynt him to his own interminable efforts here - at misdirection and obfuscation. He needs the world and it's wife to IGNORE RMS and just concentrate on AVERAGE. But the idiocy of all this is now so overwhelming that I think we can safely assume that from here on in - Poynty will NOT be demanding average values anywhere, ever again. They could still claim that it's fraud. But I think that will be laughed out of court in no time at all.
Also of relative comfort is that there is NO further mention of our own fraudulent or deluded claim - take your pick. Which means that Romero is now centre stage. And unlike me - he has them FLUMMOXED. Very nice indeed.
What rather raises the smile is that one of their members is concerned that notwithstanding the excess of expertise and professionalism and even academic accreditation available on their side, or specifically OUR side - that none of them were able to manage the required magic ingredients. lol. This I think is the real poser there. It rather disinclines them to offer the required tribute. Hopefully there's a way of controlling some of that competitive 'testosterone' and allowing good manners to 'shine through'. Chivalry is not exactly their thing. I recall a rather extended exercise in 'old lady bashing' which speaks to this lack. But it would be really nice to see that they can raise the bar to the extent that they can also admit Romero's remarkable intuition. That's surely a big factor in his impeccable experimental skills.
Anyway - this has been a delicious diversion. It's not off topic guys. I'll get to the relevance in due course. And meanwhile - I'm rooting for Romero. Just so strongly.
Kindest regards,
Rosie
So .... is this the Rosemary Ainslie circuit demonstration on Saturday March 12th 2011 thread it appears to be pages of way off topic subjects.
There has been a major claim in these many pages of a COP > INFINITY on a device or devices to the open source community.
There is from what I see in this thread five (5) or more circuit diagrams shown .... many of them have major problems in the IRFPG50 N Mosfet connections and CRS location which is already well known in the entire open source community.
Exactly which device is verified having the required information as being the correct circuit diagram including complete information on all parts used for a replication to reproduce the COP > INFINITY. This would include all Oscilloscope and Function Generator ( DC offset ) settings also .... everything nothing left out, and all in one place or posting.
So far I have not seen a complete package of information on a COP > INFINITY experimental device that anyone could effectively reproduce results.
A claim of COP > INFINITY takes the experimental bar to the highest position known, and requires the best accurate information available to electronics engineers and academics in order to back up that claim.
Fuzzy
Rosemary. Thanks for all your patience in presenting this free energy device. I would guess most people that replicate it will not shout it from the roof tops. The New York Times refused to send a reporter to the Wright brothers to see a heavier than air airplane for a full five years after the first flight because they were assured by the most learned men in the field that such a thing was impossible. At that point it was the Wright brothers who were the most learned men in the field. Somethings never change. ;) Good luck in the future.
Garry
There seem to be some confusion so here is some manufactures information on the inner portion of the IRFPG50 N MOSFET and the operation of the substrate .....
Figure 6, 7 and 8 Images from the attached (PDF) International Rectifier - Application Note AN-1005 - Power MOSFET Avalanche Design Guidelines
Fuzzy
Quote from: iflewmyown on May 07, 2011, 02:57:43 PM
Rosemary. Thanks for all your patience in presenting this free energy device. I would guess most people that replicate it will not shout it from the roof tops. The New York Times refused to send a reporter to the Wright brothers to see a heavier than air airplane for a full five years after the first flight because they were assured by the most learned men in the field that such a thing was impossible. At that point it was the Wright brothers who were the most learned men in the field. Somethings never change. ;) Good luck in the future.
Garry
Hi iflewmyown. I'm not so sure that it'll be that difficult to advance the news of all this COP infinitiy. We have, ourselves, been making systematic headway - albeit rather slow. And I'm learning how it is that more and more really discerning members of our public are actually dipping into our forums to find out for themselves what all the 'buzz' is about. What they're not doing 'yet' is to acknowledge their preferred reading matter. Not yet anyway.
But motors speak to you guys - on a really deep level. And I'm reasonably sure that there will be replications happening all over the place What's held us up are questions related to mesurement. No-one in their right mind will question a self runner. It's as elegant and eloquent as is needed.
Kindest regards and thanks for the well wishes
Rosemary
Guys, it seems that Poynty's flaming has now stopped and Stefan has given license to a new pretender. Please just concentrate on Groundloops presentations here. These last contributions are utterly irrelevant. But I suspect we're going to need to ignore an awful lot of posts if history is about to repeat itself.
If, for whatever reason this lastest contributor actually manages to lock this thread and get me banned - then look for me on my blog. I'll just continue posting there.
kindest regards,
Rosie
May I remind everyone about a replication in the scientific method ....
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Replication_%28scientific_method%29 (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Replication_%28scientific_method%29)
_____________________________________________________________________________________________
Quote -
Reproducibility is one of the main principles of the scientific method, and refers to the ability of a test or experiment to be accurately reproduced, or replicated, by someone else working independently.
The results of an experiment performed by a particular researcher or group of researchers are generally evaluated by other independent researchers who repeat the same experiment themselves, based on the original experimental description (see independent review). Then they see if their experiment gives similar results to those reported by the original group.
_____________________________________________________________________________________________
This would mean a duplicate, same as, clone or exactly the same device.
This would also mean no substitutions on any components.
The above stipulations exist for a scientific replication to verify the claimed results of any electronic circuit no exceptions.
.
QuoteKindest regards and thanks for the well wishes.
Rosemary
Thank you Rosemary ..you too.
The Boss
Guys - another quick comment about Romero's work. I see an in depth discussion on this on Poynty's forum and some very appropriate analyses by some of those members. This is where I needs must pay tribute to the disciplines of the forum. Indeed open source advances ones learning and secures knowledge that it never becomes secreted by an exploitive few.
Very nice Poynty Point. It shows what you're capable of on either side of a preferred argument. All that's lacking is consistency. But it's good to see what your members are capable of when their interest is finally piqued.
Regards,
Rosemary
And Guys, I think, round about now, I should try and explain the relevance of Romero's work to our own - albeit less dramatic evidence. It has nothing to do with the results and everything to do with the measurements.
You guys are captivated by the motor. With good reason. It's sexier to see those moving parts. You're all of you skilled experimentalists - and the 'holy grail' of all this research is to get rid of any overt dependency on an energy supply source. Therein lies 'true freedom' so to speak. Certainly it extends one's potential for true self reliance away from a direct geographic reliance on our supply monopolists. But - by the same token, it has been impossibly difficult to prove a motor's efficiencies. One just needs to look at the work of Bedini et al - and their efforts in this regard.
Now, while those numbers could be contended - while the actual level of efficiency was subject to any kind of debate - then there was also no reason to consider any such work to be any real threat to our jealous energy suppliers. Therefore was there also no real reason to mount a campaign of objection. And even where the efficiencies were debated and contended - it was never enough justification to halt progress, so to speak. That motor configuration was going to be studied - no matter what. It's where your hearts lie. With good reason. Back to the 'sexiness' of moving parts and to the compelling and compulsive interests of all you engineers.
Our own experimental evidence was always compelling. Coupled with which there was a pesky prediction required for those results in an eccentric thesis. And that thesis represented an entire departure from conventional phyiscs. Field theory reduced to a digital analysis and requiring consideration of nothing more than a positive - a negative and a neutral. In effect, it was nothing more than a philosophical reach into dialectic exercise in logic. But it had some rather compelling parallels to known physics. No overt contradictions to what was classical and what was quantum and even what was not. It conformed.
What was not arguable was the repeatability of the experimental proof of that thesis. And so it was absolutely required to attack - not so much the results - but the person advancing those results. Not the message so much as the messenger. I don't think I need remind you all. Threads flamed, threads locked, threads dedicated to maligning me, and on and on. Certainly I was widely painted as a deluded incompetent and there was even a time where I was accused of the fraudulent attempt to somehow capitalise on this knowledge which I'd plagiarised from Open Source. But it's painful to remember it all let alone to reference it here. And it's inappropriate to moralise. So. I'll try and get to the point.
Which is this. There is no earthly way that you can get a self runner without accessing an energy supply that has heretofore been 'outlawed' by our scientific community. This is now 'in the bag'. What must follow on from this is a sincere revision of those concepts related to energy. And most especially this needs a radical revision of the actual properties of energy itself. This will now need some real attention from our brightest and best academicians. And here we can all rest easy. Theoreticians have been somewhat adventurous in pointing to explanations. But to the best of my knowledge there is no theoretician that has presumed to propose, let alone to analyse, the actual properties of energy. And as that is now required - I am reaonably certain that they'll come to the table to address this. And physics is absolutely NOT determined by speculation. A line of argument is either right or it's wrong. And in the unlikely event that my own exercise is even half-way right - or even if it's entirely wrong - then the fact is that the explanation will STILL BE NEEDED. And thus far they've been able to avoid the question at all.
I hope that goes some way to explaining my relief in seeing the good work that Romero's doing - and indeed that all are doing in their efforts to protect this knowledge and keep it open source. And I trust it will explain the relevance to this thread topic - circuitously (lol) related as it is to our own work. If I am even 'half way right' then what I'm seeing is the potential, not only of defeating those prescribed constraints in the transfer of energy - but of defeating even the gravitational forces. It's all good news. I see a bright beacon of light - where I am only used to pointing to a small 'glimmer'. And that glimmer was shrouded by the most concerted attack that has ever been advanced on these forums. And, by the looks of our latest contributor here, is likely to continue.
Anyway. It's all good news everyone. Really, really good news.
Kindest regards,
Rosemary
Rose:
I find it fascinating that Romero's generator is OU and closed loop self-running even though it was deemed only 80% efficient here on this topic. This must be a miracle of some kind. It makes me wonder what the COP might be if it were deemed 90% efficient?
I alerted Stefan to this fellow's work after you brought it to my attention in your topic here. So, thank you. This really looks to be something special and now, i expect the experts to try to calculate why it "can't" work. But yet, it appears to do just that.
Thank you for this Rose and also for all of your hard work, patience and contributions to this fascinating field that we all love, even though we sometimes fight amongst ourselves, we are all here for the same thing.
Bill
Quote from: Pirate88179 on May 08, 2011, 06:53:53 AM
Rose:
I find it fascinating that Romero's generator is OU and closed loop self-running even though it was deemed only 80% efficient here on this topic. This must be a miracle of some kind. It makes me wonder what the COP might be if it were deemed 90% efficient?
Bill
"Efficiency" and "COP" are not the same thing Bill, and I would have expected you to know this.
Quote from: poynt99 on May 08, 2011, 08:43:11 AM
"Efficiency" and "COP" are not the same thing Bill, and I would have expected you to know this.
Oh Poynty. Co-efficient of performance is the measure of efficiency as it relates to 1. COP relates to the measure of efficiency in the delivery of power. They are, indeed, the same thing.
And Pirate, thanks for that. Always appreciated.
Kindest regards to you both,
Rosemary
Quote from: Rosemary Ainslie on May 08, 2011, 08:49:13 AM
Oh Poynty. Co-efficient of performance is the measure of efficiency as it relates to 1. COP relates to the measure of efficiency in the delivery of power. They are, indeed, the same thing.
And Pirate, thanks for that. Always appreciated.
Kindest regards to you both,
Rosemary
Oh Rosie-posie, you really should please familiarize yourself with the facts.
Quote from: poynt99 on May 08, 2011, 10:07:43 AM
Oh Rosie-posie, you really should please familiarize yourself with the facts.
lol. Poynty Pointy - Pay attention now. COP stands for CO EFFICIENT OF PERFORMANCE . The EFFICIENT part of that relates to the measured 'EFFICIENCY' of power as it relates to the transfer of energy. It is usually compared to '1'.
Now. You are welcome to bore us all to tears by referencing any amount of links that may have various and more LEARNED ways of describing all this. But we only need to understand the term. And I think we do. Certainly I do. lol.
As ever,
Rosie Posie
;D
And btw Poynty. I see your endless requirements for solid state configs. Just take a good look at Groundloops circuit here. I've got a sneaking suspicion we've already got the solid state version. Just not sure I should reference it.
Quote from: Rosemary Ainslie on May 08, 2011, 10:32:40 AM
lol. Poynty Pointy - Pay attention now. COP stands for CO EFFICIENT OF PERFORMANCE . The EFFICIENT part of that relates to the measured 'EFFICIENCY' of power as it relates to the transfer of energy. It is usually compared to '1'.
Now. You are welcome to bore us all to tears by referencing any amount of links that may have various and more LEARNED ways of describing all this. But we only need to understand the term. And I think we do. Certainly I do. lol.
As ever,
Rosie Posie
;D
You 'caunt' be serious Rose?
Do you know what a "coefficient" is?
http://www.mathwizz.com/algebra/help/help4.htm
It has absolutely nothing to do with the concept of "efficiency". Obviously you either didn't read the documents, or you didn't understand them, as obviously you still don't get it.
::) Good grief!
.99
Quote from: Rosemary Ainslie on May 08, 2011, 10:32:40 AM
And btw Poynty. I see your endless requirements for solid state configs. Just take a good look at Groundloops circuit here. I've got a sneaking suspicion we've already got the solid state version. Just not sure I should reference it.
And btw Rosie-posie, I see your endless attempts to ride the coat tails of others.
Your oscillator is in no way related to Romero's device, and therefore not a solid-state version of it.
.99
Quote from: poynt99 on May 08, 2011, 10:43:34 AM
You 'caunt' be serious Rose?
Do you know what a "coefficient" is?
http://www.mathwizz.com/algebra/help/help4.htm
It has absolutely nothing to do with the concept of "efficiency". Obviously you either didn't read the documents, or you didn't understand them, as obviously you still don't get it.
::) Good grief!
.99
;D lol. I'll manage somehow. And sit tight there Poynty. We've got some waveforms to download. You need to see this.
Quote from: poynt99 on May 08, 2011, 11:08:05 AM
And btw Rosie-posie, I see your endless attempts to ride the coat tails of others.
Your oscillator is in no way related to Romero's device, and therefore not a solid-state version of it.
.99
lol. Indeed I am Poynty. I'm hanging on there. Much required.
;D ;D ;D
Quote from: poynt99 on May 08, 2011, 10:43:34 AM
You 'caunt' be serious Rose?
Do you know what a "coefficient" is?
http://www.mathwizz.com/algebra/help/help4.htm
It has absolutely nothing to do with the concept of "efficiency". Obviously you either didn't read the documents, or you didn't understand them, as obviously you still don't get it.
::) Good grief!
.99
There old poynted boy goes cherry picking definitions and claiming his superiority. English is a though language one word can have many definitions, um lets see, wikipedia might look at coefficient a little more comprehensively.....http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Coefficient
Examples of physical coefficients
1.Coefficient of Thermal Expansion (thermodynamics) (dimensionless) - Relates the change in temperature to the change in a material's dimensions.
2.Partition Coefficient (KD) (chemistry) - The ratio of concentrations of a compound in two phases of a mixture of two immiscible solvents at equilibrium.
3.Hall coefficient (electrical physics) - Relates a magnetic field applied to an element to the voltage created, the amount of current and the element thickness. It is a characteristic of the material from which the conductor is made.
4.Lift coefficient (CL or CZ) (Aerodynamics) (dimensionless) - Relates the lift generated by an airfoil with the dynamic pressure of the fluid flow around the airfoil, and the planform area of the airfoil.
5.Ballistic coefficient (BC) (Aerodynamics) (units of kg/m2) - A measure of a body's ability to overcome air resistance in flight. BC is a function of mass, diameter, and drag coefficient.
6.Transmission Coefficient (quantum mechanics) (dimensionless) - Represents the probability flux of a transmitted wave relative to that of an incident wave. It is often used to describe the probability of a particle tunnelling through a barrier.
7.Damping Factor a.k.a. viscous damping coefficient (Physical Engineering) (units of newton-seconds per meter) - relates a damping force with the velocity of the object whose motion is being
Good Geief indeed!
Pete
Edit;
Had to clean up my c&p
That's so odd that someone would post something "FALSE" and "INACCURATE" that has
nothing to do with this thread at all concerning the term "coefficient" other that to confuse members and guests being off topic and try to derail the thread.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Coefficient
Quote
Examples of physical coefficients
1. Coefficient of Thermal Expansion (thermodynamics) (dimensionless) - Relates the change in temperature to the change in a material's dimensions.
2. Partition Coefficient (KD) (chemistry) - The ratio of concentrations of a compound in two phases of a mixture of two immiscible solvents at equilibrium.
3. Hall coefficient (electrical physics) - Relates a magnetic field applied to an element to the voltage created, the amount of current and the element thickness. It is a characteristic of the material from which the conductor is made.
4. Lift coefficient (CL or CZ) (Aerodynamics) (dimensionless) - Relates the lift generated by an airfoil with the dynamic pressure of the fluid flow around the airfoil, and the planform area of the airfoil.
5. Ballistic coefficient (BC) (Aerodynamics) (units of kg/m2) - A measure of a body's ability to overcome air resistance in flight. BC is a function of mass, diameter, and drag coefficient.
6. Transmission Coefficient (quantum mechanics) (dimensionless) - Represents the probability flux of a transmitted wave relative to that of an incident wave. It is often used to describe the probability of a particle tunnelling through a barrier.
7. Damping Factor a.k.a. viscous damping coefficient (Physical Engineering) (units of newton-seconds per meter) - relates a damping force with the velocity of the object whose motion is being
Again I find no useful information concerning this at all and has no bearing what so ever here on the results on calculations of the
claimed COP > INFINITY other than a diversion of facts.
Fuzzy
Quote from: fuzzytomcat on May 08, 2011, 01:46:46 PM
That's so odd that someone would post something "FALSE" and "INACCURATE" that has nothing to do with this thread at all concerning the term "coefficient" other that to confuse members and guests being off topic and try to derail the thread.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Coefficient
Again I find no useful information concerning this at all and has no bearing what so ever here on the results on calculations of the claimed COP > INFINITY other than a diversion of facts.
Fuzzy
Out of context but a much better job at copy & past than mine.
Thanks
Quote from: fuzzytomcat on May 08, 2011, 01:46:46 PM
That's so odd that someone would post something "FALSE" and "INACCURATE" that has nothing to do with this thread at all concerning the term "coefficient" other that to confuse members and guests being off topic and try to derail the thread.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Coefficient
Again I find no useful information concerning this at all and has no bearing what so ever here on the results on calculations of the claimed COP > INFINITY other than a diversion of facts.
Fuzzy
still here with your vendetta fuzzy? don't you know there's a new claim (pilgrim) in town son?? why don't you run on over there like the rest of the merry gang did. you guys remind me of jack palance in the movie shane...
the merry gang: "did you say overunity or cop > 1? pick up the gun, pilgrim..."
one of the unwashed masses: "mister i'm just here trying to do something for the planet..."
the merry gang: "pick up the gun!"
grow up son, and please pass that bit of advice on to the rest of your obsessed gang... ::)
Come on Fuzzytomcat it's great over their, the inventor of the device answers all the questions, and you don't need to worry about measurements it is a self-runner ;D ;D ;D
Quote from: WilbyInebriated on May 08, 2011, 02:15:41 PM
still here with your vendetta fuzzy? don't you know there's a new claim (pilgrim) in town son?? why don't you run on over there like the rest of the merry gang did. you guys remind me of jack palance in the movie shane...
the merry gang: "did you say overunity or cop > 1? pick up the gun, pilgrim..."
one of the unwashed masses: "mister i'm just here trying to do something for the planet..."
the merry gang: "pick up the gun!"
grow up son, and please pass that bit of advice on to the rest of your obsessed gang... ::)
It's good to know that
you are in 100% agreement with what documented testing and evaluation of Rosemary's claims of COP > INFINITY you are the first on record to be in agreement with her findings.
I personally have not found yet a
complete package here or anywhere of this device, a circuit diagram, parts list, settings of the oscilloscope plus continued data dumps over a specific time frame and the function generator including what the
DC offset setting adjustment was set at .... to make a verified scientific replication.
Exactly what have you found in your testing and evaluation of this device on what ever construction data your working from for a verified scientific replication?
This to me appears a
"FALSE" and
"INACCURATE" claim of
COP > INFINITY with nothing at all verifiable to back up the claim or claims from the inventor.
Fuzzy
Guys,
Here are those waveforms on the repeat tests using a standard 9 Ohm automotive solder iron. Temperature stabilised at around 85 degrees, 64 degrees over ambient. But the control was different as it was not held inside a vacuum flask. We didn't up the battery voltage to increase the energy as we ran out of time.
Also a second test done on a bank of LED's. But I'll leave that to my friend to describe. Here we had evidence of a battery voltage climbing but it may have been because the current was that low. Video made of this as well. Both will be uploaded here when I get my PC back. Hopefully soon.
Just as a comment. Those crocodile clips and thin wires not ideal. We had precarious results to begin with because of loose connections. All the leads were soldered and we then found that the results stabilised. Personally I think the results would have improved with thicker copper wire. But that's purely speculative.
We'll get a schematic downloaded soon - but in essence, the same circuit as groundloop showed but with a different load - obviously, and with the use of only two 'hand to hand' MOSFET's.
From what we're seeing this is relatively easy to apply to just about any appliance that's used for heat. But obviously - much research required to sort out that switching software and sundry controls.
Kindest regards,
Rosemary
Quote from: poynt99 on May 08, 2011, 08:43:11 AM
"Efficiency" and "COP" are not the same thing Bill, and I would have expected you to know this.
Really? Then you had better tell all of those fellows over there on your OUR forum this news. All of the ones that claimed that the JT circuit could never be COP>1 because it is only 40% efficient. They seem to think these terms are related. You should correct them as well. Come on man, you are much more intelligent than this.
Bill
http://newlightondarkenergy.blogspot.com/2011/05/111-proof-positive.html >:(
Quote
111 - proof positive
Dear Reader,
As you know my preference is in 'dialogue' as I believe this is the best means to progress this knowledge. Where this dialogue has been progressed is at overunity.com's forum. Here's the link.
click here
Unfortunately Harti, our forum owner, has allowed Glen Lettenmaier full membership with the mandate to flame my thread to death. He's more than qualified to do this - not because he's a debater - but precisely because he is not. He lacks the language skills and the intellectual subtleties required.
I'm not here readers and members to do name calling, do IQ scores or debate and have any dialog with someone whom has a long history of doing just these things, to hide the numerous unanswered questions at hand here and sidetracking this thread
Rosemary Ainslie circuit demonstration on Saturday March 12th 2011 and the claimed results.
This includes a claim here by Rosemary in this thread of a
COP > INFINITY device not once but multiple times in her
dialog of the postings, most of which are off topic here by design.
Where is the scientific proof that was given to the open source community to substantiate the validity of this claim that has never been posted in this forum before ?There are forum rules here that apply ....
Quote
You agree, through your use of this forum, that you will not post any material which is false, defamatory, inaccurate, abusive, vulgar, hateful, harassing, obscene, profane, sexually oriented, threatening, invasive of a person's privacy, adult material, or otherwise in violation of any International or United States Federal law. You also agree not to post any copyrighted material unless you own the copyright or you have written consent from the owner of the copyrighted material. Spam, flooding, advertisements, chain letters, pyramid schemes, and solicitations are also forbidden on this forum.
You agree, through your use of this forum, that you will not post any material which is false, inaccurate or harassing postingsThe above is a qualification to question the finding when
no scientific proof or presentation of all the facts concerning the device or devices claiming a
COP > INFINITY are only available to the inventor by design.
EXCEPTED FACTS -1)
All COP > INFINITY device information in one place in one post not spread out over eighty (80) pages.
2) A
accurate circuit diagram of the claimed COP > INFINITY device .... there are
five (5) at least that I know of .... and the one on your blog is incorrect (FALSE)
http://newlightondarkenergy.blogspot.com/2011/04/109-simulated-circuit.html#links3) All sequenced oscilloscope screen shots and data dumps from the
day of the test not days before or after for over a minimum of one hour at 6 minute intervals for a total of eleven (11) verified recordings of the COP > INFINITY device.
4) The complete parts list of
all the components used to do a
scientific replication to verify the results in a verifiable scientific manner of the
COP > INFINITY device
5) All the settings of the Function Generator in Hz or Mhz .... including .... the
setting of the DC offset switch ( -10 VDC to + 10 VDC )
6) A complete photographic image set available for verification and review including the top and bottom of any circuit board of the
COP > INFINITY device at the time under or during test .
7) A
"LIVE streaming broadcast" of the device testing event in real time for 48 hours minimum untouched .... all that's required is a registering for a
FREE LIVE streaming broadcast account and a web camera showing the claim of
COP > INFINITYThis should be a minimum to claim a COP > INFINITY ......
If the above
seven items cannot be done in a excepted verifiable
Scientific Method .... the claims made here of a
COP > INFINITY mean nothing only
FALSE and
INACCURATE statements being made.
Glen Lettenmaier
aka FuzzyTomCat
Guys - a little about the accuracy of the measurements.
Regarding the shunt or CSR as it's identified on our schematic. That oscillation that the components find is always within a small range of frequeny which it finds itself. One needs to factor in the required impedance at that frequency as it effects the shunts. This in turn requires careful assessment of the inductance of that CSR. This inductance was carefully measured by the staff at CPUT using their own calibrated and sophisticated equipment. Once one factors in the required - then the CSR's resistance is factored in at 0.9 Ohms during that oscillation. This is easily managed on the spread sheet down loads.
Then. Notwithstanding the required adjustment to the shunt value one is still left with an excess of energy returned to the battery that still needs to be explained.
Regarding the use of the functions generator to apply the required frequency. This is not ideal. But it's adequate. This because when it comes to actually making an appliance then the required signal will be transposable - if that's the word. In other words the software will be designed around whatever it is that's required as shown by the functions generator. But one of our members here is working on the design to do without the functions generator. He tried this again last night but 'blew' one of the chips. It needs to be redone. Hopefully he'll be able to get there. He has re-activated his account here - I believe. And hopefully he'll be in a position to explain all this himself.
What is of interest and will be shown when we download the video is that his own shunt is non-inductive. Not one of those highly calibrated - high wattage numbers - unfortunately. You'll notice that the waveforms are not as 'steady' as they were in our own circuit experiment. This is probably due to the fact that his shunt was not able to tolerate those momentary high wattages.
Regarding any claims at all that there may be a measurement error on our circuit. That would be interesting to find. We cannot find it. And it has been looked at by some highly competent engineers. If any of you can find it then that would be nice.
Kindest regards,
Rosemary
Quote from: Rosemary Ainslie on May 08, 2011, 11:12:54 PM
Guys - a little about the accuracy of the measurements.
Regarding the shunt or CSR as it's identified on our schematic. That oscillation that the components find is always within a small range of frequeny which it finds itself. One needs to factor in the required impedance at that frequency as it effects the shunts. This in turn requires careful assessment of the inductance of that CSR. This inductance was carefully measured by the staff at CPUT using their own calibrated and sophisticated equipment. Once one factors in the required - then the CSR's resistance is factored in at 0.9 Ohms during that oscillation. This is easily managed on the spread sheet down loads.
If you have not factored in the DC resistance (and by calculation I see you haven't), then the actual value to be used is 0.9 + 0.25 =
1.15 Ohms.
Quote
But one of our members here is working on the design to do without the functions generator. He tried this again last night but 'blew' one of the chips. It needs to be redone. Hopefully he'll be able to get there. He has re-activated his account here - I believe. And hopefully he'll be in a position to explain all this himself.
::) I provided a schematic (two schematics in fact) that does away with the FG long ago.
You've ignored those I guess.
Quote
Regarding any claims at all that there may be a measurement error on our circuit. That would be interesting to find. We cannot find it. And it has been looked at by some highly competent engineers. If any of you can find it then that would be nice.
This has already been done. You've ignored that I guess.
Now regarding the new circuit topology, it would be impossible to accurately determine where the measurement error is without a photo or diagram depicting precisely where the scope probes are placed. I requested this a couple of times already.
You ignored those requests I guess.
.99
Quote from: Rosemary Ainslie on May 08, 2011, 11:12:54 PM
But one of our members here is working on the design to do without the functions generator. He tried this again last night but 'blew' one of the chips. It needs to be redone. Hopefully he'll be able to get there. He has re-activated his account here - I believe. And hopefully he'll be in a position to explain all this himself.
Blew up a chip....you don't say? Wonder why that would be? ::)
.99
Quote from: poynt99 on May 08, 2011, 11:31:30 PM
If you have not factored in the DC resistance (and by calculation I see you haven't), then the actual value to be used is 0.9 + 0.25 = 1.15 Ohms.
No actually. The net value is 0.9 Ohms. And then only during the oscillation phase.
Quote from: poynt99 on May 08, 2011, 11:31:30 PM::) I provided a schematic (two schematics in fact) that does away with the FG long ago. You've ignored those I guess.
Not actually. It's outside my competence to build any circuit at all. And that's only because I don't have the eyes to manage it. But nothing's to stop you or anyone else from building it.
And yes. I remember your quarrel with our measurements. it was all to do with undersampling, then the position of the ground from the signal generator - and then a general complaint about the inductance on our circuit. I am actually in need of valid objections.
Quote from: poynt99 on May 08, 2011, 11:31:30 PMNow regarding the new circuit topology, it would be impossible to accurately determine where the measurement error is without a photo or diagram depicting precisely where the scope probes are placed. I requested this a couple of times already. You ignored those requests I guess.
Far from it. I've got those photos. But you'll have to wait for the download. My PC was hacked. It's being fixed. I seem to remember having explained this ad nauseum. Anyway. There it is again. Hopefully I'll get it back next week. Can't wait. I'm dying to prove how the position of this before the CSR makes not the slightest difference to those results.
Regards,
Rosie-Posie
Quote from: poynt99 on May 08, 2011, 11:42:45 PM
Blew up a chip....you don't say? Wonder why that would be? ::)
.99
Don't wonder too long Poynty. It was blown well before he got here to measure anything.
Regards,
Rosemary
And guys, I'm reasonably satisfied that there have been many proofs of exceeding unity - certainly on this forum and certainly elsewhere. And I am also satisfied that these results have FAR exceeded unity if they have not actually achieved COP infinity. The use of the term COP INFINITY is when the measure of energy from a supply is less than the energy returned to the supply. Then the co-efficient of performance can no longer be related to 1. That is what is evident. It has been publicly demonstrated which is all that is required for proof. But it has also been video'd and has been carefully recorded in a published report. Subsequent to that report there has been a revised schematic on a simulated program that CONFORMS IN ITS ENTIRETY to the results that we achieved on our demonstrated device. And the circuit that is applicable to all this has been posted by Groundloop and now entirely conforms to the required.
The fact that a simulation of this conforms at all is significant. It not only endorses our own findings but it shows that - in fact - these results are achievable within the context of proven classical measurement protocols.
That this thread is being 'flamed' at all - is because Harti is allowing it. He has advised me privately, that he's thinking of 'closing' this thread because he sees that our measurements may be wrong. Which no doubt explains why Fuzzy is allowed to post here at all. It's his speciality to kill my threads. I have addressed every concern that Stefan has mentioned. With conclusive argument. If, notwithstanding, this thread is locked - IF that happens - and IF I am, indeed banned, then may I impose on you all to consider his reasons for this? On a suspicion of incorrect measurements? It seems strange. I would then confidently predict that when the honeymoon period is over with Romero - that he too will be disgraced or banned. I do hope you guys will rally. You really need to take care of him. And I think you need to pay especial attention to the motives of these forums. One hopes that they're intended to promote any OU technology.
Meanwhile I'll leave you with this thought. Whenever I am banned or whenever my threads are locked - it's a consequence of Fuzzy being allowed free reign to do his worst. Why is he given that much license?
Kindest regards,
Rosie
ADDED
And edited spelling
And while I still have a voice here - there's another point. When you guys start exploring the solid state version of that circuit of Romero's I suspect you'll begin by applying inductors. Then you'll progress to more and more simplified versions of that circuit. And then, unhappily, you'll probably end up with the simplest version of all - which is our own circuit. Which inclines me to think that we've got a solid state version of the same thing. Results not as clearly evident - but certainly as dramatic in their values. And certainly usable. It's just that Romero's is potentially a generator which should, by rights, obviate any need at all to apply our own.
It'll be interesting to see how Poynty fares on this solid state reach. It was an early if not first question.
Regards again
Rosemary
RomeoUK has a convincing demo...no batteries needed. He has a few other tricks up his sleeve that can be developed further including an inovative solidstate system.
I think most of the crow has shifted over there. Keep up your work i am sure oneday you will have something that is straighforward.
Quote from: Rosemary Ainslie on May 08, 2011, 11:49:19 PM
No actually. The net value is 0.9 Ohms. And then only during the oscillation phase.
Indeed it is 1.15 Ohms. Explain How you arrived at your erroneous conclusion?
Familiarize yourself with the facts. Total Impedance (at oscillation) is:
Z = R + jX, where
R is the real part (0.25), and
jX is the imaginary part (0.9).
Quote
Not actually. It's outside my competence to build any circuit at all.
YOU, your team, your friends etc. etc. have had those two schematics for some time. The point being, the design was already at hand. ::)
Quote
And yes. I remember your quarrel with our measurements. it was all to do with undersampling, then the position of the ground from the signal generator - and then a general complaint about the inductance on our circuit. I am actually in need of valid objections.
Incorrect on all counts actually. You've really not been paying attention to anything I've said in the last two weeks (or more). Actually based on my experience, that's probably not the case; it's more a case of misinterpretation of what I've said.
Quote
Far from it. I've got those photos. But you'll have to wait for the download.
Good.
.99
Poynty - I'm taking this our conversation off forum for now. You can continue to argue here. I won't. I will email you.
Rosemary
Regarding your email Rose, the post I am suggesting you review is this one:
http://www.overunity.com/index.php?topic=10407.msg284238#msg284238
If something is not clear in that post, just say so and I will try to elucidate on anything you wish.
.99
Poynty ? This definitely needs a thread post. I am not sure that I understand you. You log in certain circuit parameters into PSpice. You hit the play button and it gives results? Something like that. Are you saying that you had to invert your probe positions to find that negative number?
Or are you arguing that it is meaningless precisely because it gave a negative result?
Sorry that's the best I could do with what you've written.
Kindest regards,
Rosie
And guys, just to get back to that COP INFINITY number. Romerouk's device is able to keep going over extended periods without any further input of any energy at all. And while all is turning it's also driving a light load. In terms of classical physics the amount of energy that has been delivered must equal the amount of energy that is dissipated. Therefore, by rights the turning of the rotar and the lighting of the light must eventually grind to a halt and die out respectively. Clearly they do not. the actual Joules expended over a 5.5 hour experiment is calculable. As are the amount of Joules required to charge the caps equally so.
Let us assume that the device can run - uninterrupted - for say, - 1 hour. So take the product of the volts of the battery and the amperage of the energy injected into the caps. Then multiply it by the brief time it takes to charge the caps. Possibly 80 seconds at its outside most. That's the Joules value - and that's the power input into the system. So. Let's assume a 12 volt supply and a generous 4 amps current flow - vi. Then for the 'dt' part of that equation - add in that 80 seconds to charge the cap. That's 12 volts * 4 amps * 80 seconds = 3 840 Joules or thereby. Now. All that's needed is to take the product of the wattage dissipated by the lights because that's got a known value. Then start multiplying. 60 seconds for 60 minutes for ..... what? 1 hour? 2 hours? 5 hours? Let's assume 20 watts dissipated as light. That's 20 * 60 * 60 * 1 or 2 or 3 or 4 or 5 ...... Now we're already at 360KW. So. 3840 Joules input for 360 000 watts output? That's most certainly COP INFINITY. And we haven't even factored in the energy required to turn the rotor.
There is no question that Romero's device is at COP INFINITY. I am amazed that anyone would find cause to question it. Correctly the question should be this. IF energy delivered by a supply is depeleted anywhere at all in the circuit then how come this gadget is able to run beyond 5 seconds at best? MH. With the utmost respect - you're on a hiding to nowhere with your latest objections.
At its least - this evidence will need to be resolved outside the known paradigms related to the transfer of energy. And if anyone at all accuse me of being 'off topic' - I assure you I am NOT. It is very much on topic. It has everything to do with our own claim. And our own claim will not just 'go away'. Where our device is likely to be of value - is in the ouput of higher wattage values. At least until the rotor is able to drive a bigger load. Which I'm reasonably satisfied will be the next step.
What is evident in both tests is this. Current can be induced to flow continuously provided only that the circuit is able to maintain a state of imbalance that the potential difference across a circuit can be retained. All of which begs a revision of the actual properties of current flow.
Kindest as ever,
Rosemary
edited. Revised the input numbers to tally with the video evidence.
And guys, I've also been giving this some more thought. If Romero's device can be managed as a generator - then that would be a very good thing. But there are many hurdles to take it there. In the meantime there is the real possibility that our own device technology will be able to power a generator. Which is certainly also of value.
So. For the Mark Dansies and others who are ready to dismiss the relevance of our own technology. Don't be too quick. I think that both sides of this requirement are managed between both these technolgies. What will be of interest is if this subject can be picked up by the Bedini crowd. They may be able to modify their own apparatus to do what Romero does. That would be a quicker route to getting this technology to higher motorised power. And that's essential for our motor vehicle requirements. Anyway. I see it all happening and happening fast. It's like MileHigh said. A flush of dandelions in spring. Except they're not dandielions - they're orchids. And if there's a seasonal relevance - then it's because it's going to make our winters tolerable.
I just can't stop smiling.
Regards,
Rosemary
AN OPEN LTTER TO POYNTY POINT
Dear Darren,
I've gone over your post. I've re-read most of what you've written. I need you to pay attention. The ONLY way to determine the amount of energy from a supply is by determining the amperage flow from the supply times the voltage across the supply times time. There is no other correct method known to classical science.
We have done this. On all our tests. And all of them show COP INFINITY. It's that simple. In other words - there is more energy being returned to the supply than delivered from the supply. Now. You can argue the relevance of our results in terms of anything that you want. The point of departure from classical prediction is precisely when the sum of those values - those returning voltages across the shunt - EXCEED the voltages from the supply and they 'turn negative'. Then you can calculate the shunt at any value at all. There is still more energy being returned than being delivered. Either that or all our measurements are wrong. And if they're wrong then they're wrong on the most sophisticated instruments available. Which is highly unlikely - the more so as the more sophisticated the measurement the greater the evident benefit.
Then just consider this. We have HUGE capacity in our batteries. But we have now been running those batteries for over 8 months. There is absolutely NO evident loss of voltage across any of them. Does that not speak to some kind of proof? We recharged 2 of them after the fire - but that was it. Then consider this. We have taken the water to boil were there was ALSO clear evidence of an increase in battery voltage despite a clear INCREASE in the wattage output over the load. Those events were simultaneous. Then consider this. Look at Romero's set up and read my conservative power analysis related to this.
What I'm trying to tell you is that you are looking at evidence all over the place that is absolutely in defiance of known physical paradigms. And you really need to take this on board. What you are not asking is this. "Could it be that Rosemary is telling the truth? Could it be that Romero's device is proof positive? Could I have been WRONG?' That's the challenge. You do not hesitate to advise us all that we're wrong. But you need to take a good look. You're like St Paul charging about the place to crucify claims and claimants. But unlike him you've not yet seen the light. You've not taken the evidence on board. And if I am lying or misrepresenting the facts, then there are an awful lot of people who have witnessed this who are also collaborating in that lie.
And what's doubly sad is this. You have already found those contestable values on your own simulation. It is telling you that there's a negative sum in those voltages. It's also telling you that you've exceeded unity. In fact, precisely because those values are negative - it's telling you that you've actually got COP INFINITY. But you're even inclined to dismiss the relevance of your own numbers. What does that say? Not only does PSpice give you the tools to make the circuit results. It also gives you the evidence. I have been advised by some considerable authority - that if a simulation can duplicate our numbers then there is actually no more evidence required. In other words our apparatus is REDUNDANT. Yet you're questioning those simulated numbers as dismissively as the test evidence. It is simply not logical. And I'm the first to pay tribute to your talents. I always have. And I'm satisfied that you're capable of better. I believe you need to look again at the evidence that is happening everywhere now. Golly. We're already getting replications - alternate applications - and that with ease.
Kindest regards,
Rosie
A wealth of data showing a great eye for all the details in this thread, a must read for everyone to receive the full benefits of this on topic discussion of information provided
http://rosemaryainslie-publicblog.blogspot.com/Quote -
_________________________________________________________________________________________________
Anonymous said...
May 9, 2011 6:22 PM
Interesting approach for Rosemary trying to "FLAME" her own thread to get it locked down.
The COP > INFINITY heat must be getting turned up on her unfounded claims or put down where they belong.
Rosemary is torn between telling the "truth" on a proper scientific method that's verifiable on her COP> INFINITY device, or something more like a unproven "THESIS" presented to the open source community.
Rosemary's history showed on a COP> 17 device presented to the open source community .... many experimentalist tried all her published documentation with the same end results "IT DIDN'T WORK" at all not even a COP> 0 proven.
Rosemary's "THESIS" now starts with a totally scientifically unproven COP> 17 and continues with the same scientifically unproven results to a COP> INFINITY.
.... and all Rosemary's device(s) Observers, Engineers and Academics are silent and never to be seen, the untrained hopfuls and her lap puppies cheer victory .... and a small few that are willing to endure Rosemary Ainslie's abuse to stop the ongoing hoax on society continue._________________________________________________________________________________________________
It kind of goes with what was posted by Rosemary in Reply # 1159 here at OU .... I'll only quote part of the posting ....
http://www.overunity.com/index.php?topic=10407.msg284643#msg284643 ( reply # 1159 )Rosemary's Quote -
_________________________________________________________________________________________________
I really need our evidence for my thesis. But it's nowhere near as useable as Romero's._________________________________________________________________________________________________
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Replication_%28scientific_method%29
Replication ( Scientific Method )Quote
Reproducibility is one of the main principles of the scientific method, and refers to the ability of a test or experiment to be accurately reproduced, or replicated, by someone else working independently. The results of an experiment performed by a particular researcher or group of researchers are generally evaluated by other independent researchers who repeat the same experiment themselves, based on the original experimental description (see independent review). Then they see if their experiment gives similar results to those reported by the original group. The result values are said to be commensurate if they are obtained (in distinct experimental
trials) according to the same reproducible experimental description and procedure.
Is this about a verifiable scientific method of recorded evidence of a claimed
COP > INFINITY on a experimental device ( Rosemary's ) .... or ....
just the minimum or even less of whats required for a possible
"THESIS" about ZIPPONS ..... Huh?
If I was Romero .... well .... never mind that's his device .... :o
FuzzyTomCat
::)
Guys, I have appealed to Harti to apply moderation to this thread. He is allowing a level of comment that is breaching his own forum rules. He not only is ignoring the request but has written to advise me that he's thinking of closing this thread. He claims that we have to build the circuit to run without the functions generator and that he suspects that there may be measurement errors.
I cannot comment on the validity of this concern. But what I can report on is this. If it is possible to duplicate our numbers on a simulation then there are ostensibly no errors in our own measurements. We have now got undertakings from two forum members to run their own simulations. And I'm still to hear from some others that are not associated with this forum. There are also some academics who are going to do this. Some more biased against than others. It will be interesting. But what I do know is that if there are ANY that show results consistent with our own - even the one - and provided that the schematics comply to our own specifications - then from that time on - our own test results WILL BE CONCLUSIVE. It's that simple. We can, from then on, ignore the test apparatus and simply MOVE FORWARD. And this assurance has been given me across the board. So. That's where I'll be concentrating.
And if these simulated results comply to our own test results - then it also means, as I've been saying all along, that Faraday TRUMPS Kirchhoff. And that also will PUT PAID to our constraints required for the transfer of electric energy. And I confidently predict that those simulations will be forthcoming. Poynty has already pointed us at the evidence.
Whether or not I am able to post those results remains to be seen. It seems that we are invited to report on tests at our peril. Protections that were promised are denied - and our reputations are then at the mercy of deliberate moderation neglect. Hardly what was offered. Anyway. No doubt we'll find out in due course. If I am banned - then please just go to my blog. What is being allowed here is appalling. My comfort is that it seems to be generate more support from you all than I realised. And I am intensely grateful for those off forum communications.
Kindest regards,
Rosemary
Guys - I've done my best to get my head around Romero's denial after the fact. The analysis is here. It's not going to cement my forum membership exactly but I believe it may warrant some attention. And, in as much as it's fairly long - then I think I can count on the most of you not reading it too closely. lol
Kindest regards,
Rosemary
Guys - I've deleted that link. I've just seen Romero's last email to Allen and my heart goes out to the guy. He deserves much better. I sincerely believe that given some time - let everything settle - and, with luck, he'll get back to showing us all that magic. What HORRIBLE people there are out there. I think, in a way, it's just as well that no-one believes our own claim. Golly. He's been to hell and back and all he was showing us all what he clearly does best. I've changed my mind here. The guy is utterly sincere.
What really gets me down is that he ends up apologising. He's victimised - his life on the line - and he's obliged to apologise for showing us his work. It's positively disgusting
???
Quote from: Rosemary Ainslie on May 11, 2011, 05:13:53 AM
I think I can count on the most of you not reading it too closely. lol
Rosemary
You should of stuck with your instincts darl. ;)
1) It WAS long
2) You come across VERY embittered
3) Whilst I think that energeticforum 'personalities' like FTC, Ash and FatLady are the weasels of this planet....YOU just have to let it all go.
You will never hear what you want from them and there will be no vindication on either side. It's all just nasty and youre looking kinda whacky to keep going so long with it.
Lets face it...these forums attract some very strange people with ludicrous theories of FBI/CIA killing folk and buying out good honest Joes that just wanna bring us a light bulb that runs forever damnit!! LOL OMG, you have to laff. I mean, what makes more sense? The CIA is running around killing HONEST folk and taking car batteries to the testicles of inventors OR the majority of people that inhabit this forum are from poorly educated, low income suburbs that thrive on conspiracy and Alien nonsense that has no basis in fact??? Yes there are some of us that do OK but many are actually chasing 'free' energy for the dreams of riches also. Half of the 'inventors' who supposedly went to prison because the "Goverment locked them up" didnt get there because they made a free energy device!! They were in prison because they were dirty little con men who bilked investors outta cash with promises of electric engines that "ran forever" only to be find out that the table was full of batteries. These crooks don't help the OU cause but they were what they were...filthy LIARS.
Don't get me wrong, many will say after this post that I am a company man or Corporate troll (so funny) and whilst I may have lunch in the Pentagon cafeteria (joke) this is not true....I strive for OU like everyone else. The difference is, that I dont indulge myself in conspiracy theory and bulldust that can't be proven.
AS YOU SO APTLY STATED IN YOUR BLOG - MOST PEOPLE ON FORUMS CANNOT EVEN CALCULATE POWER IN/POWER OUT CORRECTLY!! (Let alone conduct their experiments in a scientific and methodical manner). How do they ever expect to accomplish anything or garner respect from the world when this field is already so ridiculed as being full of crackpots??!!!!
Anyhoo...you have a lovely day.
No ElectricGoose, I am certainly NOT embittered. I really do know the value of publicity and I also know that bad publicity has and will do NOTHING to halt this technology. On the contrary. Precisely because it's that bad - it's entirely discredited. Certainly by thinking people. All I'm trying alert everyone to is the possibility that these forums are NOT actually promoting but 'hindering' overunity. And I do NOT understand why Harti wants me off from here. At least our technology is still proven. I would have thought that even our technology needs some kind of protection from outright denial - in view of the copious evidence.
But there you go. Again. Not bitter at all. There has been extraordinary progress. I know this. We've got a few more small hurdles and I think we may actually get there - to outright acceptance. And I'm still fighting my corner. I'm happy to fight this through for as long as I can. And I also know that my contributions are not harming the general cause. On the contrary.
Take care
Kindest regards,
Rosemary
Quote from: Rosemary Ainslie on May 11, 2011, 08:31:43 AM
No ElectricGoose, I am certainly NOT embittered. I really do know the value publicity and I also know that bad publicity has and will do NOTHING to halt this technology. On the contrary. Presicely because it's that bad - it's entirely discredited. Certainly by thinking people. All I'm trying alert everyone to is the possibility that these forums are NOT actually promoting but 'hindering' overunity. And I do NOT understand why Harti wants me off from here. At least our technology is still proven. I would have thought that even our technology needs some kind of protection from outright denial - notwithstanding the evidence.
But there you go. Again. Not bitter at all. There has been extraordinary progress. I know this. We've got a few more small hurdles and I think we may actually get there - to outright acceptance. And I'm still fighting my corner. I'm happy to fight this through for as long as I can. And I also know that my contributions are not harming the general cause. On the contrary.
Take care
Kindest regards,
Rosemary
No worries Rosemary. I wish you the very best in your ventures.
Quote from: ElectricGoose on May 11, 2011, 08:35:48 AM
No worries Rosemary. I wish you the very best in your ventures.
Thank you. But it really is NOT just me. There are many of us working on this - from all kinds of levels. We all need those good wishes.
Kindest as ever,
Rosie
;D
Quote from: Rosemary Ainslie on May 09, 2011, 12:01:01 AM
And guys, I'm reasonably satisfied that there have been many proofs of exceeding unity - certainly on this forum and certainly elsewhere. And I am also satisfied that these results have FAR exceeded unity if they have not actually achieved COP infinity. The use of the term COP INFINITY is when the measure of energy from a supply is less than the energy returned to the supply. Then the co-efficient of performance can no longer be related to 1. That is what is evident. It has been publicly demonstrated which is all that is required for proof. But it has also been video'd and has been carefully recorded in a published report. Subsequent to that report there has been a revised schematic on a simulated program that CONFORMS IN ITS ENTIRETY to the results that we achieved on our demonstrated device. And the circuit that is applicable to all this has been posted by Groundloop and now entirely conforms to the required.
The fact that a simulation of this conforms at all is significant. It not only endorses our own findings but it shows that - in fact - these results are achievable within the context of proven classical measurement protocols.
That this thread is being 'flamed' at all - is because Harti is allowing it. He has advised me privately, that he's thinking of 'closing' this thread because he sees that our measurements may be wrong. Which no doubt explains why Fuzzy is allowed to post here at all. It's his speciality to kill my threads. I have addressed every concern that Stefan has mentioned. With conclusive argument. If, notwithstanding, this thread is locked - IF that happens - and IF I am, indeed banned, then may I impose on you all to consider his reasons for this? On a suspicion of incorrect measurements? It seems strange. I would then confidently predict that when the honeymoon period is over with Romero - that he too will be disgraced or banned. I do hope you guys will rally. You really need to take care of him. And I think you need to pay especial attention to the motives of these forums. One hopes that they're intended to promote any OU technology.
Meanwhile I'll leave you with this thought. Whenever I am banned or whenever my threads are locked - it's a consequence of Fuzzy being allowed free reign to do his worst. Why is he given that much license?
Kindest regards,
Rosie
ADDED
And edited spelling
I'm reasonably satisfied that there have been many proofs of exceeding unity - certainly on this forum and certainly elsewhere. And I am also satisfied that these results have FAR exceeded unity if they have not actually achieved COP infinity._____________________________________________________________________________________________
There are hundreds of readers, members, engineers and academics that
"DO NOT AGREE" at all with your testing and evaluation of your experimental device because it's not in any scientific method known that can be reproduced to anyone's satisfaction for a verification of a
COP> INFINITY .
You Rosemary, as a boasting proxy inventor that has claimed submitting many documents for engineering and academic "PEER" review, you Rosemary of all people most certainly know all the mandated requirements for a scientific verification of FACTS. You Rosemary, are denying everyone in existence the chance to do any verification testing and evaluation on this COP> INFINITY circuit and even have posted a 100%
"FALSE", fake and inaccurate circuit
http://newlightondarkenergy.blogspot.com/2011/04/109-simulated-circuit.html#links for a WILD GOOSE chase or Chinese fire drill for anyone trying to replicate your findings by design.
MINIMUM REQUIREMENTS - 1) All COP > INFINITY device information in one place in one post not spread out over ninety (90) pages.
2) A accurate circuit diagram of the claimed
COP > INFINITY device .... there are five (5) at least that I know of .... and
"AGAIN" the one on your blog is incorrect (FALSE) http://newlightondarkenergy.blogspot.com/2011/04/109-simulated-circuit.html#links
3) All sequenced oscilloscope screen shots and data dumps from the day of the test not days before or after for over a minimum of one hour at 6 minute intervals for a total of eleven (11) verified recordings of the
COP > INFINITY device.
4) The complete parts list of all the components used to do a scientific replication to verify the results in a verifiable scientific manner of the
COP > INFINITY device
5) All the settings of the Function Generator in Hz or Mhz .... including .... the setting of the DC offset switch ( -10 VDC to + 10 VDC )
6) A complete photographic image set available for verification and review including the top and bottom of any circuit board of the
COP > INFINITY device at the time under or during test .
7) A
"LIVE streaming broadcast" of the device testing event in real time for 48 hours minimum untouched .... all that's required is a registering for a FREE LIVE streaming broadcast account and a web camera showing the claim of
COP > INFINITY
The above items 1 through 7 should be a minimum to claim a
COP > INFINITY ......
If the above seven items cannot be done in a excepted verifiable Scientific Method .... http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Replication_%28scientific_method%29
Replication ( Scientific Method )Quote
Reproducibility is one of the main principles of the scientific method, and refers to the ability of a test or experiment to be accurately reproduced, or replicated, by someone else working independently. The results of an experiment performed by a particular researcher or group of researchers are generally evaluated by other independent researchers who repeat the same experiment themselves, based on the original experimental description (see independent review). Then they see if their experiment gives similar results to those reported by the original group. The result values are said to be commensurate if they are obtained (in distinct experimental
trials) according to the same reproducible experimental description and procedure.
The claims and statements made here by you Rosemary of a
COP > INFINITY mean nothing only
FALSE and INACCURATE and maybe subject to the notification by myself and countless others of this fact to
ALL existing internet alternative energy forums and social media outlets, if you Rosemary Ainslie refuse again and again to comply to the basic minimum disclosure for a scientific method of verification of
YOUR CLAIMS.
FuzzyTomCat
Quote from: Rosemary Ainslie on May 09, 2011, 11:19:29 PM
Poynty ? This definitely needs a thread post. I am not sure that I understand you. You log in certain circuit parameters into PSpice. You hit the play button and it gives results? Something like that. Are you saying that you had to invert your probe positions to find that negative number?
Or are you arguing that it is meaningless precisely because it gave a negative result?
Sorry that's the best I could do with what you've written.
Kindest regards,
Rosie
Thank you Rose for taking the time to more-closely examine my post.
I have
not had to invert any of the probes in the simulation to obtain the negative CSR voltage. The "results" are as true as your own.
What I am trying to emphasize is that the voltage measurement across the CSR is not valid because it has been clearly shown in the demo video that the CSR is not connected in the proper location in the circuit.
Until we can "move on", you need to do one of two things, either;
1) Retract your claims of COP>1 in reference to the video demonstration, and all the test data published before that time, or
2) Explain and prove that the CSR
was connected in the proper location for all those tests.
.99
Quote from: Rosemary Ainslie on May 10, 2011, 03:43:51 AM
AN OPEN LTTER TO POYNTY POINT
And if I am lying or misrepresenting the facts, then there are an awful lot of people who have witnessed this who are also collaborating in that lie.
I do not think you are lying. I firmly believe (and have been able to illustrate several times) that you do not understand the facts, and therefore are misrepresenting them.
Quote
And what's doubly sad is this. You have already found those contestable values on your own simulation. It is telling you that there's a negative sum in those voltages. It's also telling you that you've exceeded unity. In fact, precisely because those values are negative - it's telling you that you've actually got COP INFINITY. But you're even inclined to dismiss the relevance of your own numbers. What does that say? Not only does PSpice give you the tools to make the circuit results. It also gives you the evidence. I have been advised by some considerable authority - that if a simulation can duplicate our numbers then there is actually no more evidence required. In other words our apparatus is REDUNDANT. Yet you're questioning those simulated numbers as dismissively as the test evidence. It is simply not logical. And I'm the first to pay tribute to your talents. I always have. And I'm satisfied that you're capable of better. I believe you need to look again at the evidence that is happening everywhere now. Golly. We're already getting replications - alternate applications - and that with ease.
Kindest regards,
Rosie
The numbers and results in the PSpice simulation are not lying. They are representative of the real-world wave forms.
There are three major steps involved in analyzing a circuit:
1) proper measurement
2) proper post-processing
3) proper interpretation of the results
Regarding your data from the demo video, steps 1) and 2) are a bit shaky and could be improved somewhat, but the biggest error I currently see is in step 3).
Again, with the CSR connected incorrectly in those tests, you must have a good hard look at your results, and consider retracting your claims made that were based on them.
.99
PS. Regarding the new configuration, please post some updated photos of both the top and bottom side of the perf board. Also, please indicate on a complete circuit diagram where the scope probes are being placed.
Quote from: ElectricGoose on May 11, 2011, 08:20:19 AM
Rosemary
You should of stuck with your instincts darl. ;)
1) It WAS long
2) You come across VERY embittered
3) Whilst I think that energeticforum 'personalities' like FTC, Ash and FatLady are the weasels of this planet....YOU just have to let it all go.
You will never hear what you want from them and there will be no vindication on either side. It's all just nasty and youre looking kinda whacky to keep going so long with it.
Lets face it...these forums attract some very strange people with ludicrous theories of FBI/CIA killing folk and buying out good honest Joes that just wanna bring us a light bulb that runs forever damnit!! LOL OMG, you have to laff. I mean, what makes more sense? The CIA is running around killing HONEST folk and taking car batteries to the testicles of inventors OR the majority of people that inhabit this forum are from poorly educated, low income suburbs that thrive on conspiracy and Alien nonsense that has no basis in fact??? Yes there are some of us that do OK but many are actually chasing 'free' energy for the dreams of riches also. Half of the 'inventors' who supposedly went to prison because the "Goverment locked them up" didnt get there because they made a free energy device!! They were in prison because they were dirty little con men who bilked investors outta cash with promises of electric engines that "ran forever" only to be find out that the table was full of batteries. These crooks don't help the OU cause but they were what they were...filthy LIARS.
Don't get me wrong, many will say after this post that I am a company man or Corporate troll (so funny) and whilst I may have lunch in the Pentagon cafeteria (joke) this is not true....I strive for OU like everyone else. The difference is, that I dont indulge myself in conspiracy theory and bulldust that can't be proven.
AS YOU SO APTLY STATED IN YOUR BLOG - MOST PEOPLE ON FORUMS CANNOT EVEN CALCULATE POWER IN/POWER OUT CORRECTLY!! (Let alone conduct their experiments in a scientific and methodical manner). How do they ever expect to accomplish anything or garner respect from the world when this field is already so ridiculed as being full of crackpots??!!!!
Anyhoo...you have a lovely day.
Dear ElectricGoose,
There is no need for name calling in this thread or others. You have referred to calling me fatlady in the past and a weasel in this post. If you have a problem with me then lets take this off forum and you need to PM me for a mature discussion of this name calling.
Dear Stefan,
I feel this entire post of ElectricGoose does not serve any benefit to this thread. If anything it shows much immaturity and hatred.
CatLady
Laurel
Quote from: poynt99 on May 11, 2011, 02:36:19 PM
I do not think you are lying. I firmly believe (and have been able to illustrate several times) that you do not understand the facts, and therefore are misrepresenting them.
The numbers and results in the PSpice simulation are not lying. They are representative of the real-world wave forms.
There are three major steps involved in analyzing a circuit:
1) proper measurement
2) proper post-processing
3) proper interpretation of the results
Regarding your data from the demo video, steps 1) and 2) are a bit shaky and could be improved somewhat, but the biggest error I currently see is in step 3).
Again, with the CSR connected incorrectly in those tests, you must have a good hard look at your results, and consider retracting your claims made that were based on them.
.99
PS. Regarding the new configuration, please post some updated photos of both the top and bottom side of the perf board. Also, please indicate on a complete circuit diagram where the scope probes are being placed.
Ok Poynty. I still can't post photos. The PC's not back yet. Hopefully soon. Your own representation is correct except that the position of the scope probe is CHANGED. If your results are 'for real' then I'm happy. I assure you the CSR is now PRECISELY in line with the negative rail of the battery. Picture it. Negative terminal > wire > ground of the scope probe > shunt > scope probe > then ground from the signal generator > then the MOSFET's. That's how I positioned it for the 'water to boil' test. BUT. The 'on' time of the duty cycle - nota bene - Poynty -
the voltage is fractionally above zero for the duration. Yet it took the temperature on the resistor element to 240 degrees centigrade. Then I inserted the element into water. 0.7 litres. Then also note that the final 20 degree rise in the water was managed in less than 10 minutes. The level of voltage still the same. The only thing that changed was the level of oscillation which increased with the frequency. Which is consistent with the earlier series of posts I made about this. Interestingly the battery voltage stabilised - no more 'flopping about' between a small range. And it stabilised at the same voltage measured when I disconnected the system.
In fact - the only thing that is required in a simulation is that one can show a negative sum across the shunt voltage provided that the scope probes are as they're described here. It should be possible on a simulation because that's consistent with our experimental results. And so far your waveforms have been consistent with our own findings.
I grant you that the results vary depending on where we put that ground of the functions generator. But it only varies within a fraction and it's consistent with the shunt voltage. The sum of the voltages still stay negative. They're glued there.
Anyway. I'll post those photos when I can. But meantime they'll show exactly what I've reported here.
Kindest regards,
Rosie
edited for clarity.
Quote from: poynt99 on May 11, 2011, 02:19:34 PM
2) Explain and prove that the CSR was connected in the proper location for all those tests.
Poynty - how many times must I say this? The demo - the report schematic - excluded that eccentric FET postioning. But for that test the ground of the signal generator was 'behind' the CSR as shown on that schematic. Not good. I KNOW. But. NOW. Listen up. We put it there because we were running two SCOPES. Therefore there was no 'space' for the ground from the FG. But I didn't mind WHERE I put the ground of the FG. Because it MAKES NO MATERIAL DIFFERENCE TO THE RESULTS - THERE OR WHERE IT SHOULD BE. Voltage across the shunt is GLUED to that negative value. And that's all we needed to show. But I'll show you this when I FINALLY get my PC back.
Again, kindest, and I trust you're enjoying all that sunshine.
Rosie
And just in case anyone's missed my editing of a prior post related to RomeroUK. I have ENTIRELY changed my mind after reading his email to Allen. My heart goes out to the guy. He deserved better and I'm just so sorry that he needs to apologise for anything at all. What a travesty. He was simply doing what he clearly does brilliantly. And for that he's being victimised? It beggars belief.
One really good outcome of our own claims is that no-one believes it. Probably as well. I assure you no-one has ever threatened any of us. lol So. In a way we've been advantaged by all that scepticism. And that should be mildly amusing. But it isn't.
Poor lad. I hope things go better for him when all has settled down.
Regards
Rosemary
Sorry I'm duplicating things all over the place.
Quote from: Rosemary Ainslie on May 11, 2011, 05:15:43 PM
And just in case anyone's missed my editing of a prior post related to RomeroUK. I have ENTIRELY changed my mind after reading his email to Allen. My heart goes out to the guy. He deserved better and I'm just so sorry that he needs to apologise for anything at all. What a travesty. He was simply doing what he clearly does brilliantly. And for that he's being victimised? It beggars belief.
One really good outcome of our own claims is that no-one believes it. Probably as well. I assure you no-one has ever threatened any of us. lol So. In a way we've been advantaged by all that scepticism. And that should be mildly amusing. But it isn't.
Poor lad. I hope things go better for him when all has settled down.
Regards
Rosemary
It would have been very different if you had made a self-runner. though I do agree with you it's very sad for all those concerned.
THIS IS GETTING REALLY OLD !!!!!!I CHALLENGE ANYONE TO FIND A RECORD POSTED ON THE INTERNET, IN ANY OPEN SOURCE FORUM I'M A MEMBER OF WHERE I SAY .....that I claim ownership or discovery .... and give the
exact thread and posting link to that claim.
Rosemary Ainslie's Quote - http://newlightondarkenergy.blogspot.com/2011/05/114-truth-behind-forum-facade.html#links >:(
_____________________________________________________________________________________________________
Glen Lettenmaier is on record. He claims
ownership or discovery of what is widely referred to as the Rosemary Ainslie circuit.
_____________________________________________________________________________________________________
NOWHERE GUESTS AND MEMBERS WILL YOU FIND SUCH A CLAIM DESCRIBED !!! NOWHERE !!!
This is yet another attempt by Rosemary Ainslie to discredit me with
"FALSE and INACCURATE" information and bury in nonsense postings the question at hand ....
PROVE in a
"SCIENTIFIC METHOD" your (Rosemary Ainslie) claim of a
COP> INFINITY on the posted experimental device in this thread.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Replication_%28scientific_method%29 Replication ( Scientific Method )
Quote
Reproducibility is one of the main principles of the scientific method, and refers to the ability of a test or experiment to be accurately reproduced, or replicated, by someone else working independently. The results of an experiment performed by a particular researcher or group of researchers are generally evaluated by other independent researchers who repeat the same experiment themselves, based on the original experimental description (see independent review). Then they see if their experiment gives similar results to those reported by the original group. The result values are said to be commensurate if they are obtained (in distinct experimental trials) according to the same reproducible experimental description and procedure.
FuzzyTomCat
:P
still here with your personal vendetta fuzzy? why am i not surprised... ::)
i see you going on aand on and on about PROVE in a "SCIENTIFIC METHOD"... you don't seem to be aware of what can and cannot be "proven". ::)
some salient quotes from some "authorities". i know how y'all love your appeals to authority.
"... in science there is no 'knowledge', in the sense in which Plato and Aristotle understood the word, in the sense which implies finality; in science, we never have sufficient reason for the belief that we have attained the truth. ... This view means, furthermore, that we have no proofs in science (excepting, of course, pure mathematics and logic). In the empirical sciences, which alone can furnish us with information about the world we live in, proofs do not occur, if we mean by 'proof' an argument which establishes once and for ever the truth of a theory." -- Sir Karl Popper, The Problem of Induction, 1953 (emphasis mine)
"If you thought that science was certain â€" well, that is just an error on your part." -- Richard Feynman.
"It is the aim of science to establish general rules which determine the reciprocal connection of objects and events in time and space. For these rules, or laws of nature, absolutely general validity is required â€" not proven." -- Albert Einstein, in Science, Philosophy and Religion, A Symposium, 1941. (emphasis mine)
in truth, science can never establish 'truth' or 'fact' in the sense that a scientific statement can be made that is formally beyond question. all scientific statements and concepts are open to re-evaluation as new data is acquired and novel technologies emerge. proof, then, is solely the realm of logic and mathematics (and whiskey)... ;)
Quote from: powercat on May 11, 2011, 05:57:44 PM
It would have been very different if you had made a self-runner. though I do agree with you it's very sad for all those concerned.
No cat. We claim we
do have a self runner. But our proof is nowhere near as elegant as Romero's.
regards,
Rosemary
Quote from: WilbyInebriated on May 12, 2011, 12:37:52 AM
still here with your personal vendetta fuzzy? why am i not surprised... ::)
i see you going on aand on and on about PROVE in a "SCIENTIFIC METHOD"... you don't seem to be aware of what can and cannot be "proven". ::)
some salient quotes from some "authorities". i know how y'all love your appeals to authority.
"... in science there is no 'knowledge', in the sense in which Plato and Aristotle understood the word, in the sense which implies finality; in science, we never have sufficient reason for the belief that we have attained the truth. ... This view means, furthermore, that we have no proofs in science (excepting, of course, pure mathematics and logic). In the empirical sciences, which alone can furnish us with information about the world we live in, proofs do not occur, if we mean by 'proof' an argument which establishes once and for ever the truth of a theory." -- Sir Karl Popper, The Problem of Induction, 1953 (emphasis mine)
"If you thought that science was certain â€" well, that is just an error on your part." -- Richard Feynman.
"It is the aim of science to establish general rules which determine the reciprocal connection of objects and events in time and space. For these rules, or laws of nature, absolutely general validity is required â€" not proven." -- Albert Einstein, in Science, Philosophy and Religion, A Symposium, 1941. (emphasis mine)
in truth, science can never establish 'truth' or 'fact' in the sense that a scientific statement can be made that is formally beyond question. all scientific statements and concepts are open to re-evaluation as new data is acquired and novel technologies emerge. proof, then, is solely the realm of logic and mathematics (and whiskey)... ;)
Oh Willy,
The only "LP" collaborator of erroneous remarks .....
First you of all people should know that "PROVE" refers to the ability of a test or experiment to be accurately reproduced, or replicated, by someone else working independently on the device.
There are many missing items that have not been addressed by Rosemary .... by design.
The accurate complete circuit of the
COP> INFINITY device
The complete parts list including part numbers of the
COP> INFINITY device
The complete list of settings ( knob positions ) of all the testing equipment and probe locations used during all testing of the
COP> INFINITY device
Go away .... I will not answer you again because of you obvious distractions and
"HARASSMENT"Fuzzy
Thanks for the reminder Wilby.
;D
Check your PM's.
Hi Rosemary,
why don´t you do this ?
1) All COP > INFINITY device information in one place in one post not spread out over ninety (90) pages.
2) A accurate circuit diagram of the claimed COP > INFINITY device .... there are five (5) at least that I know of .... and "AGAIN" the one on your blog is incorrect (FALSE) http://newlightondarkenergy.blogspot.com/2011/04/109-simulated-circuit.html#links
3) All sequenced oscilloscope screen shots and data dumps from the day of the test not days before or after for over a minimum of one hour at 6 minute intervals for a total of eleven (11) verified recordings of the COP > INFINITY device.
4) The complete parts list of all the components used to do a scientific replication to verify the results in a verifiable scientific manner of the COP > INFINITY device
5) All the settings of the Function Generator in Hz or Mhz .... including .... the setting of the DC offset switch ( -10 VDC to + 10 VDC )
6) A complete photographic image set available for verification and review including the top and bottom of any circuit board of the COP > INFINITY device at the time under or during test .
To get scientific approval you NEED to do these scientific test and exact report documents.
As you have done it with mixed up circuit diagrams and mixed up scope shots
from different mixed ups testings , where one does not know,
which scopeshot belongs to what test, is not scientific.
Before I opened your account and before your demo you promised to release all
data in an open source format and well presented, but what you did present was only all mixed up
and shuffled data so nobody can really see, what it is all about or if there were
measurement errors done and then you suddenly had a wrong circuit diagramm, etc, etc....
So maybe you should quit for a while, do again some more testing and then document
it the way shown above very exactly.....?
Otherwise you will be again ridiculed and laughed at and ignored by the scientific community...
Regards, Stefan.
Interesting questions Stefan.
Regards,
Rosemary
Quote from: Rosemary Ainslie on May 11, 2011, 04:15:46 PM
Poynty - how many times must I say this? The demo - the report schematic - excluded that eccentric FET postioning. But for that test the ground of the signal generator was 'behind' the CSR as shown on that schematic. Not good. I KNOW. But. NOW. Listen up. We put it there because we were running two SCOPES. Therefore there was no 'space' for the ground from the FG. But I didn't mind WHERE I put the ground of the FG. Because it MAKES NO MATERIAL DIFFERENCE TO THE RESULTS - THERE OR WHERE IT SHOULD BE. Voltage across the shunt is GLUED to that negative value. And that's all we needed to show. But I'll show you this when I FINALLY get my PC back.
Again, kindest, and I trust you're enjoying all that sunshine.
Rosie
Rose,
It is still unclear to me. Could you please answer this simple question?
Are the "results" and claims made from the video demonstration and before, still valid?
"YES"
or
"NO"
.99
Quote from: hartiberlin on May 12, 2011, 01:28:48 PM
Hi Rosemary,
why don´t you do this ?
1) All COP > INFINITY device information in one place in one post not spread out over ninety (90) pages.
All our results are COP INFINITY. And they are NOT spread over 90 pages. Add them up. They'd barely cover 5. The rest of the pages are answers, questions, discussions and sundry. Is this not allowed? For some reason I may not enter into dialogue with the readers and members? That's a bit onerous Harti. It's certainly not the rule that you apply to other contributors.
Quote from: hartiberlin on May 12, 2011, 01:28:48 PM2) A accurate circuit diagram of the claimed COP > INFINITY device .... there are five (5) at least that I know of .... and "AGAIN" the one on your blog is incorrect (FALSE) http://newlightondarkenergy.blogspot.com/2011/04/109-simulated-circuit.html#links
I only know of 2 appropriate circuits and the one on my BLOG is NOT FALSE.
Quote from: hartiberlin on May 12, 2011, 01:28:48 PM
3) All sequenced oscilloscope screen shots and data dumps from the day of the test not days before or after for over a minimum of one hour at 6 minute intervals for a total of eleven (11) verified recordings of the COP > INFINITY device.
What? It doesn't matter one little bit if I post the same minute the same day or the same month. Those shots are dated and timed. And are you asking me to post a series of 11 shots over an hour at 6 minute intervals for proof? What is this 6 minute requirement? It seems rather arbitrary. I've never taken series of downloads at set intervals. But I've certainly taken multiple sequence shots. My downloads taken at temperature variation as that's all that's appropriate. The screen shots are that repetitive. But. As mentioned. Very happy to oblige. I have them all on file. I can do this retrospectively - CERTAINLY. Be happy to oblige. Just hang ten. It'll follow.
Quote from: hartiberlin on May 12, 2011, 01:28:48 PM4) The complete parts list of all the components used to do a scientific replication to verify the results in a verifiable scientific manner of the COP > INFINITY device
You are NOW asking me to publish my report here? That's a new one for the books. What you ACTUALLY advised me was that I WAS NOT ALLOWED to post my report here. Just the link. If you'd rethought this then I would most certainly have done so. Wish you'd told me that you'd changed your mind and that this was now REQUIRED.
Quote from: hartiberlin on May 12, 2011, 01:28:48 PM5) All the settings of the Function Generator in Hz or Mhz .... including .... the setting of the DC offset switch ( -10 VDC to + 10 VDC )
You do not NEED the settings of the functions generator in Hz or Mhz or anything else. You can determine the frequency from the screen shots. Surely?
Quote from: hartiberlin on May 12, 2011, 01:28:48 PM6) A complete photographic image set available for verification and review including the top and bottom of any circuit board of the COP > INFINITY device at the time under or during test .
This has been provided and has been further clarified by Poynty. Why must I do it again. And in any event I can't. Not until I get my computer back. You may recall. It's been hacked and I still haven't got it back.
Quote from: hartiberlin on May 12, 2011, 01:28:48 PMTo get scientific approval you NEED to do these scientific test and exact report documents.
Still not with you. Are you offering scientific approval? To what end? That you will then endorse these results and then we'll be immediately accredited throughout the scientific community. That would be nice. If so, then I will most CERTAINLY attempt to do whatever it is that you require.
Quote from: hartiberlin on May 12, 2011, 01:28:48 PMAs you have done it with mixed up circuit diagrams and mixed up scope shots from different mixed ups testings , where one does not know,which scopeshot belongs to what test, is not scientific.
Well. This is the first time in the history of these forums where a moderator first demands that I DO NOT publish my report and then proceeds to advise me that I may ONLY write a report. I have many. I'll download them all. Just was hoping for permission.
Quote from: hartiberlin on May 12, 2011, 01:28:48 PM
Before I opened your account and before your demo you promised to release alldata in an open source format and well presented, but what you did present was only all mixed up and shuffled data so nobody can really see, what it is all about or if there weremeasurement errors done and then you suddenly had a wrong circuit diagram, etc, etc....
Not actually. Before you RE-OPENED my account you made absolutely NO stipulations on how that data was to be presented other than that I was NOT ALLOWED TO PUBLISH THE REPORT. But what you most certainly undertook was that I would not again be subjected to the FLAMING that has been my unhappy lot. I'm not sure which of the two of us are in breach of undertakings here. But I do not think it is me.
Quote from: hartiberlin on May 12, 2011, 01:28:48 PMSo maybe you should quit for a while, do again some more testing and then document it the way shown above very exactly.....? Otherwise you will be again ridiculed and laughed at and ignored by the scientific community..
Regards, Stefan.
WHAT??? To the best of my knowledge there is no academic who has EVER offered ridicule. That is hardly an appropriate reaction EVER. They may be somewhat incredulous, so much so that the the entire claim is dismissed. In fact, what our experts have done is avoided looking at the evidence. But I have every reason to believe that that is about to change. And I can assure you that NOT ONE OF THEM have offered ridicule. I would not have been working at a respected academic institution for nearly a year and a half - if their attitude was one of scorn. What an appalling insinuation.
So. Stefan. Until this post of yours I had always assumed that the purpose of these forums was to enter into a dialogue with your members to advance the evidence and the knowledge as best we could. I was not aware that members first had to submit that evidence in the form of a publishable paper as required for a scientific treatise. I had no idea that you were offering a kind of 'review' for publication and then offering final approval of that claim or otherwise. And I find this difficult to marry this requirement with any other work AT ALL that is submitted here in your threads. In fact - if this is the requirement then I am not sure that any of your current threads would survive. Certainly YOU DID NOT DEMAND THIS OF ROMEROUK. Why me? Why our technology? It seems somewhat partial - with respect.
But in any event. I'm delighted that you're now asking for fuller reports and I will be most happy to oblige. Hold your horses. During the following days I will post reports that will exhaust you with their detail. Can't wait.
Regards,
Rosemary
Quote from: poynt99 on May 12, 2011, 02:21:17 PM
Rose,
It is still unclear to me. Could you please answer this simple question?
Are the "results" and claims made from the video demonstration and before, still valid?
"YES"
or
"NO"
.99
Poynty - OUR RESULTS - as shown. OUR CLAIM related to the results - as shown. The circuit excluded the eccentric MOSFET config. The Ground of the functions generator - which I KNOW is what you're asking - IS AS SHOWN.
The water to boil test - we PUT THE FG's GROUND as I explained earlier.
Regards
Rosie
Hi Rosemary,
why don´t you post ALL data you have in a ZIP file
or on your own blog in an resonable presentation, so one could
follow it easily.
On your blog you only have a few pages about the tests and then
so many other pages about other "fighting topics with other forum members"
It is all so confusing, so to really see what you did is hard to follow.
Maybe you should do another blog with just the technical information
so one could follow it much easier or do it all in a ZIP file
and upload it to www.multiupload.com
I think the maximum file size is 400 or 500 MBytes there.
So you can include many scopehots and many pictures and also
videos with it in the ZIP file.
Regards, Stefan.
Quote from: hartiberlin on May 12, 2011, 03:03:35 PM
Hi Rosemary,
why don´t you post ALL data you have in a ZIP file
or on your own blog in an resonable presentation, so one could
follow it easily.
On your blog you only have a few pages about the tests and then
so many other pages about other "fighting topics with other forum members"
It is all so confusing, so to really see what you did is hard to follow.
Maybe you should do another blog with just the technical information
so one could follow it much easier or do it all in a ZIP file
and upload it to www.multiupload.com
I think the maximum file size is 400 or 500 MBytes there.
So you can include many scopehots and many pictures and also
videos with it in the ZIP file.
Regards, Stefan.
Stefan, I am not about to start yet another blog. But I am MORE than happy to post my reports
here. My blog is intended to record the progress of this and it most certainly is NOT confined to
experimental apparatus. My interest is entirely in the thesis. But to get to the thesis I need to get
the experimental results evaluated. And may I remind you - the blog is well subscribed. But there
I talk to the converted. The ONLY reason I value these forums is that it advances dialogue with
your more active members who certainly are not 'converted'. Over unity is challenged. Always.
And when its no longer challenged - then I will have no more work to do here. But I am happy to
post reports here. Even if I have to spread them over a couple or more of posts.
Regards,
Rosemary
edited to fit the page view
Quote from: Rosemary Ainslie on May 12, 2011, 03:15:52 PM
My interest is entirely in the thesis.
Regards,
Rosemary
Well if
HISTORY doesn't repeat itself .....
A claim of a
"FINDING" by Rosemary Ainslie on a
COP> INFINITY experimental device .... by design
Never enough information for the ability of a test or experiment to be accurately reproduced, or replicated, by someone else working independently on the device in a scientific method for
"PROOF" of the
FINDING .... by design
..... and all Rosemary's device(s) Observers, Engineers and Academics are silent and never to be seen, the untrained hopefuls and her lap puppies cheer victory .... and a small few that are willing to endure Rosemary Ainslie's abuse to stop the ongoing hoax on society continue.
FuzzyTomCat
:(
What happened to the page format, It doesn't fit in the width of my browser. This makes it very hard to read. Is it just mine or is it universal?
Pete
Quote from: vonwolf on May 12, 2011, 06:40:02 PM
What happened to the page format, It doesn't fit in the width of my browser. This makes it very hard to read. Is it just mine or is it universal?
Pete
If someone posts a big picture, or big wide graphics or something it changes the whole page. I don't know why Stefan doesn't fix it. It's always been this way. It will default to "sensible" next page unless someone does it again ... then is wide again. I always try and post photos and graphics in about 2K to 3K size and it doesn't do it.
gmeast
Quote from: gmeast on May 12, 2011, 07:55:00 PM
If someone posts a big picture, or big wide graphics or something it changes the whole page. I don't know why Stefan doesn't fix it. It's always been this way. It will default to "sensible" next page unless someone does it again ... then is wide again. I always try and post photos and graphics in about 2K to 3K size and it doesn't do it.
Yep I'd agree that over sized graphics or pic's are usually the culprit but there are none of these on this page just a lot of Copy & Pasting going on and buy Authors that are very prolific at it. This leads me to believe it was done deliberately just to screw up this Page on the thread
Pete
Hello Pete, guys, all
I think that one of our members has done the next best thing to making this page unreadable.
It must have been some hard work applied to a 'sizing' function in downloading that quote. lol
I've reported it but it's unlikely that anything will be done about it. It certainly will make nonsense
of the 'report' that I was about to download. And I'm reasonably sure that was the objective. It's
the trolls equivalent to incinerating a thread. The trick is to dominate the pages - one way or
another to make the subject matter boring - repetitive - unreadable. That way, the idea is that
those many readers who come here will just 'give up'.
The fact is that this thread is very well subscribed. If one needs to 'silence' any person or any
technology - then what is first required is to show why it is required. Flaming is usually as good
an excuse as any. I do hope that Stefan has not simply given our member 'carte blanche' to do
his damnedest and silence this knowledge of ours. I do hope that secretly Stefan is not out to 'kill'
the progress of our technology. That would be a shame. Because, unlike most claims that abound
on these forums - ours are very carefully measured and very carefully recorded. And that, quite
frankly - is a first.
Anyway - time will tell. If that post is not 'amended' or 're-sized' then I'll try and download some
many screen shots that I promised. That, at least, should take it past this page. But there again.
It may be applied to the next page, and the next. But if it is then it would also speak to the actual
intentions here. And I'm satisfied that whatever they are - Stefan would not like the public to think
that he's frustrating overunity progress. Golly. We're given to understand that he rather ardently
supports this.
My own residual doubts about that commitment to OU is precisely that he took that member from
'banned' to 'license to kill' in one easy move. I think he rather depends on that 'flame throwing'
talents. No skill required actually. We all know that he has difficulty in composing a simple
sentence let alone the occasional paragraph. But he's well able to quote and paste and modify.
That way he never really has to express and original thought - and yet he can say so much. And
he certainly doesn't need to stress his language skills - or 'lack' of them. lol
Golly
Kindest regards,
Rosemary
added
BTW - what I've noticed is that it also takes some of those adverts of Stefan's OFF PAGE. I trust
he'll give them a refund as and when required.
Fuzzy posted a photo (screen shot) that was much larger (1787 x 950) than the 800 x 600 that this forum allows and can handle. That is why the page is messed up. I really wish folks would quit doing this.
Bill
Quote from: Pirate88179 on May 13, 2011, 02:18:59 AM
Fuzzy posted a photo (screen shot) that was much larger (1787 x 950) than the 800 x 600 that this forum allows and can handle. That is why the page is messed up. I really wish folks would quit doing this.
Bill
I'm so glad that the gang here is bringing up my post over and over
http://www.overunity.com/index.php?topic=10407.msg286011#msg286011 showing Rosemary's epic response to Stefan's request on doing a test in a scientific method .... and the way Rosemary tells him to shove it .... great stuff.
As for file size I see no restrictions only on "DATA" size not on the dimensions ....
Quote
Allowed file types: txt, tif, xls, doc, odt, pdf, jpg, gif, mp3, mpg, flv, mp4, mpeg, png, rm, ra, rmv, avi, zip, wmv, wma, rar, qt, mov, swf, asf, wm2d, 3gp, 3g2
Restrictions: 10 per post, maximum total size 2600KB, maximum individual size 500KB.
Just more distractions from supplying verifiable information for the ability of a test or experiment to be accurately reproduced, or replicated, by someone else working independently on the device in a scientific method for
"PROOF" of the
FINDING of Rosemary's claim of
COP> INFINITY Although there is that pesky scroll bar at the bottom of the screen which allows the computer operator to look at the screen "left and right" if one was to actually look down ... or get updated with a wide screen monitor.
Fuzzy
.
..
.
Glen:
I have a wide screen monitor and it still goes way off the page. I was not speaking to you specifically, only to those that consistently post photos over 800 X 600. Yes it IS a size issue and not what you say.
As a Moderator on many topics here, I spend most of my time re-sizing photos to preserve the page readability. So, trust me on this, I know of what i speak.
800 x 600 will not cause any problems at all.
The software should have a feature that says "Please size your photo to no larger than 800 x 600, thank you." when someone tries to upload a larger photo, but it does not do this. I wish it did.
Bill
.
.
.
page margins fixed... ;)
until he does it again... ::)
Quote from: WilbyInebriated on May 13, 2011, 03:44:59 AM
page margins fixed... ;)
until he does it again... ::)
Nice work around Wilby. I could have downsized the photo but I have no Moderator powers over here.
Bill
Quote from: Pirate88179 on May 13, 2011, 03:49:07 AM
Nice work around Wilby. I could have downsized the photo but I have no Moderator powers over here.
Bill
thanks. more than one way to skin a cat... ;) yes, stephan really should address the picture thing. i cannot understand his refusal to.
Quote from: Pirate88179 on May 13, 2011, 03:44:08 AM
Glen:
I have a wide screen monitor and it still goes way off the page. I was not speaking to you specifically, only to those that consistently post photos over 800 X 600. Yes it IS a size issue and not what you say.
As a Moderator on many topics here, I spend most of my time re-sizing photos to preserve the page readability. So, trust me on this, I know of what i speak.
800 x 600 will not cause any problems at all.
The software should have a feature that says "Please size your photo to no larger than 800 x 600, thank you." when someone tries to upload a larger photo, but it does not do this. I wish it did.
Bill
Well Bill for resizing the image that is posted
http://www.overunity.com/index.php?topic=10407.msg286011#msg286011 resizing that screen capture image for a complete posting history in my data repository or here is now unimportant.
I will next time make my internet browser window narrower which moves the posted type setting around so I don't have to shrink down anything for posting here.
I do think the reply now that
eighty (80) people have downloaded that image has a real epic effect on the open source community in which Stephan was attacked and needs to be noted here on a reasonable six (6) part request he made.
Fuzzy
Wilby - as ever. I'm indebted. One day I'll discharge that debt - I hope.
And guys - one new member will be posting a replication on line. He's starting with the 1 MOSFET configuration and will then move on from there. There may possibly be a second member who'll be doing this or something similar. It seems that when the trolls 'come out' then there's also some incentives to keep focus on this technology. Great news - and thanks to you both. Actually there's also a third. But I'm not sure that he wants to work on line.
What is most urgently needed though is that some of you who can - please try and simulate that circuit. If you have difficulties PM Poynty. I'm reasonably certain that he'll be able to assist - if he can. Which is NOT to say that Poynty endorses these or any results. Just that he knows exactly what to do. He also feels that the simulation will point at some 'problem' with the computations. But I'm sure that a wide assessment of this will all help to get to the bottom of things.
Now. For that report. I'll be downloading it when I've got a corrected schematic. I'm hoping to get hold of that during the weekend. Sorry all. I'm not equal to drawing it - and, right now, I can't even post a scribble. I don't think I need to repeat why. I'll hear later today when it'll FINALLY be returned.
Take care all.
Kindest regards,
Rosie
ADDED
And Wilby and/or Bill, I would be SO GRATEFUL if you could be given moderator status on this thread. I entirely trust your impartiality. Perhaps Stefan could consider this. Clearly he doesn't have the time or the interest to do this himself.
PLEASE APPLY on behalf of us all.
And Wilby Please check your PMs
Quote from: fuzzytomcat on May 13, 2011, 04:13:24 AM
I do think the reply now that eighty (80) people have downloaded that image has a real epic effect on the open source community in which Stephan was attacked and needs to be noted here on a reasonable six (6) part request he made.
Fuzzy
80 people have not 'downloaded' your picture... the count increases every time someone views that page. go look at your post and hit refresh on your browser a couple of times... look, it's over a hundred now!!! in less than 5 minutes. yeah, real epic effect isn't it?
Definitely a FRIDAY 13TH that I'll remember.
I posted across our 'water to boil' test results onto my blog. A series of 4 posts in all. All 4 were removed. They were my tests. The evidence COPIOUS except that I'm still waiting to upload the video shots. I CANNOT UNDERSTAND THIS. Nor can I understand why they've removed my access to any further posting. Strange things afoot. One could almost think that they don't want this information out there :o ;D
And then the question is 'who are THEY?' LOL. I took the trouble to mention that this was NOT a discovery but more of an 'unfolding' of hidden potentials. Golly. I hope no-one's thinking of either patenting this or even suppressing it. Those energy barriers are dead in the water. And it's WAY too late to try and put a lid on all this.
Kindest regards,
Rosemary
Added. All's good. Apparently there are problems on Google's blog site. I have NOT been banned - and I believe that there's an outside chance they may yet recover those posts of mine. A couple of days of lost posts. Golly. That's probably numbering in the millions. Not the best Friday 13th for them either.
Guys - for those who are doing replications as a simulation - here's the required layout. Hope it helps.
Kindest regards,
Rosemary
1 Negative terminal >
2 ground of the battery scope probe >
3 wire >
4 ground of the CSR scope probe >
5 CSR >
6 CSR scope probe >
7 wire >
8 ground of the functions generator to gate of Q2 >
9 Q2 - 3 legs source drain gate >
10 wire >
11 To Q1 - 3 legs gate drain source (respectively) >
12 input from functions generator at Q1 >
13 wire >
14 resistor element >
15 wire >
16 scope probe on the positive terminal of the battery. >
17 batteries
I'm going to try and download a schematic but note that there's a minor amendment at 8 - 13 that needs to be applied.
The attached circuit diagram was established to be Protoboard_schema_added.png for the COP> INFINITY device.
Now using the N Mosfets standard (G) Gate (S) Source and (D) Drain nomenclature and pin positions there is a discrepancy from the Simulation Schematic.
Please notice that the Mosfet (G) Gate and (S) Source connections on Q2 through Q5 are different on the Simulation Schematic.jpg posted here now http://newlightondarkenergy.blogspot.com/2011/04/109-simulated-circuit.html#links on your blog and posted here http://www.overunity.com/index.php?topic=10407.msg286194#msg286194
Which circuit diagram was not used and is false and inaccurate ??
Which circuit diagram was used for Rosemary's FINDING and claim of COP> INFINITY ??
Fuzzy
???
Rose,
It seems to read as if the CSR is connected properly and scoped properly, but until I see an actual fully-updated schematic (not a description of connections which can be misinterpreted) along with the simulation wave forms and measurements thereof, I am not ready to accept that you have a net negative voltage across the CSR. Why can Donny not post his sim results here?
.99
Quote from: Rosemary Ainslie on May 12, 2011, 03:01:05 PM
Poynty - OUR RESULTS - as shown. OUR CLAIM related to the results - as shown. The circuit excluded the eccentric MOSFET config. The Ground of the functions generator - which I KNOW is what you're asking - IS AS SHOWN.
The water to boil test - we PUT THE FG's GROUND as I explained earlier.
Regards
Rosie
I surmise then from your response, that you will not commit to a "yes" or "no" answer to that question.
.99
Quote from: poynt99 on May 13, 2011, 02:36:30 PM
I surmise then from your response, that you will not commit to a "yes" or "no" answer to that question.
.99
LOL. I have NO idea how to answer it more fully. But nice to see you're happy with the positioning of the CSR and sundry. I'm going to redo this test when I've got my PC back so that I can video - at least ten minutes - of the 'water to boil' number. I plan to 'knock your socks off'. lol
And Poynty, Donny works 18 hours a day - earning a living. He hardly has time to sleep. You don't get idle when you've got that much talent. And frankly none of the team care to work on forum as I do. And I only do this because I appreciate the value of all that negative comment. You have no idea how valuable the dialogue is. The more negative the better. When people line up on two or more sides of an argument then they're also asking questions. And it's those questions that matter most. To me anyway.
So. If that 'layout' is right - and since everyone is calling for it - and since I cannot draw it - then Poynty Point? Perhaps if you have a spare minute or two - perhaps you could oblige us all? It would be MOST appreciated.
Kindest regards,
Rosie ;D
Hi Rosemary . I understand you are going to repeat the water boiling test . Last time , you expressed surprise that the water reached 100 degrees Celsius without appearing to boil . I have come across this before , in my international truck driving days . We use a 12 volt immersion heater [120 watts] which you put in your tea or coffee cup . The water never boiled like it would in a pan on a stove , it just steamed and you could see tiny bubbles rising . Apparently you need a lot of power to promote vigorous boiling .
Quote from: neptune on May 13, 2011, 03:05:56 PM
Hi Rosemary . I understand you are going to repeat the water boiling test . Last time , you expressed surprise that the water reached 100 degrees Celsius without appearing to boil . I have come across this before , in my international truck driving days . We use a 12 volt immersion heater [120 watts] which you put in your tea or coffee cup . The water never boiled like it would in a pan on a stove , it just steamed and you could see tiny bubbles rising . Apparently you need a lot of power to promote vigorous boiling .
Quite possibly Neptune. But the lack of noise I think was the result of the vacuum flask - and we're at sea level. Not sure how that effects the 'boil' temperature. It's a question that I'll leave for the boffins here.
Take care Neptune.
Kindest regards,
Rosie
I have slightly modified the diagram taken from my post here:
http://www.overunity.com/index.php?topic=10407.msg283940#msg283940
Let us know if this is an accurate representation of both your circuit and the scope probe positions.
.99
Quote from: poynt99 on May 13, 2011, 03:22:03 PM
I have slightly modified the diagram taken from my post here:
http://www.overunity.com/index.php?topic=10407.msg283940#msg283940
Let us know if this is an accurate representation of both your circuit and the scope probe positions.
.99
THANK YOU POYNTY POINT. I think it's right. Is the FG's ground on the gate of Q2? Can't quite see where it goes. I'll try again in better light in the morning. But if that's how I listed in THEN it's certainly correct. It's CERTAINLY correct for the position of the CSR and the probes.
How clever of you Poynty. Many, many thanks indeed.
Kindest regards,
Rosie
Quote from: Rosemary Ainslie on May 13, 2011, 11:57:34 AM
Guys - for those who are doing replications as a simulation - here's the required layout. Hope it helps.
Kindest regards,
Rosemary
1 Negative terminal >
2 ground of the battery scope probe >
3 wire >
4 ground of the CSR scope probe >
5 CSR >
6 CSR scope probe >
7 wire >
8 ground of the functions generator to gate of Q2 >
9 Q2 - 3 legs source drain gate >
10 wire >
11 To Q1 - 3 legs gate drain source (respectively) >
12 input from functions generator at Q1 >
13 wire >
14 resistor element >
15 wire >
16 scope probe on the positive terminal of the battery. >
17 batteries
I'm going to try and download a schematic but note that there's a minor amendment at 8 - 13 that needs to be applied.
Stefan,
I was under the assumption that posting "FALSE" and "INACCURATE" information is against Overunity.com forum policy ?Rosemary was told by you, Poynt, myself and many other members that the posted circuit diagram in her blog was incorrect since April 21, 2011.
http://newlightondarkenergy.blogspot.com/2011/04/109-simulated-circuit.html#links
Rosemary is now undeniably treating all the guests, members and replicators of the
COP> INFINITY circuit as total retarded idiots, posting the
"FALSE" and "INACCURATE" circuit diagram again here.
http://www.overunity.com/index.php?topic=10407.msg286194#msg286194
From what I thought this forum is not a 3rd grade science fair and beyond high school electronics but every person posting in this thread that agree with her claimed
"FINDINGS" of a
COP> INFINITY say nothing of Rosemary's continued published error of a
"FALSE" and "INACCURATE" circuit diagram .... and the posting members whom also claim knowledge and experimental experience say nothing ?
HELLO !!! ..... We are talking about the most simple electronic circuit ... with ten ( 10 ) parts .... ten ( 10 ) parts !!
1) IRFPG50 N Mosfet ( x5 )
2) 1 ohm resistor - CSR ( x4)
3) 9.9 ohm load inductor ( x1 )
THIS IS NOT A MOTHERBOARD FOR A COMPUTER !!!!I don't understand
"WHY" Rosemary claims over ten ( 10 ) years of working with this very small amount of parts can't get it right or even draw
"HER" invention or claim ? Isn't it her and no one else job or responsibility to provide accurate information on her claim and not members ?
Please "REMOVE" posting http://www.overunity.com/index.php?topic=10407.msg286194#msg286194 the "FALSE" and "INACCURATE" circuit diagram.
This looks to me as a Rosemary LOL ...
"IN YOU FACE" job giving all guests, members and replicators reading her blog and here at Over Unity the wrong construction circuit diagram again ....
Stefan also please consider reviewing Rosemary's material prior to anyone seeing it posted to be a accurate reflection of the circuit she claims has a
COP> INFINITY now that the very basic first part a circuit diagram was purposely posted wrong to confuse everyone ... by design.
Glen
:(
Guys,
I'm not sure what actually happened. I can access my blog to post again, but it seems that my 'water to boil' posts have indeed been removed off my blogsite. If any of you have a blogspot and know how to report this then please advise. I'm not finding my way around how to do this.
Many thanks
Rosemary
Quote from: Rosemary Ainslie on May 13, 2011, 11:04:12 PM
Guys,
I'm not sure what actually happened. I can access my blog to post again, but it seems that my 'water to boil' posts have indeed been removed off my blogsite. If any of you have a blogspot and know how to report this then please advise. I'm not finding my way around how to do this.
Many thanks
Rosemary
As an alternative for the time being, can you post them here?
.99
Rose,
Is Donny able to email you a picture of the simulation schematic he is now using?
It would be nice if you could post that here.
.99
Quote from: poynt99 on May 13, 2011, 11:19:04 PM
Rose,
Is Donny able to email you a picture of the simulation schematic he is now using?
It would be nice if you could post that here.
.99
Poynty - Donny is NOT working on this. He's working on other things. His time spent on this subject is very constrained. He'll only be able to concentrate time on this subject when we get formal research funding. He has a young family to support and works 24/7 on his own inventions that are absolutely cutting edge. Mostly related to improvements on traditional energy savings and water savings. But as in most 'new technologies' he has to forge all kinds of software and suchlike to get it all going. But he absolutely CANNOT afford time on something as radical as our tests because they do not YET carry enough credibility to afford research funding. When they do - then he'll come to the party full time. It's his passion. But he does not believe in the value of forums although he believes in Open Source. Not many do believe in the value of forums. And considering my own history - it's probably a fair concern. I only stick to it because I believe dialogue has a way of getting to those fundamental issues as well as a means of spreading the word.
Kindest again,
Rosie
BTW - those posts are here already. I simply transposed them to the blogsite. For some reason they've not been re-instated there. I'll try and post a link. Hang ten. OK I think it starts here. My page 67.http://www.overunity.com/index.php?topic=10407.msg283810#msg283810
OK Rose.
I only asked as it was my impression that Donny did the original simulations you posted, and that he may also be working on the new configuration, as per your email to me.
QuoteI'm sending you a clearer schematic - from DONNY. BUT NOTE you need to amend his schematic in line with this and 8 - 13 above.
.99
Quote from: poynt99 on May 13, 2011, 11:42:21 PM
OK Rose.
I only asked as it was my impression that Donny did the original simulations you posted, and that he may also be working on the new configuration, as per your email to me.
.99
He did do that sim and the schematic. But it was only intended to show the 'waveforms' with that MOSFET setting. It would have been added to the report if we got all those professors to attend.
We BOTH want your work here Poynty. It's guaranteed to be unbiased - in view of your history of dissention. :)
Quote from: Rosemary Ainslie on May 13, 2011, 11:53:05 PM
He did do that sim and the schematic. But it was only intended to show the 'waveforms' with that MOSFET setting. It would have been added to the report if we got all those professors to attend.
We BOTH want your work here Poynty. It's guaranteed to be unbiased - in view of your history of dissention. :)
You are welcome to use any of my simulations.
Be aware however, that
all my posted simulations have been based on the original "as-built" configuration as shown in the demonstration video.
.99
Quote from: poynt99 on May 13, 2011, 11:59:32 PM
You are welcome to use any of my simulations.
Be aware however, that all my posted simulations have been based on the original "as-built" configuration as shown in the video demonstration.
.99
No Poynty. We need the corrected version. But we'll wait. There's no hurry. Enjoy your sunshine.
;D
ADDED. And in any event I still have to post over those video shots and so forth. I should get my computer back on Monday or Tuesday at the latest.
Take care,
Kindest regards,
Rosie
Quote from: Rosemary Ainslie on May 14, 2011, 12:08:51 AM
No Poynty. We need the corrected version. But we'll wait. There's no hurry. Enjoy your sunshine.
;D
Well, that brings us right back to getting commitment to a circuit diagram, which I have been striving for for some time now.
If the diagram IS per the one I posted above, then as I have already mentioned some time ago, I have NOT been able to get that circuit to oscillate.
So, if there are several folks working on this in the background (as you have indicated), and they have all had success with the simulation as per the new updated circuit, then you apparently don't need my work.
.99
Quote from: poynt99 on May 14, 2011, 12:14:59 AM
Well, that brings us right back to getting commitment to a circuit diagram, which I have been striving for for some time now.
If the diagram IS per the one I posted above, then as I have already mentioned some time ago, I have NOT been able to get that circuit to oscillate.
So, if there are several folks working on this in the background (as you have indicated), and they have all had success with the simulation as per the new updated circuit, then you apparently don't need my work.
.99
Poynty. We have a problem of timing. I cannot view the schematic until I can see it. I can't see it clearly because the light is still bad and my eyes are rather weak. I should be able to view it CLEARLY by about 9.00 am. By then you'll be asleep. It's now 6.25 am or thereby. BUT. If you can't get it to oscillate and I do then we're overlooking something. And those who are working on this absolutely HAVE NOT informed me as to whether or not they've got an oscillation. If they do then it will be a 'replication' of a simulation. The first is significant. The second will be equally so. The first 5 should be conclusive. Right now I only have the one early indication that this is possible at all.
My own thoughts are this. Either the sim is possible. Or it's not. Either way it requires reference. Because CERTAINLY the experimental evidence is that - not only is it possible - but it is repeatedly so.
Hold fire there Poynty. I'm doing my best.
Kindest regards,
Rosie
added.
What I can't see are the junctions around the switch on that schematic. But I assure you that if you've configured it that it conforms to my 16 point list - then it's PERFECT.
Another point. DOES YOUR FG GROUND GO DIRECTLY TO THE GATE AT Q2? Nowhere else? That's what I'm trying to establish.
Rose,
The FG ground goes to the Q2 Gate, which is also connected to the Q1 Source.
.99
Quote from: poynt99 on May 14, 2011, 12:42:53 AM
Rose,
The FG ground goes to the Q2 Gate, which is also connected to the Q1 Source.
.99
Yes. I've just checked. There is that link. But I think the negative current signal bypasses Q1's source entirely. What happens if you take the ground ONLY to Q2 gate? Maybe the sim is factoring in something that's actually not happening. As I see it - in my mind's eye - the negative signal is 'positive' relative to the new positioning of Q2's gate. Therefore it's just getting triggered in the usual way but reading the circuit's actual
circuit DRAIN as the SOURCE. Maybe worth trying?
Regards,
Rosie
ADDED
The FG is connected in such a way to turn Q1 and Q2 ON and OFF in anti-phase, provided that the FG levels are set appropriately.
I think what we need is a firm confirmation of the circuit both for the actual "as-built" apparatus, AND what folks are using for a simulation schematic.
.99
Quote from: poynt99 on May 14, 2011, 01:00:57 AM
The FG is connected in such a way to turn Q1 and Q2 ON and OFF in anti-phase, provided that the FG levels are set appropriately.
I think what we need is a firm confirmation of the circuit both for the actual "as-built" apparatus, AND what folks are using for a simulation schematic.
.99
Poynty. What you're asking for is a 'standard' representation of a non standard configuration. To begin with the standard configuration of the MOSFET is to show the GATE between the source and drain when in fact the GATE is on the extremity. It is also NOT standard to show the body diode of the FET. These need to be factored in. In other words the standard representation of the MOSFET is NOT consistent with each and every MOSFET on the market.
If I had my 'druthers' then I would simply put the input from the FG directly onto the gate of Q1 and the ground at Q2. Then I'd link the FETS as we do - Q1 gate to Q2 source - Q1 drain to Q2 drain - Q1 source to Q2 gate. Then you'll see the point better. Because what we've done is turned the MOSFET on its ear - that it can NOW read a negative signal as a positive.
What I will do, later today - is see what happens when I simply put the ground of the FG directly onto Q2.
But PLEASE DO NOT assume that there's a standard way to show this. There quite simply isn't. There's nothing standard in applying a FET as we're doing it here. And those that ARE doing the sims are aware of these problems. They're trying different ways of showing this. And the problem is NOT in the lack of a standardised schematic - but that there is NO WAY this can be shown in a STANDARD configuration. It is decidedly NOT standard.
Added. And if it works by putting the ground 'directly' on Q2 - then I INSIST that ANY schematic of this circuit - show precisely that. I'll let you know what happens.
Regards,
Rosemary
Rose,
MOSFETs have 3 pins as you know. From left to right; 1, 2, 3.
If the pin names (gate, source, drain) are a stumbling block for you and those working on the sims, perhaps you can draw up the new as-built apparatus by designating only the pin numbers and where they are connected.
I truly can not wrap my head around the problem you are having as you are describing. What the pin names are, and how the MOSFET is represented symbolically, is immaterial. All you need do is tell us how the MOSFETs are physically connected in the circuit, and if you wish to use pin numbers (i.e. 1, 2, 3) then please do. Use a box with 3 labeled pins on it if that works for you.
You really are stumbling on something that is an unnecessary self-imposed block to conveying this important information.
.99
Poynty - a friend of mine who is really good at these things - has just evaluated the circuit and confirms that what you have drawn is 100 % correct. What he does is put the FG input and ground - gate to gate. But they are linked - obviously through the source. He's the one who's trying to get a square wave signal generator with a negative swing - but not quite there yet.
So. Your design is good. Now you'll need to get it to oscillate. You may need to add 3.3 micro Henries for inductance on the wires. Maybe help? Otherwise - all I can say is that ours most certainly works. Not sure why we can't get it to work on PSpice.
Kindest
Rosie
Added. And tell MileHigh that we most certainly have the CSR where you've shown it. lol
Quote from: poynt99 on May 14, 2011, 12:14:06 PM
Rose,
MOSFETs have 3 pins as you know. From left to right; 1, 2, 3.
If the pin names (gate, source, drain) are a stumbling block for you and those working on the sims, perhaps you can draw up the new as-built apparatus by designating only the pin numbers and where they are connected.
I truly can not wrap my head around the problem you are having as you are describing. What the pin names are, and how the MOSFET is represented symbolically, is immaterial. All you need do is tell us how the MOSFETs are physically connected in the circuit, and if you wish to use pin numbers (i.e. 1, 2, 3) then please do. Use a box with 3 labeled pins on it if that works for you.
You really are stumbling on something that is an unnecessary self-imposed block to conveying this important information.
.99
Hi Poynt,
I put together a package of images for the
electronic students here at Over Unity that don't understand the actual configuration details and standard nomenclature on one of the three (3) electronic components used in the experimental device(s) construction or build in this thread.
As you and the small few experienced experimentalist posting here know there is a connection between the Drain (D) pin #2 and the Mosfet back plane is also noted.
The use of any type of
CONDUCTIVE paste between the "Mosfet Body and Heat Sink" is never recommended as you also know but others may not, and using a "SIL Pad or Mica" something as a
INSULATOR is required for 100% isolation between the Mosfet Body and Heat Sink.
Best Regard's
Glen
;D
Hi Poynt,
I also found for the electronic students posting in this thread a complete set of the best information available on how a Mosfet works for those whom are not aware on the operation or function, so possibly all posting here is on the same page and something for everyone's reference.
International Rectifier IRFPG50 N-channel MOSFET
http://www.learnabout-electronics.org/fet_01.php ( JFETs ( Junction Field Effect Transistors )
http://www.learnabout-electronics.org/fet_02.php ( How a JFET Works )
http://www.learnabout-electronics.org/fet_03.php ( JFET Animation )
http://www.learnabout-electronics.org/fet_04.php ( Enhancement Mode MOSFET )
http://www.learnabout-electronics.org/fet_05.php ( Depletion Mode MOSFET )
Glen
;D
Quote from: Rosemary Ainslie on May 14, 2011, 12:33:14 PM
So. Your design is good. Now you'll need to get it to oscillate. You may need to add 3.3 micro Henries for inductance on the wires. Maybe help? Otherwise - all I can say is that ours most certainly works. Not sure why we can't get it to work on PSpice.
Kindest
Rosie
It's the inductance present in Q2's Source leg that causes the oscillation, so indeed taking the CSR out kills it in the sim.
Most likely it still works in real life because of the wire inductance still present. Of course in the sim, the inductance is zero unless we put some back in.
I will try re-inserting 200nH inductance there and see what happens.
Rose, what is the voltage swing on the FG for your tests?
.99
Quote from: poynt99 on May 15, 2011, 12:54:08 AM
It's the inductance present in Q2's Source leg that causes the oscillation, so indeed taking the CSR out kills it in the sim.
Most likely it still works in real life because of the wire inductance still present. Of course in the sim, the inductance is zero unless we put some back in.
I will try re-inserting 200nH inductance there and see what happens.
Rose, what is the voltage swing on the FG for your tests?
.99
Golly - I nearly missed this. I assume you mean the voltage that we measure across the gate? Typically it swings 4 volts in either direction - but negative peak is difficult to determine because of the oscillation.
Hope that helps you Poynty
Kindest regards,
Rosie
Guys - two points of interest. The one is that a friend of mine has managed to generate a clean square wave swinging positive to negative - but has NOT found that oscillation. Interestingly though the cycle mean and mean average voltages are NEGATIVE. Very intriguing.
Another friend of mine has simulated this using a 555 applied to the 'Q-ARRAY' as he calls it. Here detected is a small 'moment' - if that's the right term - where the waveform across the gate allows for a negative triggering that allows for the 'spike' to reverse current flow through the circuit. Again - none of those PERFECT waveforms that Poynty managed. But they point to the potentials that we've been seeing.
We're waiting to hear from some others that are working on more robust software. Hopefully next week. And yet others are being canvassed for their own efforts in this regards. We should get some definitive results during the next week or two.
My report is being held up. Yet another friend has done a really neat schematic of the circuit configuration - that will satisfy you ALL - AND it has the dubious merit of making it readable for me. He's promised me an illustration of this soon. Hopefully by tomorrow I'll be able to post this for you. I shall also be using that schematic for my 'revised' report. And I'll also post that up when I've got receipt of it.
So. We're slowly moving in the right direction here. Frankly I'm very anxious to see these simulations - precisely because of the advice from our 'esteemed' and 'learned' that simulations of these results are CONCLUSIVE. And if we can get away from those TEDIOUS experiments - then I'm more than happy. Not that experimental evidence isn't required. It's just that it does NOT seem to do much to breach those credibility barriers. :o
Kindest regards,
Rosemary
;D
ADDED
BTW - THE NEW SCHEMATIC IS ABSOLUTELY IN LINE WITH THE SCHEMATIC POYNTY'S USED. NO DIFFERENCES. DO NOT PANIC. LOL. It's just showing the same thing in a slightly different way.
Please note a correction to my recent statement about the circuit oscillating due to inductance in Q2's Source leg; actually I meant to say the inductance in its Gate leg.
.99
Rose,
I have been able to get the circuit working again by re-introducing some wire inductance in Q2's Gate lead as shown in the new schematic attached here.
I show the "old" Vbat trace (red) just for reference.
Note the CSR probe polarity as marked on the schematic, and the resulting trace and average voltage across it.
.99
Guys, Just a quick note,
Here's that circuit config. Not sure that it makes any difference to anything at all. Just for me it's more readable.
Take care
Rosie
Quote from: poynt99 on May 15, 2011, 02:42:30 PM
Rose,
I have been able to get the circuit working again by re-introducing some wire inductance in Q2's Gate lead as shown in the new schematic attached here.
I show the "old" Vbat trace (red) just for reference.
Note the CSR probe polarity as marked on the schematic, and the resulting trace and average voltage across it.
.99
WELL DONE POYNTY. Really good work. I see now that your results aren't so beneficial. Does it make any difference if you just up the frequency?
Anyway very well done. We just need to show the same negative results that we're getting. I hope they're still there somewhere. It's officially MONDAY - so, I may l get my PC back TODAY. Can't wait to up load some things.
Take care - and many, many thanks for the work.
Kindest regards,
Rosie
Much edited guys. I'm in dire need of sleep.
And Guys, I keep coming back to this circuit. It's so ELEGANT. I'm going to take the liberty of uploading it again. Just to emphasise where I was pointing. It's this. It's an 'upside' down thing. Just for once a circuit has been configured that it really CAN accommodate the negative cycle - precisely because it offers absolutely NO resistance to all that NEGATIVE current flow. All that energy that has been hidden and frustrated in the material of the circuit itself. It's ALWAYS been there. It's just never been given a 'chance' to show itself - except when it could - 'accidentally', so to speak - get into parasitic oscillation. And then, for Heaven's sake - all we ever did was our damnedest to 'snuff' it out - dampen the energy into a whole lot of added resistors. Anything. Just to avoid letting the system do what it most wanted to do. All that energy. And it's absolutely consistent with Einstein's E=mc^2. The material really does hold that energy.
But. To keep to the point. I hope there are some of you who see this. That NEGATIVE signal applied to the Gate of Q2 - is PRECISELY the same thing as the initial energy from the battery applied to the Gate of Q1. In effect the MOSFET now sees the applied signal from the source - as if it were a positive from the drain. And then it moves this 'negative' current flow around the circuit with the same 'force and effect' as it first moved the positive current flow. It's a mirror image.
It's a persistent confusion related to our traditional concepts of the properties of current that has hidden this from us - for all these years. The MOSFET is simply doing what it was designed to do. It takes an appropriate signal and then allows the appropriate cycle of current to move - relatively unobstructed - through the circuit as it needs to. And it also proves that this current potential has ALWAYS been there. Just never allowed expression - a 'voice' - so to speak.
Golly. I hope it captivates some of you - even a fraction of how it captivates me.
Kindest regards,
Rosemary
ADDED
Just for added symmetry - I would still prefer to see the signals from the function's generator applied DIRECTLY to the gates of the FETS. Because that, in truth is what is happening.
And edited for clarification
And for Poynty - when you get back here. You just need to keep adding to that inductance to get it to a positive value. And that inductance in turn, relates to the 'added' material to the circuit. So. It is my opinion that the actual quantity - the actual material mass of those 'inductive/conductive' components INCLUDING the wire - that allows for more or less 'returned' energy. Therefore the mass of the circuit components comes into the equation.
So Poynty. Perhaps just keep adding inductance to the wires - and maybe you'll get the same results on your sim. Worth trying perhaps? Just know that we've actually measured the inductance on the wires to and from the battery to be 3.3 micro Henries. And I think you can add to the inductance where you replaced the CSR - because clearly that comes into the equation.
Kindest as ever,
Rosemary
Quote from: Rosemary Ainslie on May 15, 2011, 10:13:43 PM
And for Poynty - when you get back here. You just need to keep adding to that inductance to get it to a positive value. And that inductance in turn, relates to the 'added' material to the circuit. So. It is my opinion that the actual quantity - the actual material mass of those 'inductive/conductive' components INCLUDING the wire - that allows for more or less 'returned' energy. Therefore the mass of the circuit components comes into the equation.
So Poynty. Perhaps just keep adding inductance to the wires - and maybe you'll get the same results on your sim. Worth trying perhaps? Just know that we've actually measured the inductance on the wires to and from the battery to be 3.3 micro Henries. And I think you can add to the inductance where you replaced the CSR - because clearly that comes into the equation.
Kindest as ever,
Rosemary
Rose,
You may notice that I have been using a total of 4uH of inductance in the battery leads (2uH each side). So I think I am in the ball park. Unless you mean it should be 3uH each side, then I can make the adjustment.
In terms of the wire inductance in Q2's Gate, I've added the same amount I used for the CSR when it was located there in the previous circuit based on the demonstration video, i.e. 200nH. Without that parasitic inductance, the circuit will not oscillate.
You may also notice that the present circuit is
essentially equivalent to the previous one. The only major difference being that the CSR is now located in the negative leg of the battery.
Also, I've left out the 200nH of inductance associated with the CSR, but I will show in my next post its effect. In summary, the CSR's inductance has no marked effect on the net average voltage across it.
.99
Quote from: Rosemary Ainslie on May 15, 2011, 06:52:59 PM
WELL DONE POYNTY. Really good work. I see now that your results aren't so beneficial. Does it make any difference if you just up the frequency?
The results are what they are. The frequency is determined by the parasitic components, and is in line with your results as well I believe. The net average CSR voltage is +128mV (equating to about 37W from the battery), so it is leaps and bounds from any negative "benefit". Changing the components to alter the frequency won't change the polarity on the CSR I'm afraid.
.99
Here are the sim results when including 200nH of inductance in the CSR. The net average CSR voltage is again about +128mV.
I've included a trace for the voltage across the wire inductance. Notice its net average polarity is negative.
.99
Thanks Poynty. I looked at the 'average' that your got across the CSR and to me, just eyeballing it - it's more negative than positive. Can't make it out so clearly across the actual waveform. But the average CERTAINLY should be tending to a negative result. Can't think why it doesn't add up accordingly.
The only other adjustment I could recommend is that you take the shunt replacement wire to 2.2 nano Henries. And if there's still nothing - then, at it's least, the waveforms are remarkably similar. And that there's that 'self generated' oscillation at all is a remarkable correspondence. Meanwhile I think we just need to sit tight. I know that there are others who are working on this who also use PSpice.
Thanks Poynty. I must now just sit back and wait. I'll post my amended schematic to my report - if I can and I'll download that here today.
Kindest regards,
Rosie
BTW
Each wires' total, I think, is 3.3 micro Henries on each side of the battery terminal. But I will need to confirm this. Interesting to see that the oscillations at the wire are all more negative. I'm sure you just need to factor in more copper.
ALSO - Changed micro to nano
Just posted some nonsense related to the inductance over the shunts. Hope no-one noticed. :o
lol.
Quote from: Rosemary Ainslie on May 16, 2011, 01:29:02 AM
Thanks Poynty. I looked at the 'average' that your got across the CSR and to me, just eyeballing it - it's more negative than positive. Can't make it out so clearly across the actual waveform. But the average CERTAINLY should be tending to a negative result. Can't think why it doesn't add up accordingly.
You're welcome.
The net average is determined by the sum of the areas of the curve above and below zero. I've painstakingly filled in the POS and NEG areas for you to show this. If you were to cut out these areas from a sheet of paper and weigh them, the red paper would weigh slightly more than the blue paper. This tells us that the net average is slightly positive. See the attached scope shot.
Quote
The only other adjustment I could recommend is that you take the shunt replacement wire to 2.2 nano Henries. And if there's still nothing - then, at it's least, the waveforms are remarkably similar.
I will try changing the wire inductance to 2.2nH from 200nH, but I don't think it will result in a negative average across the shunt.
.99
Quote from: poynt99 on May 16, 2011, 12:56:33 PM
You're welcome.
The net average is determined by the sum of the areas of the curve above and below zero. I've painstakingly filled in the POS and NEG areas for you to show this. If you were to cut out these areas from a sheet of paper and weigh them, the red paper would weigh slightly more than the blue paper. This tells us that the net average is slightly positive. See the attached scope shot.
I will try changing the wire inductance to 2.2nH from 200nH, but I don't think it will result in a negative average across the shunt.
Check out this one with your 'paper test'. To me it looks predominantly
NEGATIVE. Sorry I wrote positive. I'm definitely aging - at pace.
Sorry Poynty. I've just seen it's 130. I thought it was zero. Ignore this post.
Quote from: Rosemary Ainslie on May 16, 2011, 01:05:19 PM
Check out this one with your 'paper test'. To me it looks predominantly NEGATIVE. Sorry I wrote positive. I'm definitely aging - at pace.
Sorry Poynty. I've just seen it's 130. I thought it was zero. Ignore this post.
Indeed Rose.
And that is already the averaged value, so there is no need to apply the "area test" to it.
.99
Good stuff Poynty. Just out of interest. Do an average power delivered. Depending on the value of the resistance you'll apply to the CSR at that frequency. My rule of thumb is R = 0.9 Ohms. But I know you argue it as R - 1.2 Ohms.
Meanwhile Poynty - check your email. You need to get this nailed. Somehow.
Kindest regards,
Rosie
NOT MY NIGHT. MORE ERRORS I HAD TO DELETE. Golly. Sorry guys.
CORRECTED
As I expected, the circuit would not oscillate with only 2.2nH of wire inductance.
Keep in mind that wires exhibit anywhere from 20nH to 60nH of inductance per inch of wire, so it is impossible to have only 2.2nH of added inductance on any of the MOSFET pins.
.99
Time to go climb up Diamondhead volcano. ;)
Quote from: poynt99 on May 16, 2011, 01:40:55 PM
Time to go climb up Diamondhead volcano. ;)
lol. That's energy well spent. Have fun.
R
Quote from: poynt99 on May 16, 2011, 12:56:33 PM
You're welcome.
The net average is determined by the sum of the areas of the curve above and below zero. I've painstakingly filled in the POS and NEG areas for you to show this. If you were to cut out these areas from a sheet of paper and weigh them, the red paper would weigh slightly more than the blue paper. This tells us that the net average is slightly positive. See the attached scope shot.
.99
poynt99;
Don't you have to take into account that the blue negative aria goes almost to neg 4.55v while the red positive aria only reaches + 2.5v? It seems that the neg. has more power
Pete
Quote from: vonwolf on May 16, 2011, 02:32:29 PM
poynt99;
Don't you have to take into account that the blue negative aria goes almost to neg 4.55v while the red positive aria only reaches + 2.5v? It seems that the neg. has more power
Pete
Indeed Pete, it appears that the NEG side has more uummmff than the POS side, but it is evidently not so.
The POS peaks at about 2.5V, and the NEG peaks at about -4.5V, but you might notice that the width of the NEG side is smaller than the POS side?
The total area enclosed by the trace above and below the zero reference is what determines the net average. So both the amplitude AND time have to be considered in this computation. Since the wave shape is not rectangular or trapezoidal, it is difficult to eyeball the results, especially when the two areas appear so close. The POS side is "short" and "wide" while the NEG side is "tall" and "narrow".
When we pass this wave form through an averaging filter (i.e. low-pass filter) it automatically does an analog computation of the net average for us. This is what I have shown in the scope shots labeled as "average", and this also explains why there is still some small ripple there. Given more time or more heavy filtering, the average will eventually show a smooth dc value.
I'll also mention that the value used for the CSR "resistance" when we apply this averaging is still 0.25 Ohms. Remember that the averaging filter nulls out most of the high frequency components, and therefore we need not take into account the impedance contributed by the CSR inductance when computing the current. NOTA BENE as Rose would say, that the average voltage was about +128mV in both cases; case one with a pure 0.25 Ohm resistor, and case two with the 0.25 Ohm resistor in series with a 200nH inductance.
.99
Guys - as a general appeal - I wonder if I could, admittedly at a rather late stage in this development - ask you all to refer to the NERD circuit as opposed to the Rosemary Ainslie Circuit. NERD stands for New Energy Research & Development. It's not a registered trade mark - or anything like that. I just am getting rather irritated that anyone ever refers to the circuit in my name when it is simply a generic description of a simple circuit layout intended to generate counter electromotive force. NERD's is what we call our little 'gathering' of like minds which is also loosely referred to as 'the team' in my postings. I'm going to revise my own schematics accordingly. Except that the circuit schematics developed by my friend will be called 'The Macey schematics of the NERD 'Q-array'.
Another point that needs identification is a profoundly interesting discovery made by another friend of mine related to the 'growth' of the two dimensional circle. But it's off topic here and I simply refer to it as it's the logical basis of the 'field' description and therefore much required. And this requirement is based on Bell's Theorem where he concludes that 'quantum theories cannot be upheld by local hidden variables' - which is itself - paraphrased. And all it means is that gross measurable physics needs a consistent underlying structure - or all would be chaos.
What I'm trying to get to is that I really need to step back from all of this. There are many players involved who have the required skills. All I can contribute is some real interest in tying up some loose ends related to everyone else's discoveries.
Which brings me back to Poynty's contributions. I think we can leave these sims in his capable hands. I don't need to remind you all that he 'ferreted out' the actual circuit related to that oscillation. No mean feat I assure you - especially when you bear in mind that our own configuration was the result of my incompetence. Frankly I think the Good Lord intervened as He's probably growing tired of my own and others myopia. And I'm satisfied that IF the numbers can be supported on a simulation that are evident experimentally - then he'll find it. ... Poynty that is. Not God. LOL. ;D
The only other thing that is of real interest to me is this. We have another simulation in the offing that indicates a gradual but consistent INCREASE in the voltage levels across the load and the shunt. But no negative values yet. It's been designed around a 555 because his software doesn't support an functions generator. And I do not have his permission to make this public - yet - but will do so when I get the all clear.
I'm saying all this now because I think we're getting to a point of better clarity as to where all this will go. I think the real drive from hereon in will be with those sims. Mainly because that's where the breakthroughs will come. I will certainly do a full report on my water to boil test together with a video of these results. And then I will also publish the earlier 12 March report as required by Stefan.
I think we're getting to some sort of real conclusion - which is a relief. Else we'll spend another year - frittering around on debates. And tempus is fugitting - and I REALLY want to get back to the field model.
So. This is just my 'summation' of where we're going. Where we're AT is at a really exciting junction. Not only is there that rather challenging evidence put forward by RomeroUK - but we have our not so small evidence which is irrefutable and repeatable. It's just a question now of trumping every denial of this event with more and more evidence. And if we keep working at it then it HAS to - eventually - scale those lofty and elusive academic ivory towers.
Kindest regards,
Rosemary
Edited. Sorry I wrote 'oscilloscope'.
And another addition because I rather suspect I was taking God's name in vain. Just so funny.
And guys.
Here's another variation of the Q-Array - per Macey the marvel. lol. An elegant study in simplicity.
Kindest regards,
Rosemary
This is extremely odd and unprecedented for any inventor to supply a electronic circuit diagram for a "FINDING" on a device with a efficiency claim of COP> INFINITY called "Rosemary Design1.jpg"
AND THEN POSTING .....
..... "NEW" information from a replicator working supposedly totally independently and exhibited through the inventor a electronic circuit diagram on a device called "Macey circuit config of NERD Q-array 2.jpg"
These two electronic circuit diagrams are exactly connected the same way just shown pictorially differently called a variation .... whats with the two diagrams and the odd changes ... why ? ???
Fuzzy
:o
Looking forward to seeing some scope results of either the apparatus or any of the simulations pertaining to the above schematic, or any other.
Rose, I looked at the schematic and resulting wave forms you sent me of the conventional switcher using the 555, but I failed to see anything unusual there.
.99
Here again, for those that may want to try this as a simulation or real build, is a version of this circuit that does not require a function generator. It self-oscillates simply by applying -5VDC of bias on a single MOSFET at its Source leg. The MUR160 diode replaces what was the Q1 MOSFET.
This is the circuit in its basic form.
.99
Hi Poynty
I know someone who probably will try that circuit config of yours but we would both be glad to see the waveforms average voltage across the battery supply. And does your sim do a product of the vbat Ishunt values? If so - please show these too.
I have got my computer back - and STILL can't get in. It has to go back again. Unbelievable. Anyway I don't need it to upload the report so will do that later today.
Regards,
Rosemary
Edited for clarity. This is becoming a habit. :o ::)
Rose, PSpice can perform almost any type of computation.
Here are some wave forms you may find interesting for this self-oscillating version. What do you make of these results?
.99
Poynty - IS THAT IT? Does it work with the one MOSFET on a sim but not with TWO? I can't understand that. And what is that resistor doing at the positive terminal? Is it a load or a shunt?
Poynty? Are you equivocating? Because if you're not then this is very exciting.
Kindest regards,
Rosie
Guys the following is a download of the revised report that Stefan asked for. I'll just add new posts as I get to illustrations. That should keep the continuity and should keep it within the size constraints of this forum. Here's hoping it comes out clearly. If not. I'll edit - retrospectively.
Regards,
Rosemary
REPORT ON TWO TESTS OF A SWITCHING CIRCUIT FOR DEMONSTRATION AT CPUT on 12TH MARCH 2011.
Prepared by Rosemary Ainslie, Donovan Martin, Evan Robinson, Mario Human.
The following tests were designed to evaluate some aspects of a thesis that predicts a potential for the conservation of potential difference at a supply. This thesis is based on a non-classical magnetic field model and what is demonstrated here is a non-conservative field condition on a circuit, as required by that model. While this may confront Kirchhoff’s Laws, the experimental results are in line with Faraday’s Laws of Induction. This may suggest that Inductive Laws supersede the conservative field requirements. It is proposed, therefore, that the results are in line with classical requirements albeit that they seemingly contradict the results determined by the Second Law of Thermodynamics.
1 FIRST TEST
1.1 Circuit description
The experimental apparatus comprises a simple switching circuit (see Figure 1). 6 x 12 volt lead acid batteries are in series with both a heating element (RL1) and 5 MOSFET transistors (Q1) in parallel. The transistors are driven by a functions generator. A current sensing resistor (Rshunt) on the source rail of the supply determines the rate of current flow both to and from the battery supply source.
2 REPORT CONTINUED
1.2 Schedule of circuit components
1.2.1 Resistor element RL1 - Incoloy alloy air heating rod element threaded with nichrome resistive wire. Resistance = 11.11Ω, L = 2.23μH. 200 watts. Supplied by Specific Heat
1.2.2 Current sensing resistor Rshunt - 4 ceramic wire wound 1 watt resistors 1Ω each, placed in parallel. Resistance therefore = 0.25Ω. L = 110nH
1.2.3 MOSFET transistor Q1 - 1 x IRFPG50 with Zener body diode
1.2.3 MOSFET transistor Q2 â€" 4 x IRFPG50 with Zener body diode
1.2.4 Function generator
1.2.5 6 x 12v batteries - Raylite silver calcium
1.3 Schedule of measuring instruments
1.3.1 Le Croy WaveJet 324 200 MHz Oscilloscope (DSO) - 2GS/s 400 Vpk tolerance. Sample range maximum 500 000 samples
1.3.2 Tektronix MSO 3054 Mixed Signal Oscilloscope (DSO) - 500 MHz 2.5 GS/s. Sample range maximum 1 million samples
1.3.3 FLUKE Digital Multimeter TopTronic T48 True RMS with thermocouple measuring to 400°C (rated at ±1%+4).
1.4 Circuit operation
The circuit is designed to allow a secondary current flow that is induced from the collapsing fields of RL1 during the OFF period of the duty cycle as a result of counter electromotive force (CEMF). This reverse current path is enabled by the body diode in the transistors as well as the eccentric positioning of MOSFETs (Q2) that are configured to enable a negative current flow driven by a negative charge applied to the Gate of Q2. This allows a current flow that returns to the battery supply source to recharge it. Small adjustments to the offset of the functions generator enables the generation of a ‘burst oscillation’ mode that is triggered when the gate voltage defaults below zero. This oscillation occurs at a naturally resonating frequency determined by the impedance of the circuit components. The adjustment to the offset also requires careful tuning to regulate the level of power required to be dissipated at the load. See Figure 3 for typical gate voltage setting.
1.5 Measurement of wattage dissipated
Measurement of the energy dissipated at the resistor element (RL1) was determined by comparison with results from a control to avoid the complexity of factoring in power factor corrections. A constant voltage was applied from a DC power supply source in series with RL1. The voltage was then steadily increased in increments of 1 volt each from 1 volt through to 22 volts. The wattage was then determined as the squared product of the voltage over the resistance of RL1,
(1)
3 Revised report continued
Typically the battery supplies a direct current. Therefore, voltage that is measured above zero, is considered to result in a current flow delivered by the battery. And, conversely, voltage that is measured below zero is considered to result in a current flow delivered to the battery. The instantaneous wattage delivered to or by the battery is then determined as the product of the voltage across the batteries and the current.
2. SECOND TEST
2.1 Circuit description
The circuit is configured identically to the diagram in Figure 1 but with a reduction in the number of batteries applied to three, supplying approximately 36v. All other parameters are identical to the First Test.
2.2 Circuit operation
With a reduced supply voltage, the voltage across Rshunt increases, corresponding to the increase from the positive applied voltage signal from the gate during the ON period of the duty cycle and as determined by the offset. This results in an increase in current flow from the battery. This increase is commensurate with an increase in temperature rise that is measured to be dissipated on RL1. The rate of temperature rise depends on the offset adjustment and the applied source battery voltage during this ON time. At its highest setting, this results in an excess of 44 watts being dissipated. It has not been possible to test this to higher temperatures and for extended periods, as the there is a limit to the voltage tolerance of the DSOs.
2.3 Measurement of wattage dissipated at the load
The applied protocol is consistent with that described in 1.5 of Test 1.
2.4 Measurement of wattage delivered by the battery supply
The mean average and cycle mean average of the voltages measured across Rshunt now default to positive. Instantaneous wattage analsys is based on para 1.6 above.
4 Revised report continued
3. RESULTS
3.1 First test
The temperature over RL1 indicates that about 6 watts is being dissipated as heat. However, the instantaneous wattage analysis indicates that more energy has been returned to the battery than has been supplied resulting in a net zero loss of potential difference from the supply. Of interest is that the mean and cycle mean average voltage across Rshunt are consistently negative.
More wattage returned to the battery than was delivered.
Wattage dissipated at RL1 = 6 watts.
Sustained periodic condition of oscillation enabled for 2.7 minutes to the limit of the intervals allowed by the function generator
3.2 Second test
The mean average and cycle mean average voltage across Rshunt indicates that some current has been discharged by the battery to the source rail. However, instantaneous wattage analysis applied to the voltage measured across the battery and Rshunt indicate, here too, that the battery supply source has had more energy returned to recharge it than was first applied to the circuit. When this is applied to each sample from a spreadsheet analysis across the 500 000 to 1 million samples supplied by the digital storage oscilloscopes, then the product of this and the battery voltage represents the instantaneous wattage. The sum of these values, divided by the number of samples, represents the average wattage delivered over the entire sample range. This results in a negative value indicating that more energy is still being returned to the battery than was delivered. This is in line with the math function of the DSOs where it, too, indicates an increase of wattage back to the battery supply over the amount of wattage initially delivered from that supply.
More wattage returned to the battery than was delivered
Wattage dissipated at RL1= 44 watts
Switching results in the generation of extreme spiking at the transitional phases of the switch.
4. ANOMALIES
4.1 It is understood that during the ON time the applied signal at the gate will enable a current flow from the battery supply. With the application of more than 36 volts from the battery supply, the circuit can be tuned so that there is no measured voltage or consequent flow of current through to the source rail of the supply during this ON period. The precise cause of this restriction has not been identified and requires further research. Nor can this condition be simulated.
4.2 When the offset of the function generator is adjusted (see Figure 3), the falling edge of the pulse results in a burst oscillation mode. Parasitic inductance is a well-known consequence of MOSFETs placed in parallel. It is undesirable for switching applications and is therefore, traditionally, factored out of the circuitry. On this application we have enabled that oscillation to the limit of the function generator’s slowest switching speed at 2.7 minutes or 6.172mHz. No material or evident variation or decay of that resonance throughout that entire period, is observed (see Figure 4). This results in a measured increase of recharge at the battery supply as well as sustaining the temperature over the resistor. It would be desirable to extend this period of oscillation to see whether decay in this oscillation, eventually takes place. These results may warrant further research, as the implications are that the current flow may be perpetuated through this self-oscillation.
5 revised report continued.
4.3 Also apparent is that the oscillation is required to retain the temperature measured at the resistor at approximately 40°C above ambient. This temperature rise corresponds to a dissipation of approximately 6 watts at RL1 (according to Figure 2). The fact that it retains this heat is not a result of any unique properties to RL1 as the temperature is seen to fall steeply over a 3 minute period, when it is disconnected from the supply.
4.4 At these slowest switching speeds, at 6.172 mHz, and during that burst oscillation mode period where the frequency is measured at close to 1.5 MHz, the battery supply source is seen to recharge. The same oscillation amplitude is evident at all higher frequencies with the same attendant benefits.
4.5 The voltage across the shunt is at 180 degrees in anti phase with the voltage across the battery (Figure 5) and the voltage across the Drain (Figure 6). While this is repeatable in simulations it is not evident that the oscillations can be sustained at the same amplitudes over an extended period.
5 revised report continued.
4.6 Typically, and as can be seen from the oscilloscope screen shots, it is possible to tune the circuit through adjustments to the offset and the duty cycle, to obtain a negative mean average and cycle mean average voltage measured at Rshunt. This indicates that there is more current being returned to the battery supply than was first delivered. This is confirmed by detailed analysis of data downloads to spreadsheets.
4.7 There is evidence of approximately 6 watts of energy dissipated at RL1, and upwards of 40 watts on Test 2, at no measurable cost of energy delivered from the supply. As this heat is not at the cost of energy from the supply it suggests that there is an alternate energy supply source or classical prediction errs in its assumption of equivalence in the transfer of energy.
4.8 Measurement of battery voltage was determined by the mean average voltage on the digital storage oscilloscopes, as well as from the digital multimeters, with probes placed directly on the positive and negative terminals of the battery supply. These battery voltages fluctuate in line with the evident voltage variations of the waveforms displayed. What is shown is that there is a recharge period after the discharge of current from the voltage during the ON period of the duty cycle. It is more clearly evident at the slowest switching speed. This indicates that there is a battery recharge during the period when the switch is in burst oscillation mode that occurs when the gate voltage is negative. Therefore is there evidence that the oscillations resulting from this negative triggering, are indeed recharging the battery.
Revised report continued
5. SIMULATION
5.1 The circuit was setup in Simetrix version 5.4 (Figure 7) and simulated in correlation with the above tests (Figure 8).
.
..
Sorry about that screw up. It's unlikely that Harti will amend those posts so I may redo them all. Just needed to get onto another page here. Abject apologies guys - I sized that report wrongly. What I'll do is repost the report and then Harti can simply delete the previous to get it back in order.
Again. Sorry. I'll start it all again.
REPORT ON TWO TESTS OF A SWITCHING CIRCUIT FOR DEMONSTRATION AT CPUT on 12TH MARCH 2011.
Prepared by Rosemary Ainslie, Donovan Martin, Evan Robinson, Mario Human.
The following tests were designed to evaluate some aspects of a thesis that predicts a potential for the conservation of potential difference at a supply. This thesis is based on a non-classical magnetic field model and what is demonstrated here is a non-conservative field condition on a circuit, as required by that model. While this may confront Kirchhoff’s Laws, the experimental results are in line with Faraday’s Laws of Induction. This may suggest that Inductive Laws supersede the conservative field requirements. It is proposed, therefore, that the results are in line with classical requirements albeit that they seemingly contradict the results determined by the Second Law of Thermodynamics.
1 FIRST TEST
1.1 Circuit description
The experimental apparatus comprises a simple switching circuit (see Figure 1). 6 x 12 volt lead acid batteries are in series with both a heating element (RL1) and 5 MOSFET transistors (Q1) in parallel. The transistors are driven by a functions generator. A current sensing resistor (Rshunt) on the source rail of the supply determines the rate of current flow both to and from the battery supply source.
2 - continued - revised report
1.2 Schedule of circuit components
1.2.1 Resistor element RL1 - Incoloy alloy air heating rod element threaded with nichrome resistive wire. Resistance = 11.11Ω, L = 2.23μH. 200 watts. Supplied by Specific Heat
1.2.2 Current sensing resistor Rshunt - 4 ceramic wire wound 1 watt resistors 1Ω each, placed in parallel. Resistance therefore = 0.25Ω. L = 220nH
1.2.3 MOSFET transistor Q1 - 1 x IRFPG50 with Zener body diode
1.2.3 MOSFET transistor Q2 â€" 4 x IRFPG50 with Zener body diode
1.2.4 Function generator
1.2.5 6 x 12v batteries - Raylite silver calcium
1.3 Schedule of measuring instruments
1.3.1 Le Croy WaveJet 324 200 MHz Oscilloscope (DSO) - 2GS/s 400 Vpk tolerance. Sample range maximum 500 000 samples
1.3.2 Tektronix MSO 3054 Mixed Signal Oscilloscope (DSO) - 500 MHz 2.5 GS/s. Sample range maximum 1 million samples
1.3.3 FLUKE Digital Multimeter TopTronic T48 True RMS with thermocouple measuring to 400°C (rated at ±1%+4).
1.4 Circuit operation
The circuit is designed to allow a secondary current flow that is induced from the collapsing fields of RL1 during the OFF period of the duty cycle as a result of counter electromotive force (CEMF). This reverse current path is enabled by the body diode in the transistors as well as the eccentric positioning of MOSFETs (Q2) that are configured to enable a negative current flow driven by a negative charge applied to the Gate of Q2. This allows a current flow that returns to the battery supply source to recharge it. Small adjustments to the offset of the functions generator enables the generation of a ‘burst oscillation’ mode that is triggered when the gate voltage defaults below zero. This oscillation occurs at a naturally resonating frequency determined by the impedance of the circuit components. The adjustment to the offset also requires careful tuning to regulate the level of power required to be dissipated at the load. See Figure 3 for typical gate voltage setting.
1.5 Measurement of wattage dissipated
Measurement of the energy dissipated at the resistor element (RL1) was determined by comparison with results from a control to avoid the complexity of factoring in power factor corrections. A constant voltage was applied from a DC power supply source in series with RL1. The voltage was then steadily increased in increments of 1 volt each from 1 volt through to 22 volts. The wattage was then determined as the squared product of the voltage over the resistance of RL1,
(1)
The temperature of the resistor was then recorded against the applied wattage and the temperature difference above ambient determined the level of wattage as represented in Table 1 and Figure 2.
edited. corrected the inductance measured over the shunts.
3 - continued revised report
1.6 Measurement of wattage delivered by the battery supply
Power is calculated as vi. The flow of current (i) is determined by the voltage measured across Rshunt over the resistance of Rshunt.
(2)
Typically the battery supplies a direct current. Therefore, voltage that is measured above zero, is considered to result in a current flow delivered by the battery. And, conversely, voltage that is measured below zero is considered to result in a current flow delivered to the battery. The instantaneous wattage delivered to or by the battery is then determined as the product of the voltage across the batteries and the current.
2. SECOND TEST
2.1 Circuit description
The circuit is configured identically to the diagram in Figure 1 but with a reduction in the number of batteries applied to three, supplying approximately 36v. All other parameters are identical to the First Test.
2.2 Circuit operation
With a reduced supply voltage, the voltage across Rshunt increases, corresponding to the increase from the positive applied voltage signal from the gate during the ON period of the duty cycle and as determined by the offset. This results in an increase in current flow from the battery. This increase is commensurate with an increase in temperature rise that is measured to be dissipated on RL1. The rate of temperature rise depends on the offset adjustment and the applied source battery voltage during this ON time. At its highest setting, this results in an excess of 44 watts being dissipated. It has not been possible to test this to higher temperatures and for extended periods, as the there is a limit to the voltage tolerance of the DSOs.
2.3 Measurement of wattage dissipated at the load
The applied protocol is consistent with that described in 1.5 of Test 1.
2.4 Measurement of wattage delivered by the battery supply
The mean average and cycle mean average of the voltages measured across Rshunt now default to positive. Instantaneous wattage analsys is based on para 1.6 above.
3. RESULTS
3.1 First test
The temperature over RL1 indicates that about 6 watts is being dissipated as heat. However, the instantaneous wattage analysis indicates that more energy has been returned to the battery than has been supplied resulting in a net zero loss of potential difference from the supply. Of interest is that the mean and cycle mean average voltage across Rshunt are consistently negative.
More wattage returned to the battery than was delivered.
Wattage dissipated at RL1 = 6 watts.
Sustained periodic condition of oscillation enabled for 2.7 minutes to the limit of the intervals allowed by the function generator
3.2 Second test
The mean average and cycle mean average voltage across Rshunt indicates that some current has been discharged by the battery to the source rail. However, instantaneous wattage analysis applied to the voltage measured across the battery and Rshunt indicate, here too, that the battery supply source has had more energy returned to recharge it than was first applied to the circuit. When this is applied to each sample from a spreadsheet analysis across the 500 000 to 1 million samples supplied by the digital storage oscilloscopes, then the product of this and the battery voltage represents the instantaneous wattage. The sum of these values, divided by the number of samples, represents the average wattage delivered over the entire sample range. This results in a negative value indicating that more energy is still being returned to the battery than was delivered. This is in line with the math function of the DSOs where it, too, indicates an increase of wattage back to the battery supply over the amount of wattage initially delivered from that supply.
More wattage returned to the battery than was delivered
Wattage dissipated at RL1= 44 watts
Switching results in the generation of extreme spiking at the transitional phases of the switch.
4. ANOMALIES
4.1 It is understood that during the ON time the applied signal at the gate will enable a current flow from the battery supply. With the application of more than 36 volts from the battery supply, the circuit can be tuned so that there is no measured voltage or consequent flow of current through to the source rail of the supply during this ON period. The precise cause of this restriction has not been identified and requires further research. Nor can this condition be simulated.
4.2 When the offset of the function generator is adjusted (see Figure 3), the falling edge of the pulse results in a burst oscillation mode. Parasitic inductance is a well-known consequence of MOSFETs placed in parallel. It is undesirable for switching applications and is therefore, traditionally, factored out of the circuitry. On this application we have enabled that oscillation to the limit of the function generator’s slowest switching speed at 2.7 minutes or 6.172mHz. No material or evident variation or decay of that resonance throughout that entire period, is observed (see Figure 4). This results in a measured increase of recharge at the battery supply as well as sustaining the temperature over the resistor. It would be desirable to extend this period of oscillation to see whether decay in this oscillation, eventually takes place. These results may warrant further research, as the implications are that the current flow may be perpetuated through this self-oscillation.
4 - continued revised report
4.3 Also apparent is that the oscillation is required to retain the temperature measured at the resistor at approximately 40°C above ambient. This temperature rise corresponds to a dissipation of approximately 6 watts at RL1 (according to Figure 2). The fact that it retains this heat is not a result of any unique properties to RL1 as the temperature is seen to fall steeply over a 3 minute period, when it is disconnected from the supply.
4.4 At these slowest switching speeds, at 6.172 mHz, and during that burst oscillation mode period where the frequency is measured at close to 1.5 MHz, the battery supply source is seen to recharge. The same oscillation amplitude is evident at all higher frequencies with the same attendant benefits.
4.5 The voltage across the shunt is at 180 degrees in anti phase with the voltage across the battery (Figure 5) and the voltage across the Drain (Figure 6). While this is repeatable in simulations it is not evident that the oscillations can be sustained at the same amplitudes over an extended period.
5 - continued revised report
4.6 Typically, and as can be seen from the oscilloscope screen shots, it is possible to tune the circuit through adjustments to the offset and the duty cycle, to obtain a negative mean average and cycle mean average voltage measured at Rshunt. This indicates that there is more current being returned to the battery supply than was first delivered. This is confirmed by detailed analysis of data downloads to spreadsheets.
4.7 There is evidence of approximately 6 watts of energy dissipated at RL1, and upwards of 40 watts on Test 2, at no measurable cost of energy delivered from the supply. As this heat is not at the cost of energy from the supply it suggests that there is an alternate energy supply source or classical prediction errs in its assumption of equivalence in the transfer of energy.
4.8 Measurement of battery voltage was determined by the mean average voltage on the digital storage oscilloscopes, as well as from the digital multimeters, with probes placed directly on the positive and negative terminals of the battery supply. These battery voltages fluctuate in line with the evident voltage variations of the waveforms displayed. What is shown is that there is a recharge period after the discharge of current from the voltage during the ON period of the duty cycle. It is more clearly evident at the slowest switching speed. This indicates that there is a battery recharge during the period when the switch is in burst oscillation mode that occurs when the gate voltage is negative. Therefore is there evidence that the oscillations resulting from this negative triggering, are indeed recharging the battery.
5. SIMULATION
5.1 The circuit was setup in Simetrix version 5.4 (Figure 7) and simulated in correlation with the above tests (Figure 8).
6 - final of the revised report
6.DISCUSSION
The results of this demonstration are consistent with the previous reported test results related to this circuitry. The difference here is that there is an extended period of self-induced oscillation following the falling edge of the gate drive signal. This appears to enhance the circuit performance to what is now measured as what appears to be an infinite co-efficient of performance. This value has been carefully evaluated, but it is preferred that the circuit and all its effects be carefully established by experts.
Therefore the intention of this demonstration is to bring these anomalies to the academic forum so that experts can research these effects more thoroughly. There are many questions here that need answers and it is considered that this is best established across a broad range of research to establish the checks and balances required for the progress of this new technology.
It is an unfortunate fact that publication of these results in academic journals will first require some accreditation. Attempts to publish in reviewed journals were denied, even prior to review of the submitted papers. Although not admitted, the indications are that this outright rejection was because the results of these experiments dramatically oppose mainstream prediction. It is earnestly proposed that open acknowledgement of the listed anomalies by experts, may therefore, be a catalyst to bridge mainstream’s scepticism that publication will be possible. And the further hope is that this demonstration will result in that required and wider acknowledgement of these anomalies. Then the technology can be progressed. This would be a desirable consequence, the more so as there may here exist some potential solutions to the global energy crisis that is growing ever more critical in the face of diminishing or pollutant energy sources coupled with our burgeoning global need for increased supplies.
Some mention must be made of those aspects of the tests that have not been thoroughly explored. The first relates to the battery recharge. It is a truth that the batteries used in these experiments have been used on a regular basis for over 5 months. During that time they have been continually subjected to both light and heavy use and they have never shown any evidence of loss of voltage. Nor have they been recharged by a conventional battery recharger. However there has not been a close analysis of the electrolytic condition of the batteries, before, during or even after their use. This will require a fuller study by our chemistry experts.
Results therefore were confined to classical measurement protocols with the distinction that the energy dissipated at the resistor element was established empirically and as it related to the heat dissipated on that resistor. Also to be noted is that there is a small but measurable inductance on the current-sensing resistor. This therefore begs some margin for error in the measurements. However, the measure of efficiency in the transfer of energy here is that extreme that a wide margin can be applied without materially altering these beneficial results.
It is, in any event, clearly evident that the circuit benefits from the inductances that are measured over the circuit components, including the wiring. As this is both inexpensive and easy to incorporate into circuit designs then the indications are that this aspect of the technology is easily established. What is needed is fuller research into the critical amounts to enable the burst oscillation mode and, indeed, into the requirements that enable this negative triggering of the oscillation, in the first instance. All prior circuits based on this simple design, have shown some indications of benefit. But this particular development has taken that earlier advantage to greater levels of energy efficiency than have been previously recorded.
There was no attempt made in these tests to precisely quantify the energy delivered by the battery. This was based on the fact that in both tests and in most variations to the frequency, and offset adjustments, the results show a zero discharge of energy from the battery supply. Therefore, any measured rise in temperature over ambient is seen as being anomalous.
It is also to be noted that the simulation of these waveforms are possible also indicating, as they do, a zero discharge of energy from the supply source. As the software for simulations are based on classical protocols then one may assume that classical measurement allows for these results. Certainly they confront Kirchhoff’s Laws albeit that they are in line with Faraday’s Inductive Laws.
Finally, the thesis that predicted these results points to the possibility that the hidden energy supply source, not factored into classical analysis, is in the material of the circuit components. This would still be in line with Einstein’s mass/energy equivalence and the thesis proposes that inductive and conductive material are able to induce their own energy as a result of applied potential differences. Effectively there is a potential in induced negative voltages that has not been fully exploited.
WITH THANKS
Our heartfelt gratitude is to the following:
To CPUT staff for the use of their facilities and for the critical input that was so freely available. Special thanks here to Deon Kallis for his patience in all aspects related to teaching and guiding us. This tribute is all the more heartfelt as he has consistently proposed that there is yet some classical explanation that has been overlooked. This may yet be proven. In general the consensus here is that there are still some latent errors associated with this circuitry that are yet to be uncovered. They do not, therefore endorse the results but merely the continued and thorough research of this.
Also a word of thanks to Markin Mwinga for his assistance during 2010.
To Battery Centre and RayLite batteries for the gift of 9 batteries.
To Coast to Coast for the supply of the LeCroy for such an extended period. Also for the brief use of the Fluke.
To Inala and to Pieter Rousseau for the use of the Tektronix. This was much required to confirm the results from our LeCroy.
To Specific Heat and Ikram Ebrahim for the donation of the element and his support in supplying exotic resistors as required.
To Roy Adams of Tecron who built a copper water cylinder for an earlier experiment and applied the required plumbing.
To Pick-n-Pay and Pick-n-Pay Durbanville, for providing refreshments at the demonstration
Quote from: Rosemary Ainslie on May 18, 2011, 07:51:43 PM
Poynty - IS THAT IT? Does it work with the one MOSFET on a sim but not with TWO? I can't understand that. And what is that resistor doing at the positive terminal? Is it a load or a shunt?
Poynty? Are you equivocating? Because if you're not then this is very exciting.
Kindest regards,
Rosie
And I'm posting this again lest it's lost in that page sizing disaster. Please answer this Poynty and please note that the sims in the report are still consistent with our own findings.
Ta muchly,
Rosie
EDITED. And for perfect clarity - here's the schematic I referrred to and the result I'm asking about
FIRST TRY ...
http://www.overunity.com/index.php?topic=10407.msg287233#msg287233 ( Reply #1310 )
http://www.overunity.com/index.php?topic=10407.msg287235#msg287235 ( Reply #1311 )
http://www.overunity.com/index.php?topic=10407.msg287239#msg287239 ( Reply #1312 )
http://www.overunity.com/index.php?topic=10407.msg287241#msg287241 ( Reply #1313 )
http://www.overunity.com/index.php?topic=10407.msg287242#msg287242 ( Reply #1314 )
http://www.overunity.com/index.php?topic=10407.msg287243#msg287243 ( Reply #1315 )
http://www.overunity.com/index.php?topic=10407.msg287244#msg287244 ( Reply #1316 )
http://www.overunity.com/index.php?topic=10407.msg287245#msg287245 ( Reply #1317 )
_______________________________________________________________________________
SECOND TRY ....
http://www.overunity.com/index.php?topic=10407.msg287251#msg287251 ( Reply #1320 )
http://www.overunity.com/index.php?topic=10407.msg287252#msg287252 ( Reply #1321 )
http://www.overunity.com/index.php?topic=10407.msg287253#msg287253 ( Reply #1322 )
http://www.overunity.com/index.php?topic=10407.msg287254#msg287254 ( Reply #1323 )
http://www.overunity.com/index.php?topic=10407.msg287255#msg287255 ( Reply #1324 )
http://www.overunity.com/index.php?topic=10407.msg287258#msg287258 ( Reply #1325 )
_______________________________________________________________________________
Ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ....... I've never laughed so hard in my life .... ;D
This is the "RA South Africa" teams rendition of all the information, data and details of numerous claims on the inventors finding of a COP> INFINITY on various experimental devices created by Rosemary Ainslie ?
This "REPORT" by far is the most mixed up mess that has ever been seen or presented to the open source community on any experimental device claim of a finding that a independent experimentalist could never use in a possible attempt to reproduce in a scientific method the inventors finding to supply "PROOF" of the founded claim of COP> INFINITY.
1) Several Tests and simulations all with different experimental circuit diagrams "COBBLED" up together in the so called REPORT. ???
2) All Dates of Oscilloscope screen shots are not on the day of the exhibit. ???
3) Speculation on some stupid THESIS .... what in the world does a thesis have to do with providing information on a finding to reproduce in a scientific method the finding of a claim for PROOF of that claim ... absolutely nothing at all just more unneeded crap. ???
4) The 9.9 ohm resistor/inductor now is a "CUSTOM" made part .... not something off the shelf as the open source community was told earlier by Rosemary. ???
On and On and On .... what a total mess given on documentation and information and certainly way below expectations from someone whom calls themselves a 10 year veteran knowing all of what is needed and required by electronics engineer or academics and not being provided in a scientific method.
I now will and advise others posting to wait because of the unprofessional re-posting "TWICE" and will hold all my "line by line" comments until such time no modifications to the above listed postings or reply's are set in stone and cant be whimsically changed to suit ones immediate needs or wants.
LOL .... whats been shown is so pathetic but actually expected. ::)
Fuzzy
:P
PS - As Joe Friday would say "Just the Facts" Madam .....
Quote from: Rosemary Ainslie on May 18, 2011, 07:51:43 PM
Poynty - IS THAT IT?
Not sure what you mean?
Quote
Does it work with the one MOSFET on a sim but not with TWO? I can't understand that.
It would also work with 2 MOSFETs or even 5 as you have them. Reducing the circuit down to its basic component parts however, is what I've shown.
Quote
And what is that resistor doing at the positive terminal? Is it a load or a shunt?
I have included a 2 Ohm wire resistance in my schematic and simulation because you have included it in your simulation schematic.
Quote
Poynty? Are you equivocating? Because if you're not then this is very exciting.
I'm illustrating that with a simulation, I can show similar results to your actual results, and with the new CSR location and a reduced circuit configuration.
Is there possibly more to the story though, or is this an open-and-shut case proving COP>1?
.99
Quote from: poynt99 on May 19, 2011, 05:08:47 AM
Not sure what you mean?
It would also work with 2 MOSFETs or even 5 as you have them. Reducing the circuit down to its basic component parts however, is what I've shown.
I have included a 2 Ohm wire resistance in my schematic and simulation because you have included it in your simulation schematic.
I'm illustrating that with a simulation, I can show similar results to your actual results, and with the new CSR location and a reduced circuit configuration.
Is there possibly more to the story though, or is this an open-and-shut case proving COP>1?
.99
Poynty Point. This is very good news indeed. I've just sent you an email. Check it out. And let me know what you think.
Kindest regards,
Rosie
Guys,
We've been invited to submit a paper - yet again. This time round I believe we'll have a good chance of passing review to publication. it seems these forums are better subscribed than I realised and interest from some significant players has not been diminished. And this time round we won't again run the risk of getting our submission sabotaged.
And Glen - when you finally manage to garner some respect and credibility with our readers - then they may, indeed, take cognisance of your appalling posts. As it is you do much to advertise our work and nothing whatsoever to damage my good name - as you intend. It goes to show that even bad publicity is good publicity.
;D
Kindest regards,
Rosemary
Quote from: Rosemary Ainslie on May 19, 2011, 09:05:58 AM
Poynty Point. This is very good news indeed. I've just sent you an email. Check it out. And let me know what you think.
Kindest regards,
Rosie
Rose,
I would be interested in getting your feedback and comments on the results I presented. Are they not in line with your own? Is there more to the story perhaps?
.99
Quote from: Rosemary Ainslie on May 19, 2011, 09:13:57 AM
Guys,
We've been invited to submit a paper - yet again. This time round I believe we'll have a good chance of passing review to publication. it seems these forums are better subscribed than I realised and interest from some significant players has not been diminished. And this time round we won't again run the risk of getting our submission sabotaged.
And Glen - when you finally manage to garner some respect and credibility with our readers - then they may, indeed, take cognisance of your appalling posts. As it is you do much to advertise our work and nothing whatsoever to damage my good name - as you intend. It goes to show that even bad publicity is good publicity.
;D
Kindest regards,
Rosemary
Rosemary any credibility you had left is "GONE" especially after your posting of the pure nonsense
"REPORT".
NO ONE HERE AT OVER UNITY cares about your pathetic thesis .... This thread is called
Rosemary Ainslie circuit demonstration on Saturday March 12th 2011 for a reason none of which you have ever understood titles of threads at http://www.energeticforum.com/ .... http://www.overunityresearch.com/ ..... http://www.thunderbolts.info/forum/ ..... http://www.thenakedscientists.com/
( aka witsend , aetherevarising ) where you were banned for continued false and inaccurate statements and attacking members.
I invite and challenge everyone readers and guests to look at the
8,000 postings of Rosemary's spread out over several years at these forums and see for yourself.
This thread here at OU.com was to show evidence of a finding on a claim of "YOURS" on efficiency of a experimental device "YOU" claim to have a
COP> INFINITY.You have not shown in any
"SCIENTIFIC METHOD" how to obtain this efficiency in any way shape or form a experimental device "YOU" claim to have a
COP> INFINITY and have
"FAILED" miserably only a grade or high school electronic class will be interested in your claim.
You ( Rosemary ) cannot supply one credible package of one experiment that includes a circuit diagram with oscilloscope screen shots done during the test not even one to verify your claim of a finding.
The
REPORT failed .... nothing for a independent experimentalist to take and to make a device to your specifications for testing and evaluation in a scientific method to verify the claim on a finding of
COP> INFINITY .... COP> INFINITY .... COP> INFINITY .... COP> INFINITY .... COP> INFINITY .... COP> INFINITY .... COP> INFINITY .... COP> INFINITY .... COP> INFINITY .... COP> INFINITY .... COP> INFINITY .... COP> INFINITY .... COP> INFINITY .... COP> INFINITY .... COP> INFINITY .... COP> INFINITY ....There is nothing in this thread of value you are a terrible inventor and experimentalist and my credentials and expertise stand on there own and well documented unlike yours ..... this is what documentation looks like .... FYI http://www.energeticforum.com/inductive-resistor/5359-mosfet-heating-circuits.html
( nine pages !!!! )http://cid-6b7817c40bb20460.office.live.com/browse.aspx/.Public/Mosfet%20Heater
I won't be so nice to ask you a
"TENTH" time here in this thread to do the testing in a scientific method required and do it correctly, not half ass or less as you have shown or are you incapable of the request.
Facts only Facts can you do that ? Are you capable Rosemary ? Do you need someone to hold your hand ? ???
Fuzzy
:P
Guys here's the situation.
Until we could generate some hefty wattage through the system it could have been argued that we were using the functions generator as the source of that extra energy. Until we used that superb little LeCroy Wavjet 324 it could have been argued that we were undersampling. Until we used that equally superb Tektronix MSO 354 it could have been argued that the LeCroy measurements were wrong. Until we had repeated those results it could have been argued that the results were anomalous. Until we had demonstrated this publicly it could have been argued that there we had fabricated those results. Until we'd put the CSR directly in line with the negative rail of the battery it could have been argued that our current computations were wrong. And until we had shown a negative sum of voltage across the CSR it could have been argued that we were not getting COP infinity.
To add to the evidence. Our last tests showed that the temperature over the resistor element rose to 240 degrees centigrade with the on period of the duty cycle set to 12mV for 18% of a duty cycle over a period of 2 hours and it then brought 0.7 litres of water to 80 degrees centigrade. Then we changed the frequency. The off set remained in the same position. But now the temperature of the water rose to 104 degrees centigrade. Therefore, conservatively speaking we were able to take water to boil at 0.12 watts of energy measured from the battery supply during this short 18 parts 'on' of every 82 parts off of each period of the duty cycle. THEN if one takes into account the energy actually measured to have been delivered to the system - if one factors in the oscillation which was evident for the remaining 82 percent of the duty cycle - then there was more energy being returned than was first delivered by the supply.
Clearly there was something in the order of 100 watts or thereby of energy dissipated at the cost of absolutely nothing from the supply.
Those are the facts. I am posting a 'close up' of where the 'offset' was positioned during the 'on' period and where it remained throughout that test period. I was going to give a repeat of this and other tests for the forum - but as we're now to do a paper on this I'll only use the repeat data for that submission.
Regards,
Rosemary
And may I add that it's a matter of some considerable concern to me that Glen is allowed to litter and pollute this thread with this ridiculous and confrontational and rude posts - and that Harti, notwithstanding repeated requests - is not prepared to do anything about it.
It is almost as if he DOES NOT WANT THIS NEWS TO BREAK. It is almost as if he ACTUALLY WANTS THIS THREAD TO BE INCINERATED.
I find that extraordinary. In the light of the evidence that we now have to hand on PROOF of COP INFINITY - then one would assume that he would do everything to nurture rather than KILL OFF this knowledge. I CANNOT understand it - not with the best will in the world. WHY? WHY when so much evidence is to hand is he most earnestly attempting to block the information? Is it because he'd prefer that the news does not come from me? Is he selecting the proof that he requires - instead of the proof as it's presented? Is there some kind of selection in play? Or is it perhaps that he does not actually support this drive of ours to crack the energy barriers? Or must this information first come from a MAN - as opposed to a WOMAN? Not sure? I give up. All I know is that he is positively and anxiously ensuring that this thread get flamed.
I also need you to all be alert to this. I personally am doubly concerned that the romero test may - indeed - have been a required distraction to this our news. It certainly seems that way.
Regards,
Rosemary
Quote from: Rosemary Ainslie on May 20, 2011, 10:10:58 AM
And may I add that it's a matter of some considerable concern to me that Glen is allowed to litter and pollute this thread with this ridiculous and confrontational and rude posts - and that Harti, notwithstanding repeated requests - is not prepared to do anything about it.
It is almost as if he DOES NOT WANT THIS NEWS TO BREAK. It is almost as if he ACTUALLY WANTS THIS THREAD TO BE INCINERATED.
I find that extraordinary. In the light of the evidence that we now have to hand on PROOF of COP INFINITY - then one would assume that he would do everything to nurture rather than KILL OFF this knowledge. I CANNOT understand it - not with the best will in the world. WHY? WHY when so much evidence is to hand is he most earnestly attempting to block the information? Is it because he'd prefer that the news does not come from me? Is he selecting the proof that he requires - instead of the proof as it's presented? Is there some kind of selection in play? Or is it perhaps that he does not actually support this drive of ours to crack the energy barriers? Or must this information first come from a MAN - as opposed to a WOMAN? Not sure? I give up. All I know is that he is positively and anxiously ensuring that this thread get flamed.
I also need you to all be alert to this. I personally am doubly concerned that the romero test may - indeed - have been a required distraction to this our news. It certainly seems that way.
Regards,
Rosemary
Hi Rose;
Glens post just make him look silly, he's just repeating the same thing over and over again I know I don't pay him any attention and I doubt anyone els dose. His little trick of resizing the pages is very annoying and I wish it would stop but desperate time and all. Just keep moving forward and let him dwell inn the past, no harm done.
Good Luck as always Pete
Quote from: vonwolf on May 20, 2011, 10:48:23 AM
Hi Rose;
Glens post just make him look silly, he's just repeating the same thing over and over again I know I don't pay him any attention and I doubt anyone els dose. His little trick of resizing the pages is very annoying and I wish it would stop but desperate time and all. Just keep moving forward and let him dwell inn the past, no harm done.
Good Luck as always Pete
Good advice - thanks. But it's Harti's encouragement of those posts that are actually worrying me. Can't work it out. And the most reasonable explanation is not a happy one. I know I'm skating on thin ice in even referring to it - but it's a question that needs an answer. We're meant to be open source. And we're meant to be advancing OU. What gives?
And Pete - it's always a comfort to find you there.
Rosie
Quote from: vonwolf on May 20, 2011, 10:48:23 AM
Hi Rose;
Glens post just make him look silly, he's just repeating the same thing over and over again I know I don't pay him any attention and I doubt anyone els dose. His little trick of resizing the pages is very annoying and I wish it would stop but desperate time and all. Just keep moving forward and let him dwell inn the past, no harm done.
Good Luck as always Pete
I think most agree with this.
Bill
A prophet couldn't have done it better ....
90 pages and still not what was asked for verification of a finding of a claim of COP> INFINITY .....
This has been done in the past future here in this forum on a COP> 17 experimental device with unsubstantiated claims that were never proved "WORLD WIDE" ...
http://www.overunity.com/index.php?topic=10407.msg285740#msg285740
_______________________________________________________________________
QUOTE -
There are hundreds of readers, members, engineers and academics that "DO NOT AGREE" at all with your testing and evaluation of your experimental device because it's not in any scientific method known that can be reproduced to anyone's satisfaction for a verification of a COP> INFINITY .
You Rosemary, as a boasting proxy inventor that has claimed submitting many documents for engineering and academic "PEER" review, you Rosemary of all people most certainly know all the mandated requirements for a scientific verification of FACTS.
You Rosemary, are denying everyone in existence the chance to do any verification testing and evaluation on this COP> INFINITY circuit and even have posted a 100%"FALSE", fake and inaccurate circuit http://newlightondarkenergy.blogspot.com/2011/04/109-simulated-circuit.html#links for a WILD GOOSE chase or Chinese fire drill for anyone trying to replicate your findings by design.
MINIMUM REQUIREMENTS -
1) All COP > INFINITY device information in one place in one post not spread out over ninety (90) pages.
2) A accurate circuit diagram of the claimed COP > INFINITY device .... there are five (5) at least that I know of .... and "AGAIN" the one on your blog is incorrect (FALSE) http://newlightondarkenergy.blogspot.com/2011/04/109-simulated-circuit.html#links
3) All sequenced oscilloscope screen shots and data dumps from the day of the test not days before or after for over a minimum of one hour at 6 minute intervals for a total of eleven (11) verified recordings of the COP > INFINITY device.
4) The complete parts list of all the components used to do a scientific replication to verify the results in a verifiable scientific manner of the COP > INFINITY device
5) All the settings of the Function Generator in Hz or Mhz .... including .... the setting of the DC offset switch ( -10 VDC to + 10 VDC )
6) A complete photographic image set available for verification and review including the top and bottom of any circuit board of the COP > INFINITY device at the time under or during test .
7) A "LIVE streaming broadcast" of the device testing event in real time for 48 hours minimum untouched .... all that's required is a registering for a FREE LIVE streaming broadcast account and a web camera showing the claim of COP > INFINITY
_______________________________________________________________________
Items number one (1) through six (6) word for word was also asked by Stefan ...... WHERE IS THE REQUIRED INFORMATION ? ???
Is this another COP> 17 invention of Rosemary's where 300 to 500 people over 10 years spent $300.00 in just parts for as close as possible replication ( $ 120,000.00 US ) to make try to make something work and no one could World Wide ???
Fuzzy
:P
http://rosemaryainslie-publicblog.blogspot.com/ ( Great Reading )
COP> 17 ...... by Rosemary Ainslie
Please find attached information that was given to the open source community on a guaranteed claim of a device with a efficiency of COP> 17 .... Rosemary Ainslie's finding and proof of that device.
http://www.free-energy.ws/pdf/quantum_october_2002.pdf ( Quantum - October 2002 The Journal for Electronics Professionals )
_____________________________________________________________
Quantum - October 2002 The Journal for Electronics Professionals
Transient Energy enhances Energy Co-Efficients /Authors - RA Ainslie & BC Buckley
( "NO" Editorial Review )
EIT paper - IEEE 2009 AFRICON - "ELECTRO/INFORMATION TECHNOLOGY CONFERENCE"
COUNTER ELECTROMOTIVE FORCE ENABLES OVERUNITY RESULTS IN ELECTRIC SYSTEMS
[http://www.palensky.org/africon09/]
Pretoria News - November 14, 2002
"Circuit That Defies Basic Laws of Physics"
Own Correspondent - Author R A Ainslie ( "NO" Editorial Review )
_____________________________________________________________
GOOD LUCK !!!
No one "World Wide" was able to make a verified replication ......
Fuzzy
:P
http://rosemaryainslie-publicblog.blogspot.com/ ( GREAT READING ) ::)
A clarification of the scope results presented for the self-oscillating circuit.
All measurements are instantaneous (t) except for the resulting average power of the battery taken from p(t). The resulting average of VCSR(t) x VBAT(t) as shown on the schematic is -125W.
.99
Guys - a friend of mine got his circuit apparatus to work away from the functions generator and is running the switch off the same battery supply source. 12 volts took the temperature of the solder iron to 235 degrees centigrade and climbing. The results still a little brittle as after a time the waveform collapsed. Anyway - it's very good news as this is further proof that these results are NOT the result of grounding issues. And it seems that his design for the function generator replacement - works. Just needs fine tuning. I should learn more about this on Sunday.
And Poynty - I realise you want to discuss the significance of your sims - on forum here - but I'll pass - at least until this thread is cleaned up. I'm growing weary of picking my path around turd droppings. If and when Harti affords us the protection required for this kind of information - then I think we'd both be happy to disclose, discuss, debate - in public here. Until then - I'll just stick to the disclosures of our results. And thanks for clarifying those results across the CSR.
And I'll start with that waveform that we generated last night - which, unfortunately, only lasted less than an hour. It defaulted to a higher frequency - and the temperature dropped radically and fast. No significant variation in either case to the battery voltages.
Regards,
Rosemary
ABJECT APOLOGIES - THE FIRST WAS THE WRONG WAVEFORM. THIS SCREEN DOWNLOAD APPLIES.
And just to round off here - just a gentle reminder to all readers. That Harti is tolerating Glen's posts is PROOF that he is trying to get rid of this information. He is not banning me outright - as I have not breached ANY required protocols. Glen on the other hand is doing so and doing it FLAGRANTLY.
I am reasonably satisfied that the RomeroUK demonstration is a hoax as admitted by Romero. The reason that Harti is giving this his support is because it will make it seem as if he is plugging over unity interests. He CANNOT ignore the evidence that we've presented - as vouched for by 6 qualified engineers - 15 members of the public at a public demonstration - as recorded impeccably by the most sophisticated measuring equipment - and as presented in our report - unless he is determined to deflect these facts away from public view and to somehow deny them.
Please be warned. These forums are NOT intended to promote OU technologies but to frustrate them. There can be no other explanation.
Regards,
Rosemary
And clearly everyone is way too embarrassed at the blatant posting abuses that are going on here to speak up in my defense. These forums are harsh and characterised by an entirely inappropriate politicising that are spawned from Hell and initialised by Gobbels. Shame on you all. I am an old woman - for God's sake. And I'm simply trying to alert you all to the reality of our own test results as opposed to the openly acknowledged fraudulent misrepresentations of Romero. I am entirely satisfied that his demonstration of perpetual motion was introduced as a much needed distraction to these truths that we're uncovering. And I'm now satisfied that Harti had grown so used to hearing of my idiocy and incompetence that he had also grown to believe it. Therefore this offer to expose this technology here on his forum was simply intended as an easy route to public discreditation of the results that we are showing. Since that failed - he's attempting a dual attack including a vicarious incineration of the thread by one party and outright denial of our results by another.
Here's what CANNOT be denied. Measurement of energy delivered by a supply source can ONLY be based on wattage calculated as vi dt. The ONLY way to calculate amperage delivered is by putting a shunt with a low resistive value in series with the supply to determine the rate of current flow. And the only way to measure the voltage across the battery is to put a volt meter across the battery. And then one needs to compute the product of those two values - in real time. And the ONLY way to do this correctly is to allow for as many samples as is possible. And this is PERFECTLY enabled by the LeCroy that we use extensively as it offers a sample range typically of 500 000 samples per screen download. And that LeCroy is ALSO able to compute the product of the voltage across both the shunt resistor and the battery IN REAL TIME. That's the math function. And at optimised settings on our circuit that math function PROVES the results - being that there is more energy that is returned to the supply than was first delivered. IT'S COP INFINITY. And IT'S THAT SIMPLE. And it's THAT UNDENIABLE.
What has been called for is that we run those tests to prove that the battery exceeds it's watt hour ratings. I put it to you - Harti - that were I do do this test then those results would ALSO BE CONTENDED. And I'd be embroiled in detailed and expensive tests for a month or so with NO SATISFACTION for this argument and this evidence. Under the absurd banner for demanding 'extraordinary proof' to establish an 'extraordinary claim' the fact is that ANY required proof is intended to NEVER actually be sufficient. Were we to be given ABSOLUTE ASSURANCE that the 'battery draw-down' tests would constitute conclusive proof - then I am on record. I would personally finance that test. But for some reason it is EXPECTED OF US to perform this test with NO GUARANTEES WHATSOEVER that it would make any material difference to the ENTIRE LACK OF CREDIBILITY that our test results elicit.
This is a sad day for me. Because I am also now aware of the fact that Poynty is posting evidence of the same results that we are getting in his simulations and YET he is denying the very evidence that he's uncovering. Surprisingly - he supports the highly questionable claims of Romero's. You see what gives folks. The intention is to distract and confuse and deny and debate. The trick is NEVER TO ACKNOWLEDGE. And if you do lend support - let it be for facts that are never likely to be repeated. Not on highly repeatable evidence - showing up on EACH AND EVERY variation of the circuit that we are attempting. This media for the promotion of over unity is a FARCE. It is ABSOLUTELY designed to bury all claims that prove over unity and to allow NOTHING but evidence that remains entirely debatable and entirely unsupported. And then ask yourselves - as I do repeatedly - WHAT in FACT is going on here? WHY are we, the public being enticed to make any disclosures at all? Because what they result in is THE URGENT EFFORTS of some skilled players - to ABSOLUTELY DENY EVERYTHING.
My comfort is in the enormous readership that this thread enjoys. At least - out there - are many who can still learn of our advances. And until Harti actually bans me - I intend making that information very well advertised and very well known. Else this will simply disappear from any public notice at all. And then we can kiss goodbye to any hope of furthering this worthy cause which - I suspect - is what is actually behind the agenda of these forums.
And I challenge Harti to deny this and prove me wrong and do what is required to CLEAN UP THIS THREAD. Else there is absolute endorsement of this agenda. I've said this before. There can be NO OTHER EXPLANATION.
Regards,
Rosemary
Quote from: Rosemary Ainslie on May 21, 2011, 09:52:24 AM
This is a sad day for me. Because I am also now aware of the fact that Poynty is posting evidence of the same results that we are getting in his simulations and YET he is denying the very evidence that he's uncovering.
Consider the cup as half-full Rose. The fact that I am able to show evidence produced by a simulation that is similar to your own, is a good thing.
The only sad part in my opinion, is that no one, including yourself has yet questioned or challenged the results I have presented.
.99
Quote from: poynt99 on May 21, 2011, 01:58:28 PM
Consider the cup as half-full Rose. The fact that I am able to show evidence produced by a simulation that is similar to your own, is a good thing.
The only sad part in my opinion, is that no one, including yourself has yet questioned or challenged the results I have presented.
.99
Poynt - how can you say that? You've given a variation of the circuit that includes a resistor at the positive rail of the battery. Why? We have NO SUCH RESISTOR ON OUR CIRCUIT. Why do you NOT include 3.3mH inductance on the wires on either side of the battery terminals? Why do you NOT vary the inductance around the circuit components to reach that negative product? We're NOT lying about the results on the LeCroy. We couldn't if we wanted to. So. If you're NOT getting the same results then rather ASK ME what to vary. Or better still. Tell us why your variation works? Even that would help. The ONLY THING THAT COUNTS IS THIS. How much energy is being delivered by the supply? If that results shows a NEGATIVE product - THEN THERE'S SOMETHING EXTRAORDINARY GOING ON!!!!!!! That you find ANY value with a negative voltage product through a simulation is AMAZING. WHY are you NOT amazed? It is PROFOUNDLY SIGNIFICANT. It means - at its least - that your software which is designed within classical structures and algorithms ALLOWS FOR OVER UNITY???? THAT'S EXTRAORDINARY. It should be a WOW moment. It should be keeping you awake at nights.
UNLESS you plan to argue that the vi dt IS NOT THE CORRECT equation to apply to the power measurements. In which case you'd need to take up cudgels with many, many more people than I need to with my own eccentric take on current flow.
Rosemary
ADDED
For instance - too - WHY did you include capacitance in your evaluation on the previous circuit and yet on this variation you DON'T? You change things Poynt - and you DON'T explain why you do so. And they're small and subtle changes. And you and I both know what a HUGE difference this makes. I'm inclined to think that you WILL NOT find those negative values on our test because that's your whole intention. But you must surely KNOW that there are others who will be doing this and who WILL find it. And I'm not sure why you run that risk. I am sick and tired of second guessing. What's very apparent is that you are NOT playing your cards openly. And this is OPEN SOURCE.
And guys, for those of you who are not familiar with the circuit parameters. What's needed is that one uses thick copper wire - resistors with a great deal of mass and not too much inductance - and that way you will - invariably - generate more energy away from the supply than first delivered.
And the reason for this - as propounded in that thesis - is that the inductive/conductive circuit material itself may have the required properties to liberate their own energy potentials through the simple application of inductive laws. Therefore INDUCTANCE IS MUCH REQUIRED. But NOT in the form of an inductor - as that also generates a counter force that negates the benefit in the thermal efficiencies that is otherwise enabled.
Regards,
Rosemary
Quote from: Rosemary Ainslie on May 21, 2011, 02:10:38 PM
Poynt - how can you say that? You've given a variation of the circuit that includes a resistor at the positive rail of the battery. Why? We have NO SUCH RESISTOR ON OUR CIRCUIT.
The 2 Ohm resistance included in my recent schematics was added because your own simulation diagrams show this resistor. This value is somewhat realistic for the total battery wiring resistance. Of course you have not added a physical resistor there, but the wiring will exhibit a finite resistance per foot, and that resistance is "unseen", just as the wire inductance is also unseen. You have included that inductance in the simulation, and so have I; why do you not object to that as well?
Quote
Why do you NOT include 3.3mH inductance on the wires on either side of the battery terminals?
I have included 2uH on either side of the battery wiring. I am sure you meant uH and not mH.
Quote
Why do you NOT vary the inductance around the circuit components to reach that negative product?
I am not sure what you mean here. I have indeed shown a negative product.
Quote
That you find ANY value with a negative voltage product through a simulation is AMAZING. WHY are you NOT amazed? It is PROFOUNDLY SIGNIFICANT. It means - at its least - that your software which is designed within classical structures and algorithms ALLOWS FOR OVER UNITY???? THAT'S EXTRAORDINARY. It should be a WOW moment. It should be keeping you awake at nights.
Please explain why it is amazing and how that negative product is produced?
Quote
UNLESS you plan to argue that the vi dt IS NOT THE CORRECT equation to apply to the power measurements.
Instantaneous power measurement is valid if applied properly. The measurement I made with the sim produces a result of -125W. In your opinion is that measurement correct? (note the VBAT probe position).
Quote
For instance - too - WHY did you include capacitance in your evaluation on the previous circuit and yet on this variation you DON'T?
I removed the capacitor to appease YOUR objection to it. The small capacitor that was there makes very little difference to the results, so it is essentially immaterial.
Quote
You change things Poynt - and you DON'T explain why you do so.
Indeed I do explain things, and I just did again.
Quote
I'm inclined to think that you WILL NOT find those negative values on our test because that's your whole intention. But you must surely KNOW that there are others who will be doing this and who WILL find it.
I have no doubt that you can and will find those negative values. I have never denied that they exist when the measurements are taken according to your methods.
Quote
I am sick and tired of second guessing. What's very apparent is that you are NOT playing your cards openly.
I ask only for your participation in the walk-through exercise I am attempting to engage in here. No second guessing is necessary. My cards are on the table, and the simulation is not lying. I have clearly shown the measurement results and how and where those results were obtained. Those results are completely open for debate, challenge and questioning, yet no one has done so. I invite any criticism of those results and how I obtained them (keeping in mind that Rose has endorsed them as being in line with her own results, so the results obtained
by simulation should NOT be one of the criticisms please; I believe we are already well beyond that debate).
.99
Poynty - I am happy to discuss this with you OFF forum - until such time as this thread has been scrubbed and disinfected.
Until then I will ONLY report on our continuing results. And - as required - complain about the need of some URGENT INTERVENTIONS.
Regards,
Rosemary
And Poynty - if you want me to discuss the circuit then give me reason to discuss OUR circuit and not your variation of it. You have NOT endorsed our numbers through Spice. Until you do - then there really is no basis for any argument at all.
And WHY this is required is because there is no way to modify the amount of energy applied without the use of the 2 Q-array - at least. The 2 Q-array - together with the functions generator allows for the control over the switch that it can become a booster converter without ANY COST OF ENERGY from the supply to enable those boosted energy levels. We're dealing with a remarkably efficient technology that is able to far exceed the efficiencies of power delivery together with the efficient control over the reqired and effective level of wattage dissipated on the load.
Regards,
Rosie
Quote from: Rosemary Ainslie on May 21, 2011, 11:29:58 PM
Poynty - I am happy to discuss this with you OFF forum - until such time as this thread has been scrubbed and disinfected.
Until then I will ONLY report on our continuing results. And - as required - complain about the need of some URGENT INTERVENTIONS.
Regards,
Rosemary
This all needs to remain in public view.Perhaps if Glen would allow us some time to cover what's required, we might make some progress towards a common understanding, but it is his decision.
In terms of the circuit, no problem I can replace the diode with a MOSFET. It makes very little difference to the results actually. Give me about 8 hours.
.99
Back to my previous circuit with the 2 MOSFETs and "FG", the results are as follows.
Does this measurement appear to be correct?
.99
Hello Pointy.
As ever I'm blown away by your work. I will be taking the liberty of posting it on my blog - if you don't mind. Then I need to know that Fuzzy will stay off this thread until our PAPER IS PUBLISHED which will be when this subject will be done. I will then ask that this thread be locked. On that undertaking by all concerned parties we can debate things here. Otherwise the most I'm prepared to do on this subject is to discuss this with you on my blog by posting over our emails - in real time. In fact a discussion may all be better enabled on your own forum - on the understanding that there are no interruptions by MileHigh - Pickle - or anyone who's sole purpose it is to derail the topic. BTW - I'm intrigued to see that they've both gone. I must admit to missing MileHigh's contributions.
Kindest regards,
Rosie
ADDED - Actually Poynty - I'd much prefer it to discuss this on your own forum as I am prepared to trust you to keep that thread reasonably sanitised.
LET ME KNOW YOUR PREFERENCE
http://newlightondarkenergy.blogspot.com/2011/05/121-simulations.html
Rose,
As I've mentioned, I think this discussion should be in an open forum, and since OU is the one that seems to hold the most support for your work, I prefer that it remain here. I have contacted Glen in hopes he will allow the space required here to discuss the issues at hand. I have a feeling he will capitulate.
.99
Quote from: Rosemary Ainslie on May 22, 2011, 09:41:46 PM
Hello Pointy.
As ever I'm blown away by your work. I will be taking the liberty of posting it on my blog - if you don't mind. Then I need to know that Fuzzy will stay off this thread until our PAPER IS PUBLISHED which will be when this subject will be done. I will then ask that this thread be locked. On that undertaking by all concerned parties we can debate things here. Otherwise the most I'm prepared to do on this subject is to discuss this with you on my blog by posting over our emails - in real time. In fact a discussion may all be better enabled on your own forum - on the understanding that there are no interruptions by MileHigh - Pickle - or anyone who's sole purpose it is to derail the topic. BTW - I'm intrigued to see that they've both gone. I must admit to missing MileHigh's contributions.
Kindest regards,
Rosie
ADDED - Actually Poynty - I'd much prefer it to discuss this on your own forum as I am prepared to trust you to keep that thread reasonably sanitised.
LET ME KNOW YOUR PREFERENCE
If this takes place Rose I guess I'm out of it because I was banned at OUR too bad I guess all I'll be able to do is read unless poynt99 reinstates me don't be in too much of a hurry to lock this thread
Good Luck Pete
Quote from: vonwolf on May 23, 2011, 12:13:06 AM
If this takes place Rose I guess I'm out of it because I was banned at OUR too bad I guess all I'll be able to do is read unless poynt99 reinstates me don't be in too much of a hurry to lock this thread
Good Luck Pete
Pete,
Check your PM; you're re-registered.
.99
PS. Glen has assured me that should he post, he is going to keep things strictly technical.
Quote from: poynt99 on May 23, 2011, 12:59:43 AM
Pete,
Check your PM; you're re-registered.
.99
Thanks poynt99
Quote from: vonwolf on May 23, 2011, 12:13:06 AM
If this takes place Rose I guess I'm out of it because I was banned at OUR too bad I guess all I'll be able to do is read unless poynt99 reinstates me don't be in too much of a hurry to lock this thread
Good Luck Pete
Petes - I'd forgotten this. It would have to be a required condition that we're both reinstated. I assure you that I would not post there otherwise. And don't worry which forum this is advanced on. They're all much of a muchness. Each forum owner tries to select which technology is closest to their particular interest - and then they plug it. And ours - thank God - is entirely refuted just about everywhere except by the readers here. It's really a bit of a joke. Science determined by preference. I sincerely believe that all engineers have their own preferred 'beliefs' related to the thinking behind any technology. It will be wonderful when they finally realise that science and it's models are either right or they're wrong. Which also means that my own eccentric thesis may be found to be very badly flawed. Frankly - thus far I think its on the money. But only time will tell. lol.
Take care Petes. If we move across it's understood that my very few friends - including you - also be allowed a voice. Golly.
Kindest regards,
Rosie
Quote from: Rosemary Ainslie on May 23, 2011, 01:04:50 AM
Petes - I'd forgotten this. It would have to be a required condition that we're both reinstated. I assure you that I would not post there otherwise. And don't worry which forum this is advanced on. They're all much of a muchness. Each forum owner tries to select which technology is closest to their particular interest - and then they plug it. And ours - thank God - is entirely refuted just about everywhere except by the readers here. It's really a bit of a joke. Science determined by preference. I sincerely believe that all engineers have their own preferred 'beliefs' related to the thinking behind any technology. It will be wonderful when they finally realise that science and it's models are either right or they're wrong. Which also means that my own eccentric thesis may be found to be very badly flawed. Frankly - thus far I think its on the money. But only time will tell. lol.
Take care Petes. If we move across it's understood that my very few friends - including you - also be allowed a voice. Golly.
Kindest regards,
Rosie
Thanks Rose, poynt99 and I have reconciled so all is well lets just try to keep moving forward
Pete
Quote from: poynt99 on May 23, 2011, 12:07:58 AM
Rose,
As I've mentioned, I think this discussion should be in an open forum, and since OU is the one that seems to hold the most support for your work, I prefer that it remain here. I have contacted Glen in hopes he will allow the space required here to discuss the issues at hand. I have a feeling he will capitulate.
.99
Is this a joke? What support? Your's or Glen's. There is only 1 entirely outstanding feature of this work of ours and that is that is has ABSOLUTELY NO SUPPORT ANYWHERE. That's the joke. It's the ONLY technology that is repeatedly able to breach every barrier required by mainstream physics. It is the only technology that was required to predict a thesis. And it is also the ONLY technology that is entirely discounted.
AND it's the only technolgy that is correctly and accurately measured. And the real joke is that its rejection is NOT based on the science - but on my involvement with that science. LOL.
I'm very happy to debate things Poynty. But DO NOT try and give me any assurances related to Glen. The only way this would be managed is on your own forum. And I say this because I'm inclined to trust to your new intentions here to get to the bottom of things. Which means you'll moderate. Actively. Glen, however, is entirely incapable of contributing to any debate on this subject. He cannot even find his way around the math function on a Tektronix TDS3054C. And the only comments he can make is to copy and paste. He is incapable of anything else. He can hardly manage a structured sentence. But what he can do is distract and interrupt by an excessive display of these his only talents - that and a REALLY good build on COPIED technologies.
Regards,
Rosemary
Added
and added again.
I'm happy to debate things here Poynty. But I need some far better assurance that Glen STAYS OUT OF THIS THREAD.
I am being sincere Rose.
Here there are members that are undecided about your work and claims, and once in a while they ask questions regarding what I present. Most members here, albeit silent, I would guess are open-minded to your claims.
Regarding Glen, I really do feel he is/was going to refrain from any derogatory postings, but after your last post, I can't say that will still be the case. I thought we had just established a clean slate.
.99
Quote from: poynt99 on May 23, 2011, 01:36:56 AM
I am being sincere Rose.
Here there are members that are undecided about your work and claims, and once in a while they ask questions regarding what I present. Most members here, albeit silent, I would guess are open-minded to your claims.
Regarding Glen, I really do feel he is/was going to refrain from any derogatory postings, but after your last post, I can't say that will still be the case. I thought we had just established a clean slate.
.99
I am unable to stomach Glen's involvement in any part of this technology as he has betrayed my most earnest need to advance this using a lack of constraint and principle that is outstanding in its excess. If you really think that I can seriously consider imparting of 'my best' with the realisation that all that unfettered hatred lurks in the waiting and in the background - then you, together with those many members on your forum - have also grossly underestimated my sanity.
Poynty - the choice is yours. But I will NOT discuss anything at all with you except off forum - if Glen is entitled to contribute. That's final. Take the trouble - if you will - to look at those MANY unmoderated comments on your forum. And then ask me how reasonable is this my condition.
Regards,
Rosemary
Quote from: Rosemary Ainslie on May 22, 2011, 09:41:46 PM
In fact a discussion may all be better enabled on your own forum - on the understanding that there are no interruptions by MileHigh - Pickle - or anyone who's sole purpose it is to derail the topic. BTW - I'm intrigued to see that they've both gone. I must admit to missing MileHigh's contributions.
it only took half a dozen pm's to brian (humbugger, pickle, cheeseburger, etc.) reminding him of his statement @ our.com about 'being done with it' (he followed that statement with 4 more posts) and reminding him about integrity. of course he responded mostly with ad hominem, but i think he got the point. milehigh hasn't a shred of integrity, but he is losing popularity @ our.com even amongst the 'axis powers'. perhaps that is why he has fallen silent... personally i would find that surprising, i didn't think they guy could take a hint. ;D
Quote from: WilbyInebriated on May 23, 2011, 01:51:15 AM
it only took half a dozen pm's to brian (humbugger, pickle, cheeseburger, etc.) reminding him of his statement @ our.com about 'being done with it' (he followed that statement with 4 more posts) and reminding him about integrity. of course he responded mostly with ad hominem, but i think he got the point. milehigh hasn't a shred of integrity, but he is losing popularity @ our.com even amongst the 'axis powers'. perhaps that is why he has fallen silent... personally i would find that surprising, i didn't think they guy could take a hint. ;D
Hi Wilby. I never realised there was all that off forum communication. How interesting is that? LOL. I think that 'truth' has a way of surviving most attacks - is my take on things. It just first gets so hopelessly abused.
Well done. Yet again. It seems you're always there. And among many good things this is very likely the
'goodest
'. lol.
kindest regards,
Rosie
Added. (I've tried to invent a new superlative here)
ahhh, how fickle the winds of "open source" contributors are...
a blast from the past...
quote taken from "the strange case of the rosemary ainslie circuit by steve windisch". full text can be found here: http://dandelionsalad.wordpress.com/2009/12/24/the-strange-case-of-the-rosemary-ainslie-circuit-by-steve-windisch/
Quote"The gifted and skilled Open Source Researcher, Internet name “Fuzzytomcat†(Glen Lettenmaier), one of the first to Replicate the Ainslie Circuit successfully in 2009, has built several configurations of the special inductors/resistors for test… And his fine work in building, tuning, measuring, documenting, and analyzing test results… Extremely well recorded and presented using the Tektronix Digital Phosper Oscilloscope stored data, still photos, and “You Tube†videos… Conclusivly prove using accepted industry-standard methods that this circuit has definite anamalous qualities in energy efficiency, and that the Rosemary Ainslie Circuit and effect deserves very close scrutiny from our scientific mainstream community."
(emphasis added by me)
the interesting thing is... not so long ago, these "players" were lauding this circuit and placing heaps of praise upon rosemary (and themselves of course ;) ) and talking about success and "several replications"... but now, what are they doing?
yes, a strange case indeed.perhaps steve (jibbguy), glen (fuzzytomcat) or aaron murakami could clarify for us which case they have stated (since they now have made several different OPPOSING AND CONFLICTING STATEMENTS) is the correct one, and perhaps give the rest of the readers here an explanation or reason for the flip-flop...
Quote from: WilbyInebriated on May 23, 2011, 02:41:56 AM
ahhh, how fickle the winds of "open source" contributors are...
a blast from the past...
quote taken from "the strange case of the rosemary ainslie circuit by steve windisch". full text can be found here: http://dandelionsalad.wordpress.com/2009/12/24/the-strange-case-of-the-rosemary-ainslie-circuit-by-steve-windisch/
Quote
"The gifted and skilled Open Source Researcher, Internet name “Fuzzytomcat†(Glen Lettenmaier), one of the first to Replicate the Ainslie Circuit successfully in 2009, has built several configurations of the special inductors/resistors for test… And his fine work in building, tuning, measuring, documenting, and analyzing test results… Extremely well recorded and presented using the Tektronix Digital Phosper Oscilloscope stored data, still photos, and “You Tube†videos… Conclusivly prove using accepted industry-standard methods that this circuit has definite anamalous qualities in energy efficiency, and that the Rosemary Ainslie Circuit and effect deserves very close scrutiny from our scientific mainstream community."
(emphasis added by me)
the interesting thing is... not so long ago, these "players" were lauding this circuit and placing heaps of praise upon rosemary (and themselves of course ;) ) and talking about success and "several replications"... but now, what are they doing? yes, a strange case indeed.
perhaps steve (jibbguy), glen (fuzzytomcat) or aaron murakami could clarify for us which case they have stated (since they now have made several different OPPOSING AND CONFLICTING STATEMENTS) is the correct one, and perhaps give the rest of the readers here an explanation or reason for the flip-flop...
It's on record all over the place if one was to look ..... also check the published dates about five (5) months apart
http://www.energeticforum.com/93746-post74.html ( 05-02-2010, 09:23 AM )Quote -
________________________________________________________________________________
Hey Harvey,
I'm sorry it took so long to do a detailed overview of the "LIVE" broadcast I did in the "Open Source Research and Development" channel on the January 9, 2010 5 Hour non stop video recording.
This video as you are aware is one of the best ever recorded representation of the preferred mode of operation but only in a non stop 5 Hour video. I'm sure that many members and guests don't realize the difficulty in capturing this effect for the purpose of recording the data properly and if given the time looking at the recorded video everyone can see the problems that we face in getting accurate data.
The constant 24 volt battery bank voltage fluctuations going up and down the Mosfet "drain" spike oscillating from 500 to 900 volts, battery voltage down the Mosfet spikes, battery voltage up the Mosfet voltage to normal operating range, back and forth over and over.
I have tried to get as close to this mode of operation in Test #13 which was used in the IEEE submittal Open Source Evaluation of Power Transients Generated to Improve Performance Coefficient of Resistive Heating Systems the team including yourself did, and in Test #22 but never being able to record the data scientifically correct because of the circuits complex oscillating waveforms. I don't think everyone, members and guests understands that the Test #13 was done with a Tektronix TDS 3054C which has a maximum resolution of 10K of data spread over a 10 x 10 grid or divisions so each one has 1k of data samples separately for each of the 4 channels. The data collected in Test #22 was with a Tektronix DPO 3054 which has a maximum resolution of 5M of data, but I used the 100K which is spread over the same 10 x 10 grid or divisions so each one has 10k of data samples separately for each of the 4 channels ..... ten ( 10 ) times the data of the TDS 3054C used in Test #13.
The problem being we need to find a method of capturing the data continuously in real time, there's nothing wrong with Tektronix TDS 3054C or the DPO 3054 these are the finest instruments I've ever used and are extremely accurate, but if you push the acquire button at the wrong time you can appear to get conflicting or skewed data, not the case .... were you before the spike, during the spike or after the spike when the data was collected. I had a allotted dedicated set time to record the data, It was the time frame I used with the 6 minutes or as fast as the data could be physically collected with the finest equipment I had at my disposal.
I am in total agreement with you that something "good" is happening in the Mosfet Heating Circuit and can be plainly seen in the recorded videos, we just need to somehow get a streaming real time data recording. Maybe by somehow obtaining a Real-Time Spectrum Analyzers from Tektronix or some other method to verify the data findings as you suggested, the equipment I previously used as good as it is, just isn't enough to totally capture what is occurring during the preferred mode of operation.
Best Regards,
Glen
________________________________________________________________________________
My testing was on a
MODIFIED replication ...
http://www.energeticforum.com/84279-post1.html "NOT" the original circuit operating at a higher frequency with a made custom inductor.
Fuzzy
Quote from: fuzzytomcat on May 23, 2011, 03:08:03 AM
I am in total agreement with you that something "good" is happening in the Mosfet Heating Circuit and can be plainly seen in the recorded videos, we just need to somehow get a streaming real time data recording. Maybe by somehow obtaining a Real-Time Spectrum Analyzers from Tektronix or some other method to verify the data findings as you suggested, the equipment I previously used as good as it is, just isn't enough to totally capture what is occurring during the preferred mode of operation.
Best Regards,
Glen
________________________________________________________________________________
My testing was on a MODIFIED replication ... http://www.energeticforum.com/84279-post1.html "NOT" the original circuit operating at a higher frequency with a made custom inductor.
Fuzzy
care to explain what you meant by "good"?
oh!! my!! modified!! you used a custom wound resistor? whoop de doo... did you change the fundamental design of the circuit? no. you didn't... ::)
more from the "strange case":
Quote“COP†efficiencies greater than “4″ have already been recorded in the recent 2009 replications; and can be possibly much higher as the voltage pulse levels seen in the waveforms often go beyond the limits for measurement of the present equipment.
(again, emphasis added by myself)
stranger yet, i noticed nothing in that article about "modified" circuits, just "
replications"... so who is not being truthful here? you or steve?
edit: and even stranger yet, you have now claimed there is no "technology" and that rosemary has 'nothing'. i can find those posts and rub your face in them if you wish. ;)
Quote from: WilbyInebriated on May 23, 2011, 03:31:36 AM
care to explain what you meant by "good"?
oh!! my!! modified!! you used a custom wound resistor? whoop de doo... did you change the fundamental design of the circuit? no. you didn't... ::)
more from the "strange case":(again, emphasis added by myself)
stranger yet, i noticed nothing in that article about "modified" circuits, just "replications"... so who is not being truthful here? you or steve?
edit: and even stranger yet, you have now claimed there is no "technology" and that rosemary has 'nothing'. i can find those posts and rub your face in them if you wish. ;)
GOOD .... watch the complete five (5) Hour non stop video recording as posted ....
http://www.livestream.com/opensourceresearchanddevelopment/video?clipId=pla_6d255c76-9e9a-42ae-a565-fbc698e0b6df
Rosemary's COP efficiency claims are hers, not mine never were ..... so ask her about the
COP> 17 ??? COP> INFINITY ???The op-ed article was written by Steve Windish ..... ask him not me.
Quote from: fuzzytomcat on May 23, 2011, 03:48:38 AM
GOOD .... watch the complete five (5) Hour non stop video recording as posted ....
http://www.livestream.com/opensourceresearchanddevelopment/video?clipId=pla_6d255c76-9e9a-42ae-a565-fbc698e0b6df
Rosemary's COP efficiency claims are hers, not mine never were ..... so ask her about the
COP> 17 ???
COP> INFINITY ???
The op-ed article was written by Steve Windish ..... ask him not me.
LOL you're funny glen. i've watched before... when it was first posted, and i am quite aware of what you, aaron, peter, steve, ash, et all were saying back then... something quite different than you are saying now... ::)
more from the "strange case"
QuoteThe gifted and skilled Open Source Researcher, Internet name “Fuzzytomcat†(Glen Lettenmaier), one of the first to Replicate the Ainslie Circuit successfully in 2009, has built several configurations of the special inductors/resistors for test…
(again, emphasis added by me)
QuoteAnd that there are many possibilities for practical uses and parallel applications yet unexamined. “COP†efficiencies greater than “4″ have already been recorded in the recent 2009 replications;
(again, emphasis added by me)
this 2009 "replication" is referring to glen... ::)
funny how you have no problems with steve making cop>1 claims for your
REPLICATION... ::)
Quote from: WilbyInebriated on May 23, 2011, 03:56:00 AM
LOL you're funny glen. i've watched before... when it was first posted, and i am quite aware of what you, aaron, peter, steve, ash, et all were saying back then... something quite different than you are saying now... ::)
more from the "strange case"(again, emphasis added by me)
(again, emphasis added by me)
this 2009 "replication" is referring to glen... ::)
funny how you have no problems with steve making cop>1 claims for your REPLICATION... ::)
Please supply any FORUM posting link or number from ....Aaron
Peter
Steve
Ash
Harvey
Myself
or anyone "World Wide"
..... of a verified replication on the
Rosemary Ainslie finding or claimed efficiency of a COP> 17 device with all experimentation done in any scientific method reproducing the same or exact finding or claimed results by Rosemary that could be reproduced by anyone over and over again.
::)
Quote from: fuzzytomcat on May 23, 2011, 04:11:45 AM
Please supply any FORUM posting link or number from ....
Aaron
Peter
Steve
Ash
Harvey
Myself
or anyone "World Wide"
..... of a verified replication on the Rosemary Ainslie finding or claimed efficiency of a COP> 17 device with all experimentation done in any scientific method reproducing the same or exact finding or claimed results by Rosemary that could be reproduced by anyone over and over again.
::)
denied. logical fallacy: red herring. but i''l be your huckleberry... ;) please post the quote of where i said any of the people you listed claimed efficiency of COP> 17...
don't attempt to misrepresent what i have said glen... ::)
i have posted quotes of where it has been claimed that your 2009
replication of the ainslie circuit is cop>4. i have asked you to reconcile these statements by one of the "Members of the 2009 Open Source Rosemary Ainslie Circuit Project Team" (a team you were part of), namely steve windisch, with your recent statements that there is "no technology" and rosemary has 'nothing'. why do you keep dancing around this simple request with logical fallacies?
edit: more from the "strange case":
QuoteThe Effect, and the Significance
When asked to reflect on this endeavor and experience of replicating and verifying the Rosemary Ainslie Circuit, Open Source Researcher and key project member Glen Lettenmaier, who has worked countless hours over the last several months building, testing, and recording his positive results with the Circuit (often through a barrage of unfounded criticism from the skeptics and naysayers), summed it up this way:
“What brings most to mind on this project are two things, the first being a movie called ‘The Medicine Man’ where an individual’s best efforts were totally lost due to varying circumstances and had to be re-found, and the second was the skepticism and refusal from so many, all seemingly knowledgeable but going by their education and not willing to do any experiments on their own…
(again, emphasis added by myself)
Quote from: WilbyInebriated on May 23, 2011, 04:20:23 AM
denied. logical fallacy: red herring. but i''l be your huckleberry... ;) please post the quote of where i said any of the people you listed claimed efficiency of COP> 17...
don't attempt to misrepresent what i have said glen... ::)
i have posted quotes of where it has been claimed that your 2009 replication of the ainslie circuit is cop>4.
Yes, and I posted this above all your postings on page 91 here in this thread .....
http://www.energeticforum.com/93746-post74.html ( 05-02-2010, 09:23 AM )I said ..... on 05-02-2010 the following ....... read it very closely again .....
Quote -
_________________________________________________________________
Hey Harvey,
I'm sorry it took so long to do a detailed overview of the "LIVE" broadcast I did in the "Open Source Research and Development" channel on the January 9, 2010 5 Hour non stop video recording.
This video as you are aware is one of the best ever recorded representation of the preferred mode of operation but only in a non stop 5 Hour video. I'm sure that many members and guests don't realize the difficulty in capturing this effect for the purpose of recording the data properly and if given the time looking at the recorded video everyone can see the problems that we face in getting accurate data.
The constant 24 volt battery bank voltage fluctuations going up and down the Mosfet "drain" spike oscillating from 500 to 900 volts, battery voltage down the Mosfet spikes, battery voltage up the Mosfet voltage to normal operating range, back and forth over and over.
I have tried to get as close to this mode of operation in Test #13 which was used in the IEEE submittal Open Source Evaluation of Power Transients Generated to Improve Performance Coefficient of Resistive Heating Systems the team including yourself did, and in Test #22 but never being able to record the data scientifically correct because of the circuits complex oscillating waveforms. I don't think everyone, members and guests understands that the Test #13 was done with a Tektronix TDS 3054C which has a maximum resolution of 10K of data spread over a 10 x 10 grid or divisions so each one has 1k of data samples separately for each of the 4 channels. The data collected in Test #22 was with a Tektronix DPO 3054 which has a maximum resolution of 5M of data, but I used the 100K which is spread over the same 10 x 10 grid or divisions so each one has 10k of data samples separately for each of the 4 channels ..... ten ( 10 ) times the data of the TDS 3054C used in Test #13.
The problem being we need to find a method of capturing the data continuously in real time, there's nothing wrong with Tektronix TDS 3054C or the DPO 3054 these are the finest instruments I've ever used and are extremely accurate, but if you push the acquire button at the wrong time you can appear to get conflicting or skewed data, not the case .... were you before the spike, during the spike or after the spike when the data was collected. I had a allotted dedicated set time to record the data, It was the time frame I used with the 6 minutes or as fast as the data could be physically collected with the finest equipment I had at my disposal.
I am in total agreement with you that something "good" is happening in the Mosfet Heating Circuit and can be plainly seen in the recorded videos, we just need to somehow get a streaming real time data recording. Maybe by somehow obtaining a Real-Time Spectrum Analyzers from Tektronix or some other method to verify the data findings as you suggested, the equipment I previously used as good as it is, just isn't enough to totally capture what is occurring during the preferred mode of operation.
Best Regards,
Glen
_________________________________________________________________
After five (5) more months of testing and evaluation including nine (9) more verified documented tests on "MY" experimental device ..... the above is my opinion and there is "NO" efficiency of any COP is mentioned or claimed other than the word
"GOOD".
Full circle again .... there was no
COP> 17 found.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Replication_%28scientific_method%29 (
Replication Scientific Method )
Quote
Reproducibility is one of the main principles of the scientific method, and refers to the ability of a test or experiment to be accurately reproduced, or replicated, by someone else working independently.
The results of an experiment performed by a particular researcher or group of researchers are generally evaluated by other independent researchers who repeat the same experiment themselves, based on the original experimental description (see independent review). Then they see if their experiment gives similar results to those reported by the original group.
::)
full circle again...
QuoteAnd that there are many possibilities for practical uses and parallel applications yet unexamined. “COP†efficiencies greater than “4″ have already been recorded in the recent 2009 replications;
::)
are you saying this 2009
replication was
not you?
Quote from: fuzzytomcat on May 23, 2011, 03:08:03 AM
My testing was on a MODIFIED replication ... http://www.energeticforum.com/84279-post1.html "NOT" the original circuit operating at a higher frequency with a made custom inductor.
Fuzzy
according to glen his was a
MODIFIED replication... and yet he continues to post this wiki quote:
QuoteReproducibility is one of the main principles of the scientific method, and refers to the ability of a test or experiment to be accurately reproduced, or replicated, by someone else working independently.
The results of an experiment performed by a particular researcher or group of researchers are generally evaluated by other independent researchers who repeat the same experiment themselves, based on the original experimental description (see independent review). Then they see if their experiment gives similar results to those reported by the original group.
this 'begs the obvious question'... is his a "replication" or not? it would appear from the definition that glen keeps posting, that his is not a replication. it's all very confusing given his (and others from "the team") conflicting reports, claims and statements.
Quote from: WilbyInebriated on May 23, 2011, 05:14:04 AM
full circle again...
::)
Quote
And that there are many possibilities for practical uses and parallel applications yet unexamined. “COP†efficiencies greater than “4″ have already been recorded in the recent 2009 replications;
are you saying this 2009 replication was not you?
The "MODIFIED" replication was because from all experimentalist working on the project it was found the published electronic circuit in the Quantum 2002 article did not work, and using the new "MODIFIED" circuit in TEST #13 it had the problems months later that was found as quoted in my posting at Energetic Forum .... again
http://www.energeticforum.com/93746-post74.html ( 05-02-2010, 09:23 AM )
Quote
I have tried to get as close to this mode of operation in Test #13 which was used in the IEEE submittal Open Source Evaluation of Power Transients Generated to Improve Performance Coefficient of Resistive Heating Systems the team including yourself did, and in Test #22 but never being able to record the data scientifically correct because of the circuits complex oscillating waveforms. I don't think everyone, members and guests understands that the Test #13 was done with a Tektronix TDS 3054C which has a maximum resolution of 10K of data spread over a 10 x 10 grid or divisions so each one has 1k of data samples separately for each of the 4 channels. The data collected in Test #22 was with a Tektronix DPO 3054 which has a maximum resolution of 5M of data, but I used the 100K which is spread over the same 10 x 10 grid or divisions so each one has 10k of data samples separately for each of the 4 channels ..... ten ( 10 ) times the data of the TDS 3054C used in Test #13.
For the RECORD -
I failed with "NO" scientific method replication of Rosemary Ainslie's COP> 17 device verifying her finding and claim ... I found "NO" COP> 17 in my scientific method of testing and evaluation which if it was found would be quite obvious.So why all the harassment and talking in circles .... never mind I already know why.
::)
full circle again... ::)
why is there a claim of cop>4 from the team you were a part of? a claim that YOUR replication was cop>4...
i am not harassing you. i am trying to get to the bottom of the contradictions posited by yourself and other members of your "team"... ::)
Quote from: WilbyInebriated on May 23, 2011, 06:03:35 AM
full circle again... ::)
why is there a claim of cop>4 from the team you were a part of? a claim that YOUR replication was cop>4...
i am not harassing you. i am trying to get to the bottom of the contradictions posited by yourself and other members of your "team"... ::)
There was oscilloscope measurement errors happening during the circuit waveform spikes any data dump timing used still had skewed results because of the inconsistent oscillations ... a better method of recording the results happening was needed in my opinion to verify any results especially by someone else.
As of today no one has reproduced "MY" actual working results that I know of, unless you or some one else in the Open Source Community is withholding a working Rosemary Ainslie COP> 17 device replication.
I was not the author or involve in the context of the op-ed article other than a short statement and some images of the inductors used, what others say or said ask them not me .... what was .... changed to what is .... in my eight months of recorded results, simple.
Fuzzy
Quote from: fuzzytomcat on May 23, 2011, 06:30:53 AM
There was oscilloscope measurement errors happening during the circuit waveform spikes any data dump timing used still had skewed results because of the inconsistent oscillations ... a better method of recording the results happening was needed in my opinion to verify any results especially by someone else.
As of today no one has reproduced "MY" actual working results that I know of, unless you or some one else in the Open Source Community is withholding a working Rosemary Ainslie COP> 17 device replication.
I was not the author or involve in the context of the op-ed article other than a short statement and some images of the inductors used, what others say or said ask them not me .... what was .... changed to what is .... in my eight months of recorded results, simple.
Fuzzy
ok so let me make sure i understand you correctly glen. the cop>4 claim was due to measurement errors on your part?
it's funny to me that:
you obsess about rosemary claiming a cop>17, but steve's claim of a cop>4
from your replication does not bother you at all... ::)
you obsess about rosemary removing or amending her claims, yet
claims of cop>4 from your replication remain online, not amended, for all to read... ::)
you claim "I am in total agreement with you that something "good" is happening in the Mosfet Heating Circuit and can be plainly seen in the recorded videos." and then when asked to elucidate on your meaning of "good" you say good means good... ::) let me try again counselor, since you want to play word games...
does good mean cop<1? or cop>1?things are becoming clearer.
Quote from: WilbyInebriated on May 23, 2011, 06:46:45 AM
ok so let me make sure i understand you correctly glen. the cop>4 claim was due to measurement errors on your part?
it's funny to me that:
you obsess about rosemary claiming a cop>17, but steve's claim of a cop>4 from your replication does not bother you at all... ::)
you obsess about rosemary removing or amending her claims, yet claims of cop>4 from your replication remain online, not amended, for all to read... ::)
you claim "I am in total agreement with you that something "good" is happening in the Mosfet Heating Circuit and can be plainly seen in the recorded videos." and then when asked to elucidate on your meaning of "good" you say good means good... ::) let me try again counselor, since you want to play word games... does good mean cop<1? or cop>1?
things are becoming clearer.
There was measurement errors because of what the circuit was doing, if you would just take a few minutes and look at the "LIVE" recording on January 9, 2010
http://www.livestream.com/opensourceresearchanddevelopment/video?clipId=pla_6d255c76-9e9a-42ae-a565-fbc698e0b6df
In the first hour you can plainly see what happens it's totally explained in this FORUM link -
http://www.energeticforum.com/93710-post70.htmlAnd if you want to see the last 3 hours and 14 minutes or end of the test ( 15 + start to finish continuous hours ) see -
http://livestre.am/f8xThis is when the circuit waveform basically dies from "LOSS OF VOLTAGE"
And if you really want to get into the nity-gritty in the op-ed article there's also many other issues stated by others that are big problems ... I have no control over any of them that's their problem not mine for fixing any errors.
Good night I'm done it's 4:30 am here ....
Fuzzy
Quote from: fuzzytomcat on May 23, 2011, 07:29:47 AM
There was measurement errors because of what the circuit was doing, if you would just take a few minutes and look at the "LIVE" recording on January 9, 2010
alright then. according to you, there were measurement errors... thus the actual COP could not be attained ( i'm still left wondering how your team came to the cop>4 conclusion then... ::) ) because, according to you, the spikes were 'messing with you' and any data dump timing used still had skewed results because of the inconsistent oscillations. again, i'm left wondering how your team came to the cop>4 conclusion that was posted...
Quote from: fuzzytomcat on May 23, 2011, 04:48:08 AM
After five (5) more months of testing and evaluation including nine (9) more verified documented tests on "MY" experimental device ..... the above is my opinion and there is "NO" efficiency of any COP is mentioned or claimed other than the word "GOOD".
i almost forgot about this one...
five (5) more months of testing and eval including nine (9) more verified documented tests... what instruments were used for measurements with these tests you refer to here? did you use the same instruments (tektronix tds 3054c and tektronix dpo 3054) that you claim any data dump timing used still skewed results because of the inconsistent oscillations? or did you get a hold of a real time spectrum analyzer? did you use one of those "other methods"?
what's the point of referring to those five (5) more months of testing and eval including nine (9) verified, documented tests if you used the same instruments (tektronix tds 3054c and tektronix dpo 3054) that according to you, "just isn't enough to totally capture what is occurring during the preferred mode of operation."?
Guys - I never realised this. I now see it. Thank you Wilby. Glen is actually denying that the results for his paper were correct. Therefore whatever he claimed in that unpublished paper and whatever the results he first allowed - these are all incorrect.
Which only means that he needs to put out a full retraction of any benefits whatsoever in his replication. And this, correctly should be followed by a complete withdrawal of all his publications related to this. Scibd is the one that springs to mind. Not sure what else he's got floating around. Thank God I've not bothered to refer to his tests since then. What a DISGRACE. All this time and he's still letting everyone assume that he's made a replication - a partial replication - or even a discovery. Take your pick. He's certainly not letting on which is right. It was all - in FACT - just a non-event. IF one publishes a paper and then finds that the data is unreliable - then the LEAST one would expect is a full retraction. Not all this quibbling and hinting. All this 'I still think that there's something good'. What a load of nonsense.
I would also caution Glen to stop criticising those instruments that were so liberally allowed for his use. My own understanding - notwithstanding his protests to the contrary - is that they have a bandwidth that is well able to deal with those frequencies. It seems that Harvey is not convinced. And that Glen and Harvey both detected stray inductance through their sophisticated instruments that ENTIRELY denied any benefits. And it seems that they managed to 'run the batteries flat'! And it also seems that all this new information was somehow, retrospectively and URGENTLY required for all that denial. That and the continual warnings that the technology is potentially hazardous. LOL. If I didn't know better I'd almost be persuaded that they wanted this technology off public record and off public focus. I do hope not.
And since poor instrumentation is now being used as the basis of his denial together with reference to tests of which I have absolutely NO knowledge - then I would assume that he will - for the record and good order - post a retraction post haste. LOL. It's something in the region of 14 months too late. But at LEAST we now know the true story. No wonder he was so anxious to get rid of both me and our claims. It shows how badly he failed at that replication - or that 'discovery' that never actually happened. Golly. Now I see it all so much more clearly. And I think Steve Windisch also needs to post a retraction. Also for good order. I'd forgotten about that article. That could be a minefield of misinformation - in the light of this required retraction.
And regarding our own COP>17. Here I'm on firm ground. We now WAY EXCEED that value. There's at least one replications that works. And the best news of all is that we are able to replicate these results using standard simulation software. Right now I know of 4 replicated simulations and CLIMBING. And this time round I'm in the happy position of filming it and showing it and writing about it and doing everything that I omitted doing when I was entirely as green as grass. Now. I'm considerably older - somewhat blistered by all those fires through my threads - and - pray God - also a little bit wiser. I would caution all posters here to think deeply before they engage the good offices of any overly anxious replicator - lest the replicators' own incompetence is then used as a means to deny ALL. No matter the reason. Spite - hatred - conceit - whatever. It's tedious speculating.
Regards,
Rosemary
Added. LOL All this time I though Glen was trying to claim that he had an independent discovery. And what he was actually telling us is that his replication failed. It's cold comfort. But it's still comforting. Golly. One lives and learns.
:o ;D
Regarding wilby's comments regarding me "dropping out" of all Rosemary Ainslie discussion boards, it is indeed a fact. My comments and contributions were and still are delayed in posting to the point of being swallowed up and vanishing anyway. Primarily, I find the whole exercise to be utterly boring at this point, even as a soap opera. Rosemary does not deserve all this attention she incessantly demands and thrives on and her "scientific discoveries", in my humble opinion, have never merited even the slightest effort or attention from anyone serious about energy research.
I am pleased to see that my original suggestion of putting the CSR at the battery (initially vehemently attacked by Rosemary) is now thought of correctly as the only appropriate position. That only took six months and four dozen posts. Maybe one day, my suggestion that measuring the di/dt of the battery wiring and pretending that it's the battery voltage is blatantly wrong also will be acknowledged as truth and wisdom.
If that comes to pass, and a true measure of the power being drained from the battery is ever made, this story will be over. Until then, it's just a huge soap opera and comedy of errors that has become so repetitive and utterly predictable and totally boring that it fails to hold even the slightest interest for me. I'll check back again in six months to see if anything has changed.
Cheeseburger/Humbugger (hold the pickle)
Quote from: Rosemary Ainslie on May 23, 2011, 09:52:34 AM
Guys - I never realised this. I now see it. Thank you Wilby. Glen is actually denying that the results for his paper were correct. Therefore whatever he claimed in that unpublished paper and whatever the results he first allowed - these are all incorrect.
Which only means that he needs to put out a full retraction of any benefits whatsoever in his replication. And this, correctly should be followed by a complete withdrawal of all his publications related to this. Scibd is the one that springs to mind. Not sure what else he's got floating around. Thank God I've not bothered to refer to his tests since then. What a DISGRACE. All this time and he's still letting everyone assume that he's made a replication - a partial replication - or even a discovery. Take your pick. He's certainly not letting on which is right. It was all - in FACT - just a non-event. IF one publishes a paper and then finds that the data is unreliable - then the LEAST one would expect is a full retraction. Not all this quibbling and hinting. All this 'I still think that there's something good'. What a load of nonsense.
I would also caution Glen to stop criticising those instruments that were so liberally allowed for his use. My own understanding - notwithstanding his protests to the contrary - is that they have a bandwidth that is well able to deal with those frequencies. It seems that Harvey is not convinced. And that Glen and Harvey both detected stray inductance through their sophisticated instruments that ENTIRELY denied any benefits. And it seems that they managed to 'run the batteries flat'! And it also seems that all this new information was somehow, retrospectively and URGENTLY required for all that denial. That and the continual warnings that the technology is potentially hazardous. LOL. If I didn't know better I'd almost be persuaded that they wanted this technology off public record and off public focus. I do hope not.
And since poor instrumentation is now being used as the basis of his denial together with reference to tests of which I have absolutely NO knowledge - then I would assume that he will - for the record and good order - post a retraction post haste. LOL. It's something in the region of 14 months too late. But at LEAST we now know the true story. No wonder he was so anxious to get rid of both me and our claims. It shows how badly he failed at that replication - or that 'discovery' that never actually happened. Golly. Now I see it all so much more clearly. And I think Steve Windisch also needs to post a retraction. Also for good order. I'd forgotten about that article. That could be a minefield of misinformation - in the light of this required retraction.
And regarding our own COP>17. Here I'm on firm ground. We now WAY EXCEED that value. There's at least one replications that works. And the best news of all is that we are able to replicate these results using standard simulation software. Right now I know of 4 replicated simulations and CLIMBING. And this time round I'm in the happy position of filming it and showing it and writing about it and doing everything that I omitted doing when I was entirely as green as grass. Now. I'm considerably older - somewhat blistered by all those fires through my threads - and - pray God - also a little bit wiser. I would caution all posters here to think deeply before they engage the good offices of any overly anxious replicator - lest the replicators' own incompetence is then used as a means to deny ALL. No matter the reason. Spite - hatred - conceit - whatever. It's tedious speculating.
Regards,
Rosemary
Added. LOL All this time I though Glen was trying to claim that he had an independent discovery. And what he was actually telling us is that his replication failed. It's cold comfort. But it's still comforting. Golly. One lives and learns.
:o ;D
It's to bad Rosemary you read what you want to believe making thing up as you go and always misinterpreting or misrepresenting the printed facts presented ... not good not good at all. Your loosing your credibility Rosemary day by day by not being honest on your results and skewing all the information to suit your personal needs. The claim of yours not knowing what was going on with any of my testing and evaluation is a flat out lie on information that's posted openly in a forum and including the nasty discussing e-mails from you to Harvey, Ash and Me to prove it ... how convenient of a excuse of yours one of thousands made by you.
You, Rosemary Ainslie has continually misinterpreted all the results of my testing and evaluation on the
modified replication of the Quantum 2002 article as posted now and over a year ago. This was told to you Rosemary time and time again by Harvey and Myself in forum and in e-mails it is your responsibility Rosemary to make the recommended changes as noted not mine. The burden of credible and accurate proof of a finding or a claim is the inventors "YOURS" Rosemary giving enough information for a verifiable replication not the person replicating the device.
You, Rosemary have caused thousand and thousands of dollars of wasted time and money for experimentalist trying your inaccurate
COP> 17 replication.
There should and must be a retraction on the inaccurate Rosemary Ainslie
Quantum 2002 article as all the information is false, incorrect and unverifiable as all results from everyone World Wide proved it, including myself and has been called for by a majority of actual experimentalist for years -
http://www.free-energy.ws/pdf/quantum_october_2002.pdf
The original Rosemary Ainslie blogspot -
http://rosemaryainslie.blogspot.com
This must be corrected and retracted where you Rosemary Ainslie on
September 8, 2008 claim having a Patent when no patent exists.
This is not my dog and pony
"ZIPPNOT" thesis show it's yours Rosemary claiming a
COP> 17 or a
COP> INFINITY .... I am a lone experimentalist trying to get to the truth on a efficiency finding on a experimental device and failed to find it like everyone else.
Fuzzy
P.S.
Your new Blog has some great reading though - http://rosemaryainslie-publicblog.blogspot.com/
hey glen, you neatly avoided my direct questions... imagine that ::) no worries, i'll repeat them until you answer to them.
1: let me try again counselor, since you want to play word games... does good mean cop<1? or cop>1?
2: i'm still left wondering how your team came to the cop>4 conclusion then...
3: what instruments were used for measurements with these tests you refer to here? did you use the same instruments?
4: did you get a hold of a real time spectrum analyzer? did you use one of those "other methods"?
5: what's the point of referring to those five (5) more months of testing and eval including nine (9) verified, documented tests if you used the same instruments (tektronix tds 3054c and tektronix dpo 3054) that according to you, "just isn't enough to totally capture what is occurring during the preferred mode of operation."?
Is this forward-looking technical thread going to remain on-track, or continue to degenerate into a grandstanding theater for presenting he-said, she-said statements from the past?
.99
Hi all,
it seems that my pc has been hacked - again. Still this one now works. There was a struggle there for a bit. lol
Poynty - regarding your question - I'm sure that the answer is obvious. I think that while Glen is entitled to post then we're going to continue having problems. But I tend to agree. It's never going to advance anything at all.
So how about it? Your forum? Or should we just discuss this through my blog? I'm game - either way. Unless there's some kind of written undertaking that Glen will stay out of the debate.
Kindest regards,
Rosie
Quote from: poynt99 on May 23, 2011, 08:27:42 PM
Is this forward-looking technical thread going to remain on-track, or continue to degenerate into a grandstanding theater for presenting he-said, she-said statements from the past?
.99
do you have a problem with the questions posed to glen in my previous posts? and if so why?
Quote from: WilbyInebriated on May 24, 2011, 12:56:47 AM
do you have a problem with the questions posed to glen in my previous posts? and if so why?
Wilby - whether or not Poynty has a problem with these or any other questions is no longer the issue. The fact is that Glen has now publicly exposed the fact that he denies the results of his earlier 'replication' as it was referred to in both submitted papers. That's is all that matters or counts - or is relevant. So. Let's take it that the paper was a joke. That the replication never happened. And that there can be NO discovery as he 'infers' or as is suggested - PRECISELY because he has now PUBLICLY declared his doubts on those measurements. Which means that he must now WITHDRAW that publication and make a public retraction. That, at least, would be principled. Anything else is unacceptable. Else he's also disgracing the high reach of Open Sourcing anything at all by allowing it to degenerate into yet another unsubstantiated claim that tarnishes our best efforts.
I don't have to reach that far back in his posts to find the appropriate post. Here it is.
Quote from: fuzzytomcat on May 23, 2011, 04:48:08 AM
After five (5) more months of testing and evaluation including nine (9) more verified documented tests on "MY" experimental device ..... the above is my opinion and there is "NO" efficiency of any COP is mentioned or claimed other than the word "GOOD".
Good defined as
Quote from: fuzzytomcat on May 23, 2011, 04:48:08 AMFull circle again .... there was no COP> 17 found.
Which presumably inter alia - includes his COP>4 as he DOUBTS the measurements.
Quote from: fuzzytomcat on May 23, 2011, 05:51:51 AM
The "MODIFIED" replication was because from all experimentalist working on the project it was found the published electronic circuit in the Quantum 2002 article did not work, and using the new "MODIFIED" circuit in TEST #13 it had the problems months later that was found as quoted in my posting at Energetic Forum I failed with "NO" scientific method replication of Rosemary Ainslie's COP> 17 device verifying her finding and claim ... I found "NO" COP> 17 in my scientific method of testing and evaluation which if it was found would be quite obvious.
And added to which he also did NOT manage to replicate that earlier COP>4 claim which is actually ALL that's relevant. What is as clear as daylight is that what Glen actually meant to do was throw doubt on his earlier COP>4 claim. Tests
from 13 through to 22 - were all done after his Scribd publication. For some reason he has not yet realised that these doubts are now embedded. He needs must WITHDRAW his association with that paper if he is to behave in as principled a manner as required. Which is important. Because then his comments or claims against our own work is then of no force and effect. He's not qualified to comment except to say that in his own opinion and in the light of his own best efforts he could NOT SUBSTANTIATE ANY OVER UNITY RESULT. That would be the level of clarity required. And what he thinks of me - although of great interest to himself - is of no relevance to the issue.
However, the actual dilemma - as we all know - is that he wants to 'infer' COP>4 is possible but that COP>17 is not. Which is a joke. Because if you can manage COP greater as little as 1 - then one is entertaining the real potential of COP infinity. It's the same thing. All of which speaks to 'agenda'. And I'm sick of agendas. What we're meant to be doing is debating science. Nothing else. So. In the interests of getting back on topic can I assume that Glen will stay out of the debate? If not - then Poynty Point - I'm very anxious to 'move on'. How about using your forum or my blogspot. I'm happy with either.
Kindest regards,
Rosemary
Added some emphasis. lol ;D
Quote from: Rosemary Ainslie on May 24, 2011, 07:56:34 PM
So. In the interests of getting back on topic can I assume that Glen will stay out of the debate? If not - then Poynty Point - I'm very anxious to 'move on'. How about using your forum or my blogspot. I'm happy with either.
Although my preference has always been to continue here with what I wish to present, it is a shame recent posts have indicated that this may not be possible. I do not wish to carry on this discussion at OUR.
.99
Quote from: poynt99 on May 24, 2011, 08:32:32 PM
Although my preference has always been to continue here with what I wish to present, it is a shame recent posts have indicated that this may not be possible. I do not wish to carry on this discussion at OUR.
.99
Well Poynty? That leaves my blog? I'll post your emails across. Are you game?
Rosie
Rose,
As carrying this discussion on in your blog and/or via emails is not only cumbersome, but not widely read, I am exploring another possibility that will allow us to continue on here at OU.
.99
Quote from: poynt99 on May 24, 2011, 09:06:15 PM
Rose,
As carrying this discussion on in your blog and/or via emails is not only cumbersome, but not widely read, I am exploring another possibility that will allow us to continue on here at OU.
.99
Poynty? My blog is most certainly widely read. I have an average of over 100 reads per post and when the topics are hot it spikes up to 400 plus. Surely that's enough? If it's public attention that you're looking for.
Rosie
http://www.overunity.com/index.php?topic=10407.msg288062#msg288062
A question for you Rose on the battery wiring:
The 3.3uH value you provided for each side of the battery, does that include the inductance of the 4 or 5 wire jumpers (depending on a 5 or 6 battery setup) between the batteries, or is that the value only for the long wire (x2) leading from the battery terminal to the perf board?
.99
Quote from: poynt99 on May 24, 2011, 11:07:11 PM
A question for you Rose on the battery wiring:
The 3.3uH value you provided for each side of the battery, does that include the inductance of the 4 or 5 wire jumpers (depending on a 5 or 6 battery setup) between the batteries, or is that the value only for the long wire (x2) leading from the battery terminal to the perf board?
.99
The last option. Only for the long wire (x2) leading from the battery to the perf board.
I need to remind you Poynt.99 that this test of ours is replicated on the following variation. I battery - used - same supply used to generate the charge for the switch - THEREFORE no functions generator - NO long wires on that test - NO grounding issues - same evident zero voltage discharge - and temperature over the iron resistor at 240 degrees which was hot enough to vaporise solder.
It is a benefit that is not CONFINED to our circuit but - self evidently - to any application required to generate heat. ALSO. There is no apparent RF interference despite the oscillating frequency. And please tell Pickle that I always read his posts. I don't bother to refer to them as a rule because his assumption of my idiocy is marginally more extreme than your own. If that's possible. And his comments are invariably entirely irrelevant. What I do NOT understand is why you need to post a reference to this when and IF your intentions here are to stick to the point. It seems that you do NOT tire of gratuitous exposure of your cronies' opinion of me. If you EVER require a public debate then I think that NOW I will require a public retraction of those appalling comments that you've applied to my character and my abilities and my name. SO. I guess this debate is hardly likely to happen.
I am DISGUSTED that you saw fit - yet again - to repost one of his highly personalised unscientific comments - which also constitutes a flagrant endorsement of it. Do you REALLY THINK that I'm about to continue a discussion with you under those circumstances?
Rosemary
Good Lord. If the circuit works, then start heating/boiling water and let it run for six months to remove all doubt. 94 pages of utter bull.
Quote from: happyfunball on May 25, 2011, 04:37:00 AM
Good Lord. If the circuit works, then start heating/boiling water and let it run for six months to remove all doubt. 94 pages of utter bull.
I agree with everything you say, unfortunately Rosie seemed to think saying the same thing over and over again and having arguments is what the world needs.
http://www.youtube.com/results?search_type=videos&search_query=Rosemary+Ainslie+circuit&search_sort=video_date_uploaded&suggested_categories=28&uni=3
Guys, I've now had receipt of three more sims - the one without a math result - but otherwise all consistent with Poynty's findings. I'm in the process of alerting all the academies that I can reach - in England and will then do the same to those in America.
The principle seems to make sense to our academics. There is a wide acknowledgement amongst engineers that if these advantages show up on our simulations then they are most certainly also verifiable experimentally. The interesting thing is this. That software is clearly NOT designed to apply Kirchhoff's Laws. The assumption has been - quite rightly - that IF Kirchhoff's Laws are a natural consequence that also somehow constrain the transfer of energy to the amount of energy first delivered from the supply, then it would be impossible to find more energy dissipated on a circuit than delivered by that supply.
So. Let's look at what's happening here. In essence the circuit is designed to generate counter electromotive force. But unlike usual applications the actual design is such that it does nothing to stop the flow of current resulting from all that negatively induced voltage. Possibly for the first time - we've actively enabled all that counter clockwise flow of current and, by doing this, we're able to see its full force and effect. The assumption has always been that this energy must equal the energy from the supply. It does. More or less. In fact, depending on the inductive material in that circuit - rather MORE than less. But then there should - theoretically - be NO spare energy to heat anything at all. But it does. Rather energetically. In the region of hundreds of watts. While that same software then ALSO computes the cost of energy from the battery. And there it concludes that the supply source has lost absolutely NO charge at all. It effectively cost the battery nothing. Which makes it INFINITE COP. Golly.
I may have reason to quarrel with Poynty. But I will never tire of saying this. It was thanks to his impeccable skills on PSpice that this was ever disclosed. And where our own demonstration elicited no interest whatsoever - he has, through these skills - 'lit a fire', to paraphrase Sir Walter Raleigh - that is very unlikely to ever go out. Not that the questions will simply now be resolved. But because MANY experimentalists and MANY engineers and MANY academics - can now explore the applications and variations and the 'truths' or otherwise - of all this evidence - FOR THEMSELVES. This is the goal of publication and this is the requirement of all new and emerging technologies. It has taken away any further need for a 'faithful' or precise replication - to transfer it to an easy powerful tool to explore these and other configurations. And thereby it allows the actual significance of the technology to be thoroughly and widely explored.
And - in fairness - it is a remarkable tribute to his own intellectual honesty that he's owned to this result. So. Poynty. I have good reason to quarrel with you. But for this I think the whole world will end up thanking you. And I'd like to be the first.
Kindest regards,
Rosie
And may I add. The question now is this. Either there's a 'hidden' supply of energy that has not previously been factored into our energy potentials or there's an error. And that can only be resolved experimentally. With a wide ranging interest in this easily tested condition - then that is where this will inevitably move.
In order to begin a detailed analysis of the circuit we're discussing, I created a slightly more detailed version of the schematic diagram, as attached in the pdf file.
I increased the battery wire inductance to 3.3uH as requested, and I've separated the lumped wire inductance and resistance out to 3 segments as shown. Electrically, this is equivalent, but allows for flexibility in the measurements and analysis.
The same was done for the batteries and wire jumpers, as shown. I approximated each wire jumper to be about 20 inches in length, each with an inherent inductance of 20nH per inch, hence the 400nH per jumper.
Remember that the resistors and inductors shown representing the RED and BLACK battery wires are not physical discrete components; they are used to represent hidden but inherent values as a consequence of finite wire resistance and parasitic inductance.
Hopefully the labeling is clear and it can be agreed upon that this represents a good starting point for the detailed analysis to follow.
The first entry here is of the schematic ONLY. Scope shots etc. to follow if this diagram is acceptable.
.99
Hi Guys,
By Monday I should have sent out the mail shot to most of the English Universities to look at the sims for themselves.
I'll let you know what the response is as they come in. I shall be doing the same the American universities soon thereafter.
I'll also be submitting our paper to the IEEE within the near future. I'll keep you all posted.
Kind regards,
Rosemary
The first scope shots establish a baseline measurement of results similar to previous posts.
With the added inductances, the measurements are slightly different, but still show the apparent negative power to the battery. The net average power for the baseline measurement (scope probes in the positions noted) is about -106W.
The relevant nodes in the circuit have been numbered 1 through 7. A notation of V3-2 (VCSR) means the voltage across nodes 3 and 2 with the polarity + and - respectively. V7-4 (VBAT) is the baseline battery voltage measurement.
.99
Here are the PSpice 10.5 files for the above detailed analysis simulation of the circuit.
.99
Quote from: poynt99 on May 27, 2011, 02:54:58 PM
Here are the PSpice 10.5 files for the above detailed analysis simulation of the circuit.
.99
I just wanted to take this opportunity to say that I think that Darren (Poynt) has gone out of his way with these PSpice simulations, something he did not have to do. I, for one, appreciate his efforts as I know they take time, a lot of time. Thank you Darren for dedicating your time to do this.
Bill
Thanks Bill.
It's much appreciated.
.99
Quote from: Pirate88179 on May 27, 2011, 03:19:41 PM
I just wanted to take this opportunity to say that I think that Darren (Poynt) has gone out of his way with these PSpice simulations, something he did not have to do. I, for one, appreciate his efforts as I know they take time, a lot of time. Thank you Darren for dedicating your time to do this.
Bill
Indeed. Above and beyond - and considering Poynt's refutation notwithstanding the evidence - then that is a remarkable tribute to his intellectual honesty. I am reasonably certain that there is no part of this 'unfolding' that sits comfortably with the members here - but it is a fact that this evidence is easily proved on simulation software. And that is a far easier route to evaluate this 'effect' than evaluation of the experimental apparatus. There is only one way to measure the energy that is delivered by a supply source. And that is precisely as is shown in Poynt's schematics. If that protocol is correct then it points to the fact that there is an alternate energy supply source in standard electric circuitry that has not been fully exploited before now. And the really extraordinary fact is that this also seems to be sufficiently abundant to generate Infinite COP.
So Poynty. Whatever our own contributions - YOURS is considerably more effective, efficient and useable. I'm also reasonably certain that you wont enjoy my gratitude - but it is, nonetheless, heartfelt and has earned my enduring respect. If there are hidden errors then I am reasonably certain that this will be exposed through the wide dissemination of your schematics.
I would also like to pay tribute to Stefan. He has clearly not moved in support of this evidence yet nor has he disallowed these posts of mine. It speaks to a remarkable tolerance and fair mindedness which it would be as well for other forum owners to emulate. Because, in essence - it's allowed this knowledge to remain Open Source - and that is where it needs to stay - regardless of it's popularity or otherwise.
I am almost inclined to apologise for the prosaic nature of this new energy - as this run counter to the requirements of both mainstream physics and the more popular concepts of energy that are widely endorsed on these 'free energy' forums. But there are two points here that need to be understood. The first is that it is NOT my work - but the work of many, many people associated with both the thinking and the experiment. I am not about to apologise for their amazing contributions. And secondly is the fact that it does not CONFLICT with known physical paradigms. Which is an eloquent endorsement of the amazing insights and achievements of our GREATS. Never a bad thing.
The thesis depends on Einstein's mass/energy equivalence - and on the possibility that inductive/conductive material is able to generate an electromagnetic energy potential as a result of Faraday's inductive laws. The results point to the fact that this may, indeed, be correct. What may now be considered is that the electromagnetic force is a secondary phenomenon and that the magnetic field may, indeed, be a primary force. If this is correct then it also points to the possibility that the magnetic field itself may comprise magnetic dipolar tachyons that have - thus far - been largely overlooked. If so - and if the thesis is correct - then it also means that there is a vast abundance of this energy pervading and, indeed, structuring all of space. I do hope it's correct - because then there is a wealth of potential that is not confined to the electromagnetic force.
And again Poynty Point. Thank you very much. But I KNOW that there will be many, many others who will be paying tribute to this excellent work of yours - and I would also put on record - that there may yet be an alternate explanation.
Kindest regards,
Rosemary
The schematics and scope shots in this post illustrate the dynamic involved by moving the battery voltage probe from the original nodes V7-4, closer to the battery terminals. In the two additional schematics, the GREEN battery voltage probes are moved progressively to the left along the RED and BLACK "wire components".
This is the only change for each simulation run. What can be observed is the decreasing peak-to-peak swing in "VBAT" voltage, and the resulting decrease in computed negative average wattage in the battery array.
Summary of results thus far:
Original full wire length: -106W
2/3 battery wire length: -77W
1/3 battery wire length: -48.5W
More to come...
.99
Continuing with the battery voltage probe placement closer and closer to the battery array, the results continue to show a declining negative average power in the battery array.
The first test run in this installment is with the voltage probes placed across the battery array and CSR (V1-3), completely eliminating the long battery wire leads. The power computation comes to -20W.
The second test run is with the battery voltage probes across nodes (V1-2), which eliminates the voltage across the CSR, and is therefore directly across the battery array and the associated battery jumper wires. This power computation comes to -17.5W.
More to follow.
.99
Quote from: poynt99 on May 29, 2011, 04:23:55 PM
Continuing with the battery voltage probe placement closer and closer to the battery array, the results continue to show a declining negative average power in the battery array.
The first test run in this installment is with the voltage probes placed across the battery array and CSR (V1-3), completely eliminating the long battery wire leads. The power computation comes to -20W.
The second test run is with the battery voltage probes across nodes (V1-2), which eliminates the voltage across the CSR, and is therefore directly across the battery array and the associated battery jumper wires. This power computation comes to -17.5W.
More to follow.
.99
lol How does one get a wattage value without the computation of current?
Quote from: Rosemary Ainslie on May 29, 2011, 06:24:07 PM
lol How does one get a wattage value without the computation of current?
The value of the CSR is assumed to be approximately 1 Ohm for all current calculations. It will soon be shown what the correct value is however.
Regardless of the value of the CSR (anywhere from 0.25 Ohms to 2 Ohms for eg.), the trend being shown will be the same, i.e. the net average power declining in negative amplitude, and heading towards a positive value.
.99
Quote from: poynt99 on May 29, 2011, 04:23:55 PM
Continuing with the battery voltage probe placement closer and closer to the battery array, the results continue to show a declining negative average power in the battery array.
The first test run in this installment is with the voltage probes placed across the battery array and CSR (V1-3), completely eliminating the long battery wire leads. The power computation comes to -20W.
The second test run is with the battery voltage probes across nodes (V1-2), which eliminates the voltage across the CSR, and is therefore directly across the battery array and the associated battery jumper wires. This power computation comes to -17.5W.
More to follow.
.99
Still with this question here. How does one determine the current flow through the battery without computing the value of current? Please note. You have stated that you managed this without the use of the CSR. What did you use to determine current flow? If you want us to assume that this is a serious exercise then you need to explain how you managed this calculation. And correctly you need to show us precise points on a schematic and show that schematic here
together with the waveforms and the math traces - as you did the others.
And you've now obviated ALL reference to instantaneous vi dt which is the second point of the report. We do NOT need a negative voltage across the shunt to prove a negative wattage as indicated in the negative math trace referenced repeatedly. I think you need to LOSE that AVERAGING that you are now relying on.
Regards
Rosemary
Added.
And more added. This is what I'm referring to. Your quote 'which eliminates the voltage across the CSR, and is therefore directly across the battery array and the associated battery jumper wires.'
Quote from: Rosemary Ainslie on May 29, 2011, 07:12:50 PM
How does one determine the current flow through the battery without computing the value of current?
The instantaneous current i(t) through the battery is determined by the instantaneous voltage v(t) across the CSR (denoted by "VCSR" in all the scope shots), divided by the CSR resistance.
If we use 1 Ohm for the CSR resistance, the instantaneous current i(t) is equal to the instantaneous voltage v(t) across the CSR. For the sake of illustration, I have used (and noted) 1 Ohm for the CSR value for most of my computations.
Therefore, the instantaneous and average power results are based on the instantaneous voltage across the CSR (which represents battery current directly), times the instantaneous voltage across the battery array (at various points as noted on the schematics and text throughout).
.99
Hello Poynty
You seem to be implying that the voltage values vary depending on where you position the probes - as stated hereunder.
Quote from: poynt99 on May 29, 2011, 04:23:55 PM
Continuing with the battery voltage probe placement closer and closer to the battery array, the results continue to show a declining negative average power in the battery array.
This would be expected. What you are NOT doing is showing us precisely what changes you have made to your probe positions. We need a schematic showing this. We also need to see the same graphic waveforms and math trace values. Please provide this. Else there is no knowing what you are doing.
Then you state that you completely eliminate any copper between the CSR and the battery - hereunder. Not sure how we can manage this without interconnecting leads - nor even why we should bother if this is giving us a benefit. In any event ...
Quote from: poynt99 on May 29, 2011, 04:23:55 PMThe first test run in this installment is with the voltage probes placed across the battery array and CSR (V1-3), completely eliminating the long battery wire leads. The power computation comes to -20W.
Now you get to a computation of -20 Watts - which, incidentally, is still in excess of our own results. We're looking for a value closer to -7 watts when we have a zero discharge from the battery. This is in line with Test 1 of our report.
Then you go on to say the following - which makes no sense at all.
Quote from: poynt99 on May 29, 2011, 04:23:55 PMThe second test run is with the battery voltage probes across nodes (V1-2), which eliminates the voltage across the CSR, and is therefore directly across the battery array and the associated battery jumper wires. This power computation comes to -17.5W.
The puzzle here is that there is absolutely NO WAY you can evaluate any power delivered by or returned to the battery if you are NOT basing this on a wattage computation. And for this particular computation you actually REQUIRE the evaluation of current. And for this, AGAIN, you
NEED the CSR factored into that product or you are not applying vi dt. Nor are you showing us the variation to the oscillations and the math trace that we have rather grown to rely on, for this computation. Did you make a mistake? Or did you somehow run the PSpice program without reference to current? Or did you simply ASSUME a 1 Ohm value to the shunt resistor and factor this into your analysis? You see Poynty? We are now dealing with allegations of yours and - dare I say it -
implications. This is hardly scientific. It certainly is NOT good reporting. And what you are implying - or in fact stating - is that the there is a steadily reduced amount of energy being returned to the battery as one eliminates the inductance on the circuit. Frankly - that's hardly surprising. It's certainly consistent with our own findings. BUT. We have NO idea if you are even getting that oscillation on these new results. Nor do we know it's amplitude nor its frequency. All this was presented before - in clear schematics and downloads that were also VERY READABLE. For some reason you are now
hiding this information. And, consequently we now know nothing except what you are trying very hard to IMPLY.
Then you tell us - rather enticingly - 'more to follow'. But what we actually got is only this.
Quote from: poynt99 on May 30, 2011, 12:13:38 AM
The instantaneous current i(t) through the battery is determined by the instantaneous voltage v(t) across the CSR (denoted by "VCSR" in all the scope shots), divided by the CSR resistance.
I trust that you're not presuming to educate the most our readers here because I'm reasonably satisfied that we all know a little about elementary power analysis. But what is confusing is that you now state that you have IN FACT factored in the current flow based on the CSR's resistance. So. How then do you justify your previous denial of this? Here is that statement again.
'The second test run is with the battery voltage probes across nodes (V1-2), which eliminates the voltage across the CSR, and is therefore directly across the battery array and the associated battery jumper wires.'Was this an error? Did you not in fact mean this? Which leaves the most of us wondering WHAT you IN FACT meant. Please advise.
Anyway. Moving on. You then write ....
Quote from: poynt99 on May 30, 2011, 12:13:38 AMIf we use 1 Ohm for the CSR resistance, the instantaneous current i(t) is equal to the instantaneous voltage v(t) across the CSR. For the sake of illustration, I have used (and noted) 1 Ohm for the CSR value for most of my computations.
Does this mean that you have ASSUMED a value for CSR? And since it's compatible with your previous computation - then can we ASSUME that you are factoring in the required impedance because that oscillation is still there? You see Poynty Point? We no longer know what you're referring to because you are NOT showing us the values directly off your simulation program. And - in any event - you have either computed current correctly or you've computed the current incorrectly - and we will NEVER KNOW. Again. This speaks to a certain want in accurate reporting - with respect. It would give you the license to say what you liked and claim what you like. We have supported our own evidence with copious screen downloads. May we impose on you to do the same? That way we can compare applies with apples. And it would then lend a certain credibility to your reports of a 'diminishing' benefit - which is otherwise lacking.
And as for this following statement ...
Quote from: poynt99 on May 30, 2011, 12:13:38 AMTherefore, the instantaneous and average power results are based on the instantaneous voltage across the CSR (which represents battery current directly), times the instantaneous voltage across the battery array (at various points as noted on the schematics and text throughout).
Very confusing. :o
The instantaneous power would be based on vi dt. Average voltage across the shunt and the battery has NOTHING WHATSOEVER to do with vi dt. I seem to recall that you averaged the power but NOT the actual voltage values. Please advise. Because if you HAVE averaged the voltages across the battery and the load then you have factored OUT the benefit of the 180 degree anti phase relationship of both battery and shunt voltages that ADDS to the general benefit.
However, the good news is that you're now getting towards the values that we ourselves compute during the oscillation phase of each duty cycle. Still WAY too much measured benefit on your side. But hopefully you'll get this to more realistic levels in due course. Meanwhile - may we all impose on you to show us those waveforms. I would have thought that screen downloads would be relatively easily enabled with PSpice. I am not sure why you need to hide this evidence. I know that even I can manage those downloads and I'm USELESS on this internet thing. I'm sure your own skills are more than equal to it. And, as it's quick and easy - I wonder if we can impose on you to do the same? That way we can ourselves verify your claims and implications here.
Kind regards,
Rosemary
Rose,
Before I attempt to answer any of your questions, I must ask you this:
Have you been downloading, opening, and viewing the pdf document files I've attached to my posts?
In case you have not, these pdf files (which should be readable on MACs) contain all the schematics and scope shots I have referred to.
.99
Quote from: poynt99 on May 30, 2011, 03:29:18 AM
Rose,
Before I attempt to answer any of your questions, I must ask you this:
Have you been downloading, opening, and viewing the pdf document files I've attached to my posts?
In case you have not, these pdf files (which should be readable on MACs) contain all the schematics and scope shots I have referred to.
.99
Ok. If this is the problem - then the answer is NO. I am entirely unable to open those files. I get a short list of what looks like computer code. But it's barely 8 lines. But this is important Poynty. Just keep the records easily accessible to ALL readers - please.
And thanks for undertaking to answer those questions. If they're answered in clear downloads - then all's well. Just give us those downloads.
Ta muchly,
Rosie
Added
BTW - please see to it that the sizing is compatible with this thread page - else we'll get that fiasco that Glen managed that rendered EVERYTHING unreadable.
Rose,
You can download and install a pdf reader for your MAC from here:
http://www.adobe.com/support/downloads/detail.jsp?ftpID=3987
You should have a pdf reader anyway Rose, otherwise how can you read the many documents posted on the forums and all over the internet?
In order for the schematic to be clear and readable (it is too long for me to screen capture) , I must be place it in the pdf file. This also keeps all the scope shots and schematics in one convenient place.
.99
Quote from: poynt99 on May 30, 2011, 03:52:03 AM
Rose,
You can download and install a pdf reader for your MAC from here:
http://www.adobe.com/support/downloads/detail.jsp?ftpID=3987
You should have a pdf reader anyway Rose, otherwise how can you read the many documents posted on the forums and all over the internet?
In order for the schematic to be clear and readable (it is too long for me to screen capture) , I must be place it in the pdf file. This also keeps all the scope shots and schematics in one convenient place.
.99
How about a compromise? A schematic showing the variations - and a single shot of the waveforms and a single shot of the power analysis. I CANNOT open those files. I can indeed open most others. And three downloads does NOT take that much time. Surely? That way you keep your own files pristine - but those of us who are following your argument can, at least, reference the salient proofs. You will notice how seldom your files are downloaded. Surely you see the problem here?
Thanks
Rosie
Please refer to the previous posts for explanations of the schematics and scope shots.
.99
And the other 3 sets, which brings this up to date with the "detailed_analysis04.pdf" document.
.99
8)
:'(
Quote from: TinselKoala on May 30, 2011, 04:12:29 PM
8)
Quote from: TinselKoala on May 30, 2011, 04:51:55 PM
:'(
lol Nice to see you following the JouleSeeker's good example by keeping things terse and technical.
Poynty - I have included your schematics and results in my report. Thanks for your permission. I'll comment on your work when you've finally managed that zero benefit which I rather suspect is where you're trending. You've got a couple of serious contradictions that need addressing. But in the meantime I take it that your reference to not computing any voltage across the CSR was stated in error.
Manwhile guys - I'm busy for the next few days circulating the circular. That's assuming that both this computer and I survive any more interventions. We're both suffering a surfeit of those 'delusions' that Cat refers to.
Kind regards,
Rosie
:o ::)
;D
BTW - Here's the content of that circular - still subject to minor editing requirements.http://newlightondarkenergy.blogspot.com/2011/05/123-cover-letter-to-be-circulated-with.html
Quote from: Rosemary Ainslie on May 31, 2011, 01:51:11 AM
You've got a couple of serious contradictions that need addressing.
There are a couple of things that will become clearer with the next installment, but not sure I would call them contradictions.
Quote
But in the meantime I take it that your reference to not computing any voltage across the CSR was stated in error.
I have not stated nor implied that, but apparently you've interpreted things that way somehow.
The voltage across the CSR is measured and shown. The current is computed using a CSR value of "1", therefore no computation is required; it is a direct measurement of current. The actual magnitude of the current and power is important, but not so critical in this exercise. We know the CSR value is somewhere between 0.25 Ohms and perhaps 2 Ohms. The value of the resistive part of the CSR is simply a multiplying factor and is not involved in the polarity of the power in question.
.99
Sorry it's been a bit longer for this next post, but I just returned from vacation on Tuesday afternoon, and I've needed a bit of recovery time. Back at work Wednesday too. ::)
For the next installment of simulation test runs, it's necessary to establish some simple background theory:
If each of the 6 twelve-volt batteries in the battery array have approximately the same state of charge, terminal voltage, and internal resistance, it is reasonable to asssume that each of the 6 batteries will receive or supply the same amount of power in the circuit. As such, it is valid to measure and analyse the power in any one of the 6 batteries and apply a factor of 6x to obtain the total power in the circuit.
In this first test, the battery voltage probes are placed across the last jumper wire and last 12V battery. So we are measuring the voltage across a single 12V battery in series with 400nH of wire inductance in a single jumper. The power computes to -3.8W.
Next, when the battery voltage probes are placed directly across the single 12V battery and no jumper, the power changes polarity and computes to roughly +1.4W.
When the wattage probe available in PSpice is used to directly measure the instantaneous power of the single 12V battery, it computes to a net average of approximately -5.45W. If you recall the exercise on the polarity of power sources vs. power dissipators a little while back, you will know that the proper polarity for a source that is sourcing power, is negative. The reason the last computation of +1.4W turned out positive, is because the voltage probes across the CSR are reversed (as a matter of establishing common ground for both the CSR and battery probes). This has been the case throughout this exercise. It adds a bit of confusion, but that is the direction the "powers" normally go and it's important to keep this straight in one's mind.
Now back to the issue of the correct value for the CSR. As we now know the true power in any one of the six 12V batteries is about -5.45W, and that the previous measurement using a single 12V battery times the CSR voltage (battery current) came to approximately +1.4W (assuming a 1 Ohm value for the CSR), it may become obvious that assuming the CSR value to be anything other than 0.25 Ohms is incorrect. If we take the +1.4W measurement and multiply it by 4x (1/0.25), we obtain a power of about +5.6W. I have been approximating the values read off the scope, so in reality the previous measurement would actually be closer to +1.37W. It should be clear from this that the correct value for the CSR when looking at DC INPUT power, is the actual resistive value of the CSR, in this case 0.25 Ohms (regardless if the current is pulsed at a high frequency or not).
Computing the total power (using the Wattage probe) from all 6 batteries in the array we have:
-5.45W x 6 = -32.7W
This is the actual correct value and polarity for the total INPUT power of the battery array in this particular simulation.
Now, if we take the previous +1.37W measurement (which used the VCSR(t) x VBAT(t)) using just a single battery and no jumper wire, and multiply it by 4 (because of the 0.25 Ohm CSR), then by 6 (for 6 batteries in the array), we obtain a power of about +32.88W.
Other than the polarity difference (because the CSR probes are reversed), the two powers are almost identical in magnitude, and it is safe to say that now with the inductance eliminated in the battery voltage measurement, the VCSR(t) x VBAT(t) computation by the scope is very accurate.
More to follow.
.99
For those that would also like to have all the schematics and scope shots posted thus far in order and in one convenient place, here is the updated pdf file.
.99
Thanks Poynt. Is that it? Or is there more to come? I don't really want to interrupt all this.
Regards,
Rosie
There is one or two more yet to come, per my "more to follow". ;)
.99
Poynt - here's the problem. In order to disclaim benefit you first need to prove that there's no oscillation through the battery. The thing you've got to do is show that no current flows through the battery during the negative cycle. Because - here's the thing. IF the oscillation is evident across the battery then - no matter the positive or negative voltage across the shunt resistor - instantaneous wattage analysis remains as a negative wattage. This is the result of the advantage in the anti phase relationship between the shunt and battery voltage. You just don't seem to get it. Read the point of our 2nd test.
And I haven't even dealt with your contradictions yet. Your first set of examples did not factor in ANY inductance between the batteries. Yet the value was equal to your 'expanded version' where you did factor this in. And we know it wasn't factored in as we did that simulation. Yet now you DO factor it in and then you reduce that inductance to show a corresponding decrease in the wattage. My question is this. How come it now shows a loss where it wasn't shown earlier? It makes me nervous that there are hidden factors here Poynty. We really need to know ALL your applied measurement parameters.
And finally. It is absolutely an incontestable fact that we REQUIRE inductance in order to generate that second cycle of current. The difference is this. You claim that if you remove it you thereby remove some of the benefit in that gain. We agree entirely. We need that material in order to KEEP THE VALUE of the current equal to or greater than the current that was first applied from the supply source. That was the ENTIRE POINT of this and ALL similar circuits that we've built. Here it is again. The thesis requires that the circuit material itself is the source of the extra energy that is evident in the negative flow of current through the supply. The difference is only in this. Before we showed that benefit as a 'spike'. Now we show it as it really is which is an self-sustaining oscillation.
Regards,
Rosemary
I think I need to comment on this post before it's lost in the thread.
Quote from: poynt99 on June 02, 2011, 09:17:37 PM
For the next installment of simulation test runs, it's necessary to establish some simple background theory:
If each of the 6 twelve-volt batteries in the battery array have approximately the same state of charge, terminal voltage, and internal resistance, it is reasonable to assume that each of the 6 batteries will receive or supply the same amount of power in the circuit. As such, it is valid to measure and analyse the power in any one of the 6 batteries and apply a factor of 6x to obtain the total power in the circuit.
You need to specify whether you mean total power delivered or total power dissipated. Self-evidently it is NOT the total power in the circuit as the resistor element is also dissipating heat - is the first point.
Quote from: poynt99 on June 02, 2011, 09:17:37 PMIn this first test, the battery voltage probes are placed across the last jumper wire and last 12V battery. So we are measuring the voltage across a single 12V battery in series with 400nH of wire inductance in a single jumper. The power computes to -3.8W.
And here we have another contradiction. May I remind you that your earlier results showed the following
Original full wire length: -106W
2/3 battery wire length: -77W
1/3 battery wire length: -48.5W-3.8 * 6 is -22.8 watts - which no longer bears any relationship to the -106 watts as measured previously over the entire range of batteries. I'm adding this as my point is not clear. One would expect a proportionate reduction in the wattage - surely?
Quote from: poynt99 on June 02, 2011, 09:17:37 PMNext, when the battery voltage probes are placed directly across the single 12V battery and no jumper, the power changes polarity and computes to roughly +1.4W.
This makes no sense. We have been given to understand that the power measurements, although represented as an average, were computed as the instantaneous product of vi dt. How did you compute the amperage through the battery to determine +1.4 watts? If you factored in the current flow from the resistance of the shunt at 1 Ohm - then, without question, you will INDEED get a positive value. Because what you've actually factored OUT of the analysis is the rather significant fact that the current flow is both positive and negative - both clockwise and anti clockwise - both discharging AND recharging the battery. Therefore - by simply eliminating the actual polarity of the current flow - by simply ASSUMING a positive current flow - then you MUST - INEVITABLY - get that number back to show a net discharge from the battery. We do NOT typically see a 'negative' voltage across the battery. Ever. What we do see is a negative current flow through the battery. You really need to show these waveforms if you're going to claim anything at all here Poynty. Certainly if we're meant to follow this argument. And whether the net current flow measured through the shunt is positive or negative - the fact remains that the instantaneous product of this and the battery voltage results in a negative mean wattage delivered by the battery supply. Again. Please refer to our test 2 referenced in the report.
Quote from: poynt99 on June 02, 2011, 09:17:37 PMWhen the wattage probe available in PSpice is used to directly measure the instantaneous power of the single 12V battery, it computes to a net average of approximately -5.45W. If you recall the exercise on the polarity of power sources vs. power dissipators a little while back, you will know that the proper polarity for a source that is sourcing power, is negative. The reason the last computation of +1.4W turned out positive, is because the voltage probes across the CSR are reversed (as a matter of establishing common ground for both the CSR and battery probes). This has been the case throughout this exercise. It adds a bit of confusion, but that is the direction the "powers" normally go and it's important to keep this straight in one's mind.
I cannot understand this at all. Please clarify. I understand the point of a 'common negative' as you put it. But that 'common negative' is consistent with the flow of current during the discharge cycle of the battery. It is therefore also consistent with the flow of current during the recharge cycle of the battery. Correctly your wattage 'probe' if that's what's used to determine the actual instantaneous battery voltage and current through the battery should be positioned in the same way. Why are you reversing it? Please show us a schematic that indicates what you mean here.
Quote from: poynt99 on June 02, 2011, 09:17:37 PMNow back to the issue of the correct value for the CSR. As we now know the true power in any one of the six 12V batteries is about -5.45W,
We do NOT know this? Where did -5.45 watts come from? You claimed +1.4 watts. Then you made some kind of qualification with a rather confusing reference to your wattage probe polarity which I simply can't understand - and now you're claiming that the ACTUAL wattage, notwithstanding the earlier claim of +1.4 watts - is, in fact a negative 5.45 watts? May we impose on you to please give us a schematic showing where you've put those probes if this is the source of the confusion. Otherwise please stop referring to whichever of these two results are incorrect. You have given yourself the extraordinary license of referring to either/or with a kind of freedom of choice that I am not sure is entirely applicable to accurate measurements anywhere.
Quote from: poynt99 on June 02, 2011, 09:17:37 PMand that the previous measurement using a single 12V battery times the CSR voltage (battery current) came to approximately +1.4W (assuming a 1 Ohm value for the CSR), it may become obvious that assuming the CSR value to be anything other than 0.25 Ohms is incorrect.
What? What are you trying to say? Now we're back to your earlier statement. Which value is correct? +1.4 watts or -5.45 watt? And what is absolutely NOT arguable is that the resistor Ohms is EVER factored in at 0.25 Ohms in your numbers. It absolutely should NOT be applied to your simulations. It ONLY ever kicks in when we compute the wattage during the brief 'on' period of the duty cycle when there are also no oscillations. And your sims don't show this period at all. You only work with those oscillations. So. If you're going to factor in 0.25 Ohms then this is most certainly wrong. Then let me get back to this point you made. You really need to clarify this Poynty. You cannot use either value. It's one or 'tother' - never either or - and certainly never both. So. Bearing the following 'quote' in mind as representative of 'true power' ...
"
As we now know the true power in any one of the six 12V batteries is about -5.45W,"
it makes the balance of this reference rather absurd as you proceed to reference the +1.4 watts that you claim must be wrong if the -5.45 is correct. And here's the rest of that reference.
Quote from: poynt99 on June 02, 2011, 09:17:37 PMIf we take the +1.4W measurement and multiply it by 4x (1/0.25), we obtain a power of about +5.6W. I have been approximating the values read off the scope, so in reality the previous measurement would actually be closer to +1.37W. It should be clear from this that the correct value for the CSR when looking at DC INPUT power, is the actual resistive value of the CSR, in this case 0.25 Ohms (regardless if the current is pulsed at a high frequency or not).
Golly. Does PSpice not manage impedance values? Or are you saying that because your +5.6 watts balances better with your -5.45 watts that you prefer to NOT factor in the required impedance? Are you suggesting that classical protocol errs when it computes an impedance value greater than the actual measured resistance when higher frequencies are applied? Or are you actually running that oscillation at a really, really slow frequency?
And then to compound the confusions you then state as follows
Quote from: poynt99 on June 02, 2011, 09:17:37 PMComputing the total power (using the Wattage probe) from all 6 batteries in the array we have:
-5.45W x 6 = -32.7W
This is the actual correct value and polarity for the total INPUT power of the battery array in this particular simulation.
Now we seem to be back to your earlier 'correct' analysis. So where then is the relevance of your denial of this in your previous paragraph? And why then contradict this AGAIN hereunder.
Quote from: poynt99 on June 02, 2011, 09:17:37 PMNow, if we take the previous +1.37W measurement (which used the VCSR(t) x VBAT(t)) using just a single battery and no jumper wire, and multiply it by 4 (because of the 0.25 Ohm CSR), then by 6 (for 6 batteries in the array), we obtain a power of about +32.88W.
And then this rather startling conclusion...
Quote from: poynt99 on June 02, 2011, 09:17:37 PMOther than the polarity difference (because the CSR probes are reversed), the two powers are almost identical in magnitude, and it is safe to say that now with the inductance eliminated in the battery voltage measurement, the VCSR(t) x VBAT(t) computation by the scope is very accurate.
As far as I remember you have NOT reversed the CSR probes. I certainly HOPE NOT. What you said was that you reversed your wattage probes and I am still not sure why? There is absolutely NOTHING wrong with the way they're configured.
Poynty. I'm rather inclined to think that your baffling us with that proverbial dust from bovines of the masculine gender. You really need to explain the bases of your arguments better - with respect. Please clarify these points before you confuse any of us any further.
Regards,
Rosemary
(added)
And guys, while I'm busy at this I wonder if I can remind you of the actual anomalies. The fact is that the current that is being returned to the battery supply is equal to or greater than the current that was first discharged from the battery. That is the point. While this is consistent with simulations - it's also more glaringly evident on the experimental apparatus. The fact is that this little bit of energy that is either gained or retained by the battery supply is able to 'cook' either our element or as is now being tested separately, the 12 volt automotive solder iron - at wattages that are measured to be upwards of 80 watts. So. The actual level of current flow does nothing to discharge the supply and does everything to heat the load.
Regards,
Rosemary
No disrespect intended Rose, but I'd prefer to continue with this exercise until it is completed, rather than risk a lengthy, arduous debate at this time. I have one or two more installments to go, then all should be quite clear.
For the record though, I have indeed been posting all the necessary scope shots, including the battery current, via the CSR voltage wave form (VCSR or V3-2). That wave form clearly shows both positive and negative instantaneous battery current in all cases. Also, the schematics clearly show where the scope probes are placed, in all cases.
It is also apparent from your comments that you do not fully understand what I have been showing, and why. That is most unfortunate.
.99
You keep writing things and then skipping past the questions and so you go - ever twisting Poynty. Very slippery. You REALLY need to explain this paragraph. Where exactly are the probes? If they're as shown in the schematic then they are NOT reversed. And let us know which wattage value is right and which is wrong and WHY. Again. I see now that you claim that you actually DO reverse your probes across the shunt? Still not sure why. Because they're correct as per your schematic. What you say is that it's needed to 'establish a common ground'. IF you've established a common ground then they are NOT reversed. SO. Back to the question. Which value is right? The +1.4 watts or the -5.4 watts? They can't both be right. Surely it would not involve that lengthy debate - that you complain about - to indicate which value you think is correct. And you absolutely CANNOT claim that they're both correct. Here's the reference.
Quote from: poynt99 on June 02, 2011, 09:17:37 PM
Next, when the battery voltage probes are placed directly across the single 12V battery and no jumper, the power changes polarity and computes to roughly +1.4W.
The reason the last computation of +1.4W turned out positive, is because the voltage probes across the CSR are reversed (as a matter of establishing common ground for both the CSR and battery probes). This has been the case throughout this exercise. It adds a bit of confusion, but that is the direction the "powers" normally go and it's important to keep this straight in one's mind.
And here is the actual quote referenced above.
"The reason the last computation of +1.4W turned out positive, is because the voltage probes across the CSR are reversed (as a matter of establishing common ground for both the CSR and battery probes)." WHERE are they reversed? Certainly they're NOT reversed on the schematic.
Quote from: poynt99 on June 02, 2011, 09:17:37 PMNow back to the issue of the correct value for the CSR. As we now know the true power in any one of the six 12V batteries is about -5.45W, and that the previous measurement using a single 12V battery times the CSR voltage (battery current) came to approximately +1.4W (assuming a 1 Ohm value for the CSR), it may become obvious that assuming the CSR value to be anything other than 0.25 Ohms is incorrect. If we take the +1.4W measurement and multiply it by 4x (1/0.25), we obtain a power of about +5.6W. I have been approximating the values read off the scope, so in reality the previous measurement would actually be closer to +1.37W. It should be clear from this that the correct value for the CSR when looking at DC INPUT power, is the actual resistive value of the CSR, in this case 0.25 Ohms (regardless if the current is pulsed at a high frequency or not).
And this, with or without respect - is the single most absurd piece of nonsense written in the name of scientific measurement. HOW exactly to you justify IGNORING the impedance on a known resistance and inductance of the CSR at the frequencies of that oscillation? Unless you are now claiming that classical measurement protocols are WRONG? I'm sorry Poynty. It's one thing to attempt to balance out the measured power values. But what you CANNOT do is 'pick a number' that looks right. The resistance of the shunt at 0.25 Ohms is most certainly WRONG unless you're using a 'pure' resistor in your schematic. And you have NOT specified this. And then you are NOT replicating our circuit but simply designing a NEW circuit with different parameters.
And so these contradictions continue. On and On.
Quote from: poynt99 on June 02, 2011, 09:17:37 PMComputing the total power (using the Wattage probe) from all 6 batteries in the array we have:
-5.45W x 6 = -32.7W
Nota Bene. You clearly and unambiguously state the following.
Quote from: poynt99 on June 02, 2011, 09:17:37 PMThis is the actual correct value and polarity for the total INPUT power of the battery array in this particular simulation. Now, if we take the previous +1.37W measurement (which used the VCSR(t) x VBAT(t)) using just a single battery and no jumper wire, and multiply it by 4 (because of the 0.25 Ohm CSR), then by 6 (for 6 batteries in the array), we obtain a power of about +32.88W.
Other than the polarity difference (because the CSR probes are reversed), the two powers are almost identical in magnitude, and it is safe to say that now with the inductance eliminated in the battery voltage measurement, the VCSR(t) x VBAT(t) computation by the scope is very accurate.
Golly. IF you eliminate the inductance and with a reversed polarity resulting from the reversal of the probe positions and assuming a zero inductance on the CSR and ......? :o.
This isn't a scientific argument. It's a fantasy. It's an attempt to redefine a circuit with measured inductances and measured resistances and then changing the known values and substituting it with all with something that is IMPOSSIBLE to build experimentally. Why? And why should we take your proposals seriously unless you first explain this? I assure you that there is no-one will understand you Poynt - unless they're telepathic perhaps. Because what you're writing is confusing and contradictory and no longer bears reference to the actual circuit that your simulation should be simulating.
Regards,
Rosemary
Let me see if I can simplify the argument for you.
Mainstream argument is this. Voltage from the supply * amperage from the supply * time - is the total energy available to a circuit. Therefore energy measured to be dissipated at the circuit can NEVER exceed the amount of energy first delivered. Therefore in calculating the energy dissipated it is required that this amount DOES NOT EXCEED the amount of energy first supplied. That's Kirchhoff's Law. Therefore current * voltage * time supplied by the source will always equal current * voltage * time on all the work measured to result from that input of energy from the supply.
Faraday's inductive laws - on the other hand - require that current from a supply can induce a counter polarised potential over inductive and conductive material. This measurable potential can induce a reversed current flow where voltage across that material * amperage * time from reversed polarisation of that that voltage allows that inductive and conductive circuit material to become a secondary energy supply source.
Mainstream assumption has been that the amount of potential difference that is then induced over circuit material will, nonetheless, obey Kirchhoff's laws. Therefore, the amount of energy dissipated through those collapsing fields as a result of Faraday's Inductive Laws and widely referred to as counter electromotive force - together with the amount of energy returned to recharge the battery - will still equal the amount of energy first supplied. Therefore do Kirchhoff's Laws remain inviolate.
However. All measurements of energy delivered by an electric energy supply source relates to the loss of charge measured at the supply. A measure of this loss is not readily accessible at a utility supply plug source as typically, this only measures the amount of energy delivered. This because the value of the applied potential difference remains constant regardless of the amount of energy that may be measured to have been delivered versus the amount of energy that may be measured to have been dissipated. However. This value is readily enabled by the use of a battery supply source as any loss or gain of charge or potential difference, is readily measured at the terminals of that supply as voltage.
What is known about the discharge and recharge of a battery supply source is that current delivered in a clockwise direction through the circuit - which is signaled above zero - is shown to deplete the voltage or the potential difference at that battery supply source. Equally, current delivered in an anti clockwise direction through the circuit - which is signaled below zero - is shown to replenish the voltage or the potential difference at that source.
What is evident in this circuit of ours is that the voltage that is returned to recharge the supply from the reversed potential difference induced over those inductive and conductive circuit materials during the 'clock wise' flow of current - is then able to return either the same or more current than was first initiated from that supply. This results in a zero loss of potential difference at the supply. Notwithstanding which, the results ALSO show that there is a considerable amount of energy being dissipated on the circuit that does NOT relate to the amount of energy supplied. This because the amount of energy from the battery is the sum of the battery voltage * current * time both delivered by and returned to that source. This results in a negative or zero loss of potential difference at the supply. Yet the amount of energy dissipated on the circuit is measured to be anything from 7 watts to upwards of 88 watts.
And the output or work on the circuit only depends on the amount of potential difference applied to the circuit material from an initiating cycle in a switching circuit - the availability of path to enable that counter electromotive force and the frequency at which the switch is applied. And what you're doing in your simulations here - Poynt - is proving this argument. Because by eliminating the inductive components on the circuit you are then also eliminating the induced potentials required to show this benefit.
Sorry. I left out the conclusion. Therefore - in as much as the energy delivered by the supply is zero - yet there is considerable energy measured to be dissipated as heat - then one may conclude that the circuit material is, indeed, a potential energy supply source - provided only that its inductive potentials are enabled through Faraday's Laws of Induction.
Regards,
Rosemary
Added.
also amended. I wrote current where I should have written Voltage.
And Guys, I think the most of us know that this inductive 'kick back' has benefit. But the actual questions here relate to what actually affords this kick? It's one thing to point to this HUGE surplus of energy over anything previously predicted - but WHAT in fact, is the source of all that energy? I would propose that it's long overdue that the properties of current flow actually get evaluated. If these results of ours are correct - then we really do have a problem. Because whatever is responsible for heating our heaters and lighting our lights is clearly NOT related to the depletion of any property in the current itself. This is now shown to come from a source and to return to that source. And depending on how it moves, depending on it's polarity or its direction - it can either recharge or discharge that potential difference without any real material loss as required by our concept of energy 'dissipating' at the various work stations on the circuit.
Then there's the questions related to that oscillation. What precisely enables the continual 'imbalance' that also seems to generate a perpetual resonating condition at such high values. The current from the battery induces a potential difference over the circuit materials that then induces a potential difference at the supply - and so it goes. Never do either the circuit nor the supply seem to find that required balance that is the actual known object of charge flow. Could it be that there are two separate current supply sources and never the twain do 'mix' - so to speak? Because that would indeed explain why the oscillation perpetuates itself.
Lots of questions. I just wish the debate could move there instead of this incessant need to question the results that are - now - no longer contestable.
Regards,
Rosemary
And in a further effort to move this argument forward - here's the thing. When the voltage measured across the shunt is greater than zero then those same oscillations take the battery voltage to its lowest values. And, correspondingly, when the voltage measured across the shunt is less than zero then the oscillations in the battery take that battery voltage to its highest levels. therefore the discharge value is based on a decreasing voltage * amperage * time while the recharge is based on an increasing voltage * amperage * time. Effectively, in discharging the circuit is potentialised to ensure that the second induced cycle corresponds to a high recharge cycle. That's the advantage of the 180 degree anti phase relationship of those voltages across the shunt and the battery.
And it's obvious why this has not been fully exposed prior to these tests. It's simply because no-one has identified a use for that oscillation. It's KNOWN to generate unwanted heat. It's been discarded - or 'snuffed out'. It has NOT been exploited. Much is written on how to get rid of it. Nothing is written on why or even how, one should actually exploit it.
And then - to get back to those simulations. One assumes that Kirchhoff's Laws are a natural consequence of energy transfers. Therefore there was never a need to 'write in' any code that stated 'in the event that the circuit measures a negative wattage - then display 'THERE'S A BREACH IN THERMODYNAMIC CONSTRAINTS - THEREFORE THERE IS AN IMPLICIT ERROR IN THE SETTINGS IN THIS PROGRAM. GO CHECK THE SETTINGS' - or such like warning. The algorithms are classical and applied with the full confidence that NOTHING can, in fact, breach those constraints. So. When classical measurement protocols are applied - as they are in any such software - then one SHOULD be able to rely on some value that returns a positive rather than a negative wattage. If they don't - and if the software simply and continually measures the results as they present themselves - and those results show that extraordinary 'gain' to the supply source, then there is only ONE CONCLUSION. Classical measurement protocols have always allowed for this result - this breach in the energy barriers - and Kirchhoff's Laws are simply based on assumption and NOTHING ELSE. Therefore - there is nothing NEW in our circuit. Nothing NEW in this effect. It's been there all along.
Which is embarrassing. Because since the turn of the 19th Century - there has been one scientific consensus which is that the electromagnetic force obeys Thermodynamic Laws. It clearly does not. Or it certainly doesn't obey the 2nd Law. However, the good news is manifold. It absolutely conforms to Einstein's mass/energy equivalence and it promises that our electric applications can be about as clean and as green as it required to halt the rampant pollution resulting from the applied and wasteful abuse of this energy. And this circuit - albeit highly efficient - is just the first unfolding of all this potential.
I think we're near the end of this thread. I'm still sending out reports and circulars - but this next week will be spent in finalising and then submitting the paper. For those who do not know this - we've been invited - again - to submit. This time I think there will be some active protection at the review stage that it isn't entirely rejected but - hopefully - simply for editorial amendment as required. Then I trust we'll finally get to the stage that I've been yearning for for over a decade. Its passage to the academic forum will then be ensured. And that will be wonderful. This technology badly needs close scrutiny from our experts and proper research - in order to advance it. But I must pay tribute to these forums. It's honed the argument precisely because it's been so brutally attacked. And - I think - it's also weathered this storm. Battered and bruised - but still very much alive.
Regards,
Rosemary
A summary of the detailed analysis performed thus far:
In order to more fully explore the subtleties of this circuit, the battery array and battery jumper wiring was included in the diagram, and hence in the simulation. The jumper wiring adds a total of 2uH inductance (5 jumpers x 400nH ea.) to the battery circuit. In addition, the DC feed wires from the battery array (RED and BLACK) to the MOSFETs and Load Element mounted on the perf board, were broken down into 3 wire segments, each with an inherent inductance of 1.1uH and resistance of 0.33 Ohms.
So the expanded DC feed wiring still exhibits a significant magnitude of total inductance (3.3uH) and resistance (1 Ohm) in keeping with previous diagrams and simulations, with the exception that about 1/3 more inductance was added at Rose's request. The previous total inductance was 2uH in each leg, now there is 3.3uH. The battery jumper wiring has a total of 2uH as previously mentioned.
From here, battery voltage measurements were taken across several points in the battery wiring part of the circuit. When multiplied with the CSR probe voltage, first the instantaneous, then average INPUT power was reiteratively computed for each battery voltage measurement point, and displayed in the many scope shots. The battery voltage measurement points start at node 7 shown on the diagram. This is the voltage measured at node 7 in reference to the GND BUS node 4. From here the battery voltage probes were moved progressively to the left (on both the RED and BLACK wire simultaneously) in the schematic such that the wiring inductance effects on the battery voltage measurement become evident. After 4 measurements, the battery probes end up located at nodes 1 and 3. At this point, the battery voltage is being measured across the battery/jumper array and the CSR inclusive (see "schema04.png"). This measurement point eliminates the effects of the inductance and resistance contributed by the RED and BLACK battery feed wires. Because the interest is strictly in the battery voltage alone, the bottom battery voltage probe was moved to node 2 in the schematic (see "schema05.png"). This now eliminates the effects of the CSR resistance and inductance on the battery voltage measurement. Throughout this progression of battery voltage measurement points closer and closer to the battery array, it was shown that the net battery power, although negative in polarity, was decreasing in magnitude with each progressive move closer to the battery array. Note, for each and every measurement throughout the exercise, the CSR probes remain across the CSR unchanged.
Next, it was explained that a valid INPUT power analysis can be performed by measuring only one of the six batteries in the array, assuming that each of the six are in a similar operating condition. Combining the voltage measurement across the last battery in the array with the adjacent CSR voltage (current) reading, INPUT power can be computed. Total circuit power is computed simply by multiplying by 6.
The next battery voltage measurement was taken across the last 12V battery (VBat6) and its associated wire jumper (LJumper5). See "schema06.png". Here it is shown that the INPUT power still computes to a negative value (-3.8W) (assuming CSR=1Ohm).
Once again, because the interest is strictly in the voltage across the battery itself, the top battery voltage probe was moved down, eliminating the effects of the jumper inductance on the measurement and providing a direct measurement of the battery voltage alone. See "schema07.png". As a reminder, it is critical to keep in mind how the INPUT power is computed; PBAT(t) = VBAT(t) x IBAT(t). VBAT is the battery voltage (either a single 12V, or all six), and this can not include the voltage contributed by any stray inductance. It is imperative therefore to measure the battery voltage directly across the battery terminals; no jumper or feed wiring can be included in this battery voltage measurement.
With the battery voltage probes placed directly across the last battery (Vbat6), the battery power computes to about +1.37W. As a result of measuring the battery voltage directly, thus eliminating the effects of the jumper inductance, the battery net average power figure has actually reversed polarity. Previously, when "LJumper5" was included in the battery voltage measurement, the net average battery (Vbat6) power computed to about -3.8W. This is the most important point all ought to pay close attention to, because it clearly shows how the inductance associated with only ~20 inches of wire can completely skew the net average power computation.
Next, it was shown that the total net average power from all six batteries computed to -32.7W (-5.45W ea.) using the Wattage probe available in PSpice. Note that the polarity of this net average power is negative, and this is the correct polarity for a source that is sourcing a net power. If the battery source was receiving a net power, the polarity would have been positive. This -32.7W is the TRUE power being sourced by the six batteries, and the key word is sourced. The evidence produced from the simulation clearly shows that the batteries are not receiving a net power and are not being charged, despite what appears to be the contrary when the battery voltage measurements are NOT made with the probes directly across the battery terminals (i.e. with inductance affecting the measurement as is the case shown in "schema06.png").
The probes as placed across the CSR are reversed, relative to the orientation of the probes as placed across the battery Vbat6. See "schema07.png". From top to bottom starting at the top of Vbat6, the probes are placed as follows: +, -, -, +. This is the reason a power computation using the probes configured as such, will yield a positive power (when made with no inductance in the battery voltage measurement) when multiplied together and averaged to produce a net power figure. The figure of +1.37W previously obtained clearly illustrates this fact (for a refresher, please refer to the previous discussion on the correct power polarity for power sources (NEG) and power sinks (POS)). The only reason the probes were placed in reverse across the CSR in the simulation, is because this is the best method available when using standard passive scope probes; it allows for a common ground point for both scope channels at node 2. This is how the Ainslie team was advised to orient the probes, therefore it was done this way in the simulation as well in order to keep the results the same.
The issue regarding the actual value that should be used for the CSR, is an issue that will be addressed in the next installments.
.99
I'm finally honing in on the point OF POYNT'S confusions. Reading CORRECTLY from the positive terminal THROUGH the circuit TO the negative terminal as is correct then the probes are ACTUALLY positioned as follows.
Probe battery at positive terminal on the drain rail +
Probe shunt at junction of the SHUNT AND circuit wire +
Ground of shunt and battery probes at battery negative terminal -
This is ABSOLUTELY CONSISTENT with conventional protocols and allows a consistent reading of both probes of all the circuit's measured voltages relative, as they are, to zero. Therefore the following...
Quote from: poynt99 on June 05, 2011, 07:34:17 PM
The probes as placed across the CSR are reversed, relative to the orientation of the probes as placed across the battery Vbat6. See "schema07.png".
The probes are absolutely NOT reversed according to your 'schma07.png'. They are both positioned PRECISELY as required by ALL STANDARD CONVENTIONS that the positive and the negative voltages across both the battery and the shunt are consistent with the directional flow of current. I'm afraid I have to contradict you here Poynty. You have NOT reversed them. What you have done is INCORRECTLY REFERENCED THEM AS FOLLOWS.
Quote from: poynt99 on June 05, 2011, 07:34:17 PMFrom top to bottom starting at the top of Vbat6, the probes are placed as follows: +, -, -, +.
SO. You CANNOT read the probes from 'top to bottom' for goodness sake. And nor can PSpice read them from 'top to bottom'. How PSpice is reading them and how you SHOULD be reading those voltages - is their series positions starting from the positive terminal of the supply to the negative terminal of the supply though the circuit. Therefore - correctly - the probes are as follows + + and COMMON -. Else you are NOT reading the true voltages but reading a REVERSED voltage over the second or CSR probe. You have made a mistake here Poynty. Why? You surely know better?
Which rather makes nonsense of the following.
Quote from: poynt99 on June 05, 2011, 07:34:17 PMThis is the reason a power computation using the probes configured as such, will yield a positive power (when made with no inductance in the battery voltage measurement) when multiplied together and averaged to produce a net power figure.
It would be nice to blame this result on the incorrect positioning of the probes. But the fact is this. IF PSpice is showing a positive reading when the probes are positioned as the ARE INDEED positioned - THEN THAT READING IS CORRECT. Therefore, INDEED, the following value is ALSO....
Quote from: poynt99 on June 05, 2011, 07:34:17 PM
The figure of +1.37W previously obtained clearly illustrates this fact
...CORRECT. In exactly the same way as the previous figures per schema 1,2,3,4,5 and 6 are ALSO correct. All probe positions were ALL correctly positioned for PSpice to read a consistent polarity of current and voltage through the circuit. So. I do not get your point AT ALL with respect to any reference to a 'reversal of probe' polarities.
Quote from: poynt99 on June 05, 2011, 07:34:17 PM(for a refresher, please refer to the previous discussion on the correct power polarity for power sources (NEG) and power sinks (POS)).
And I'm not at all sure that it's 'we' who need the refresher course here Poynty Point. So :o
Quote from: poynt99 on June 05, 2011, 07:34:17 PMThe only reason the probes were placed in reverse across the CSR in the simulation, is because this is the best method available when using standard passive scope probes;
This is NOT the best method at all. It's the ONLY method. Good gracious.
Quote from: poynt99 on June 05, 2011, 07:34:17 PMit allows for a common ground point for both scope channels at node 2. This is how the Ainslie team was advised to orient the probes, therefore it was done this way in the simulation as well in order to keep the results the same.
I personally was NEVER advised on this. Nor were any members of our team. I assure you. Happily we all KNOW that this is the ONLY AND CORRECT METHOD TO POSITION THE PROBES TO GET A CORRECT READING.
Good heavens Poynty. WHAT are you going on about?
Rosie
Added.
It's a matter of some concern that we're at this level of 'dialogue' Poynt. I thought you would have known better. Or are you depending on our readers not knowing better? I simply never know with you. But if you doubt what I've said here - then go and speak to ANY of your own members. Even MileHigh. You ERR here, GROSSLY. ... Actually, on second thoughts DON'T ask MileHigh. Ask WW
"Poynty", I do believe you've touched a nerve.
:o
Rosemary, you either aren't understanding what poynt99 is saying, or you are deliberately obfuscating. Your objections to his analysis make no sense.
:-*
Quote from: TinselKoala on June 06, 2011, 07:35:03 PM
"Poynty", I do believe you've touched a nerve.
:o
Rosemary, you either aren't understanding what poynt99 is saying, or you are deliberately obfuscating. Your objections to his analysis make no sense.
:-*
No TK. I'm not obfuscating. I'm clarifying. It's Poynty who's been obfuscating. You've all grown rather too reliant on your assumption of my idiocy. Fortunately the readers of this thread and my blog include some heavy weights - unlike yourselves. And it's that readership that is actually advancing this cause. I don't want to be too precipitous here - but rest assured - right now I feel entirely HOPEFUL. To be precise, I think I've finally slain the Jabberwocky. "One, two! One, two! And through and through". Our paper will be due for submission by mid month. WHAT will you guys do when and if that's published?!? You all really need to think HARD TK. :o
All that good news. Where will it put you?
Kindest regards,
Rosie
;D
and here's that all important link.
http://www.jabberwocky.com/carroll/jabber/jabberwocky.html
I'ts been a long walk TK. "The vorpal blade went snicker-snack!
He left it dead, and with its head
He went galumphing back"
You do make me laugh, that's for sure.
All this time.... don't forget that I've been following you since Naked Scientists, ha ha, where you tried to convince people who work in the industry designing MOSFET switching power supplies that you had a patent for some kind of invention .... all this time, and you still haven't shown a single proper battery load test or control experiment. You still haven't boiled a teapot of water for less cost than you could do with a straight DC immersion heater. You still haven't gotten anything accepted by IEEE and you still think you have "heavyweights" behind you. After all this time.
Who was the first one to show boiling water using your circuit, huh? Who first showed the errors in the original Quantum article circuit, huh? Who actually DUPLICATED your original heat vs. time profiles, using your original circuit and your mistaken duty cycle, that is, confirming that your entire experiment and the conclusions based on it were BOGUS due to the inverted duty cycle error? HuH? Have you conveniently forgotten the significance of that little fact?
You are the one who should THINK HARD, because you are really embarrassing yourself and you don't even have the wit to realize it. Let's see the article you are publishing. Your last attempt didn't go so well......
A re-post of the brief discussion on the polarity of power for sources and sinks.Regarding the probes across the CSR; note the voltage across the battery and CSR are in reverse polarity, hence the power computation for sources sourcing power is NEGATIVE.
Since the probes on the CSR are in reverse, the polarity of the power computation results in a POSITIVE figure.
Quote from: poynt99 on April 24, 2011, 09:16:07 PM
Power coming from (as opposed to going to) a source such as a battery, will always compute to a negative number.
In the attached diagram, there is a simple example with one source (Vbat) and some resistive loads, R1, R2, and CSR1.
The electric field across any source is always in opposition to the direction of current through that source.
I have marked the direction of current in RED and the polarity of the potential difference across each component in BLUE. Note that the battery Vbat has a potential difference opposite to that of all three loads? Since power in a component is the voltage across it times the current through it, it's now obvious why a source will have a negative sign associated with its power. At the loads, the potential difference across them and the current through them are in the same direction, and hence the power associated with any load is positive.
Under normal circumstances, any power source loses or gives up energy, and any load gains or receives energy, so this is an easy way to remember what polarity the power should be in each.
SPICE does not do anything unusual by applying a negative polarity to any source power that it plots on its scope, because you can see that this is precisely how the math works out.
.99
I'm getting rather tired of this Poynty. There is, indeed, a school of thought that proposes that current from a battery supply source, flows from the negative rail to the positive rail in an anti clockwise direction - IF that's the point you're trying to make. But the polarity of measurable potential difference at the supply is ALWAYS consistent with the direction of current flow - regardless of that electric field theory. And the polarity of that potential difference from a battery supply source is always represented as POSITIVE. Therefore is the flow of current signaled to be greater than zero and the resulting counter electromotive force signaled to be less than zero.
All we're interested in here is the sum of those two current flows. Because what is evident is that this then results in a NET GAIN to that supply. In terms of which, MORE current flows back to the battery to RECHARGE it than was first delivered to DISCHARGE it. If you are now trying to argue that the positive - or clockwise current flow through a circuit - actually results in a recharge to the battery then just put a light in series with a battery and a non-inductive shunt at the battery terminal. You'll see that the voltage across that shunt - on either side of the battery terminals will show a POSITIVE VOLTAGE or POTENTIAL DIFFERENCE. And that resulting current flow will light the light and DISCHARGE the battery.
I don't see the point of those schematics and I don't see that your argument is relevant. And Poynty? What are those equations about? You really need to define what you mean by P. Is is meant to represent POWER? Or PROBE? WHAT?
Regards,
Rosemary
Quote from: TinselKoala on June 07, 2011, 01:52:08 PM
You do make me laugh, that's for sure.
All this time.... don't forget that I've been following you since Naked Scientists, ha ha, where you tried to convince people who work in the industry designing MOSFET switching power supplies that you had a patent for some kind of invention .... all this time, and you still haven't shown a single proper battery load test or control experiment. You still haven't boiled a teapot of water for less cost than you could do with a straight DC immersion heater. You still haven't gotten anything accepted by IEEE and you still think you have "heavyweights" behind you. After all this time.
Who was the first one to show boiling water using your circuit, huh? Who first showed the errors in the original Quantum article circuit, huh? Who actually DUPLICATED your original heat vs. time profiles, using your original circuit and your mistaken duty cycle, that is, confirming that your entire experiment and the conclusions based on it were BOGUS due to the inverted duty cycle error? HuH? Have you conveniently forgotten the significance of that little fact?
You are the one who should THINK HARD, because you are really embarrassing yourself and you don't even have the wit to realize it. Let's see the article you are publishing. Your last attempt didn't go so well......
TK - always delighted to hear that I amuse you. Apparently laughter has a real therapeutic value - So. Whatever I've contributed - that's a good thing. Your historical references are rather SKEWED - but why let reality intrude on all that good feeling?
Kindest regards as ever,
Rosie
P1, P2, P3, and P4 are measurement points or nodes. These nodes are where the scope probes are placed in reference to the two equations.
PR1 and PVbat means:
Power of R1, and Power of Vbat, respectively.
.99
Quote from: poynt99 on June 07, 2011, 11:03:01 PM
P1, P2, P3, and P4 are measurement points or nodes. These nodes are where the scope probes are placed in reference to the two equations.
PR1 and PVbat means:
Power of R1, and Power of Vbat, respectively.
Well then? How in HEAVEN'S NAME do you manage to show the battery voltage at a negative? And I strongly recommend that you vary those references. P = power and Probe positions - and potential difference? What? in the words of Nanny McPhee - 'BIG P - small fee'. Very confusing.
Rosemary
Quote from: Rosemary Ainslie on June 07, 2011, 11:17:08 PM
How in HEAVEN'S NAME do you manage to show the battery voltage at a negative?
Start at node P1 and follow the + and - signs in a clockwise direction. By the time you arrive back at node P1, you will have noticed that the voltage drop across the battery is reversed wrt the voltage drop across the 3 resistors.
.99
Quote from: poynt99 on June 07, 2011, 11:33:59 PM
Start at node P1 and follow the + and - signs in a clockwise direction. By the time you arrive back at node P1, you will have noticed that the voltage drop across the battery is reversed wrt the voltage drop across the 3 resistors.
.99
Golly Pointy. I've tried to take all this seriously and my best efforts are now sorely taxed. Where you SHOULD start reading is from the power supply SOURCE. THEN. In the unlikely event that that the battery reads a NEGATIVE potential or voltage - then - if you also read a POSITIVE potential over the resistive components - you've found the biggest ANOMALY recorded in science. It is the SOURCE that applies a consistent potential difference across the circuit - to begin with. IF AND WHEN the source is disconnected and the circuit is OPEN - then that APPLIED POTENTIAL DIFFERENCE REVERSES - as required by INDUCTIVE LAWS and widely referred to as BACK OR COUNTER ELECTROMOTIVE FORCE.
Rosemary
added
Let me try this again. The voltage drop - as you put it - across the battery has NEVER reversed. It remains positive. What happens is that it's potential difference is REDUCED or PARTIALLY DEPLETED.
tk... you're back, good. we have some unfinished business, you and i... and you owe me a mea culpa...
who was the one to use the worst possible scientific method and yet still called it a "replication"? it was a pathetic hack, nothing more...
who was the one that said using a different transistor wouldn't make one whit of a difference? and then you lied and squirmed about what 'difference' meant when your error was made obvious by experiment.
who was the one who left in a fit of profanity declaring they were "done"?
YOU are the one who should think hard tk... YOU are the one who embarrassed themselves in this thread previously. that's why you left in a fit of profanity remember? because you couldn't answer to your contradictions i had pointed out. you knew you were checkmated, so you swore up and down like a spoiled child and ran home to mommy... and now you're back... imagine that. ::)
the ONLY measurement you should be concerned with tk is the one bruce so kindly pointed out to you. that is, your measure of character. which at the moment is at the bottom of the barrel due to your lies, misrepresentations, your hoaxes of the community ala the magnet motor hoax of yours... etc, etc. etc. ad nauseam, ad infintum...
I'm still trying to get my head around your argument Poynty. Are you proposing that all measurements of energy now require that we take the positive flow of current from the shunt and multiply it with a negative voltage from the battery because it presents at the negative terminal? Power measurements are based on vi dt. Just ask yourself 'what is the actual voltage across the battery?'. The actual voltage is STILL POSITIVE. Therefore if the amperage is positive and the voltage across the battery is positive then you will INDEED get a positive product. That positive product will represent the amount of energy discharged by the battery. And this, in turn should equate to the amount of energy dissipated on the circuit. It's a net loss to the potential difference at the supply. But it is still a positive value. I'm not sure if all this is smoke and mirrors or if you are genuinely confused.
Rosemary
Added.
And by the same token - if the amperage is negative then it is still a product of the battery voltage and that amperage flow - but it will now result in a gain to the potential difference at the supply as that product will be negative. Golly. It's NOT rocket science. It's only elementary power analysis. ::)
I can scarcely remember a single day in the last year and a half that I haven't woken up to another post that gets me into a panic. What I've discovered about the average internet forum member is, on the whole, something that I would rather have done without. What is is on record, however, is that I fought my corner against an unwarranted attack - on a scale that has never been equaled, on any other person. And I'm proud that I managed this - even if I'm now somewhat the worse for wear. What matters is that this technology of ours has survived that attack. And the reason I kept at it was simply because I thought it mattered enough. If our rather fickle members were to ignore this evidence - that was fine. But if they were to be persuaded that there's nothing here - then that would be tragic. Because one expects the majority of the members here to care enough to promote free energy. And because UNLIKE ALL OTHER CLAIMS OF UNITY BREACH - our own technology is CORRECTLY MEASURED and CORRECTLY REPORTED.
And I am glad now that all those flamed threads are preserved. It will be an enduring indictment on the mindset of you horrible forum owners who have all co-operated to try and kill off this technology. If you had ANY intention of promoting new and clean and green technology - then you should, AT LEAST, have moderated my threads. Not locked them and banned me as you all did when I tried to fight that corner.
And then - there's also the simple truth that I was also followed by stalwart - BRILLIANT - thinkers who also fought a rear guard action. Wilby and Pirate are just two that spring to mind. And then - which is also something that heals the hurt - is the ENORMOUS off forum support that I was given. But it would have been nicer if it had also been a bit more conspicuous. But I know that to post here is to invite an unqualified attack and there really are NOT that many people who have the interest or the appetite for this.
Anyway - for those who complained - this thread is DEFINITELY winding down. I only need to post our paper here - which I will do after submission and acceptance. And to the many readers here - that's a good thing. Because when that paper is finally published then there will be so much news about so much exciting technology - that these forums will fade into history. I would very much like to be around when that happens.
Rosemary
to whom it may concern:
Quote from: aaron murakamiThe Ainslie circuits - I spent thousands of hours on countless experiments
on all kinds of variations with that and Glen did even more. We were NOT
given all the information in the beginning and that was a complete farce.
However the circuit does have merit. I got cop 2.0 as a fairly standard
result - but of course the skeptics will blame it on the peukert effect or
something. But the peukert effect in the battery on a low draw does NOT
explain the same heat for less measurable energy going in.
Glen got better I believe. But the most interesting to me
is that while the timer circuit was dissipating energy (warming up),
with my own mods, that I disclosed 100%, the mosfet and resistor side
of the circuit cooled up to 2 degrees Celsius below the ambient temperature
of the room, which is a different thing altogether and is serious reverse
entropy.
Anyway, both Glen and I did replicate over 1.0 with a lot of data to back
it - we didn't come close to cop 17.0 like Ainslie claimed but over 1.0
is over 1.0.
quote taken from http://www.energeticforum.com/renewable-energy/8247-tom-bearden-oil-3.html#post142994
emphasis added by me.
thanks for that reminder Wilby.
I'VE FINISHED MY PART OF THE PAPER. Just tedious editing from hereon. But that I can live with.
WHAT A RELIEF. We should be able to submit by Wednesday next week - IF NOT SOONER.
Regards,
Rosemary
;D
For this next installment, let’s begin by reviewing one of the last simulation test runs. Referring to schema07.png and the associated scope shot scope13.png, we see that when the oscilloscope probes are placed directly across the terminals of one of the six batteries, the scope trace is essentially a flat line at the 12V level, indicating the battery’s DC voltage reading. Providing that the battery’s internal resistance is reasonably low (typically less than 0.01 Ohms when fully charged), the scope trace will be reasonably, if not perfectly flat, with no ripple caused by the circulating currents. In practice however, there will always be a finite internal resistance, and at times when the battery is not fully charged, we may in fact see some small amount of ripple riding on the flat 12V trace. Depending on the currents being drawn from the battery and the battery’s state of charge (SOC), the amount of ripple might vary from a few millivolts, to several hundred millivolts. In most cases, the ripple won’t exceed 1Vp or so.
Generally speaking however, when measuring the battery voltage on a loaded but charged battery, the resulting trace will essentially be a flat line at the voltage level present directly on the battery terminals. For all intents and purposes, this voltage is “pure DCâ€, and will be referred to as “DC†from this point forward.
Reviewing the methodology involved in obtaining the measurement of average input power, we have:
Pi(ave) = AVE[VBAT(t) x VCSR/CSR(t)], or in words;
Average input power is equal to the average of the product of the instantaneous battery voltage, and the scaled (by the CSR value) instantaneous voltage across the CSR.
For the moment, we will acknowledge that the CSR value will vary (due to the presence of 200nH of parasitic inductance in series with the CSR, as shown) under the conditions of a high frequency current through it.
Knowing that a properly measured battery voltage will result in essentially a flat DC trace, we can slightly alter the above power equation to the following:
Pi(ave) = AVE[VBAT(DC) x VCSR/CSR(t)], or in words;
Average input power is equal to the average of the product of the battery voltage (in DC), and the scaled (by the CSR value) instantaneous voltage across the CSR.
From this we can see that the DC battery voltage is simply a constant multiplying factor that is applied to the VCSR/CSR(t) factor in the power equation. There are no phase considerations involved here because the phase angle between a DC voltage and any current (varying or not) is 0º. The COS of 0º is 1, and this means that the power factor associated with a DC source is 1. So although still valid, it should now be obvious that an oscilloscope channel is NOT required to properly obtain the required battery voltage for a DC INPUT power measurement! A digital voltage meter (DVM, DMM) placed directly across the battery terminals is all that is needed.
What if we don’t measure the battery voltage with the probes placed directly across the battery terminals? Well, it turns out that if dealt with properly, this is not a huge problem at all. We know that the battery voltage should be essentially a flat line representing the battery terminal voltage. We also know that if we take a battery voltage measurement with the probes placed across two points that include any amount of parasitic inductance (i.e. battery wiring), the measurement points will show a considerable amount of ripple riding on the true DC voltage if observed with an oscilloscope. No problem.
Because we know that the battery voltage should be “flatâ€, we are permitted to apply a significant amount of filtering (or averaging) to the signal being measured across these two “displaced†battery measurement points. The result is a reading of DC voltage minus a small DC voltage drop across the battery wiring resistance. In other words, this voltage measurement will be extremely close to the same measurement made with the probes directly across the battery terminals.
Let’s look at this scenario with the simulation, and see how close the two measurements are:
Referring to schema01.png, note the green probe at measurement point 7 (ignore the CSR probes for now). scope16.png shows the battery voltage as measured from nodes 7 to 4 (GND). The peak to peak voltage is over 200Vpp, but after averaging, the value is a little under 71VDC. The averaging is done with the built-in function in PSpice, however the same result is achieved by measuring the same points with a DMM, with or without the utilization of a non-intrusive RC filter in front of it. The six 12V batteries add to 72VDC, but some voltage drop is expected due to the wiring resistance of 2 Ohms total.
So it has now been established that you can obtain a clean accurate battery voltage measurement as part of the INPUT power measurement, by using a DVM and non-loading RC filter (optional). Moreover, the battery voltage measurement can also be obtained using an oscilloscope channel by applying a running MEAN function to the resulting trace, and as long as averaging is performed on this measurement, the measurement probes do not have to be placed directly on the battery terminals. This applies to both a scope and DMM measurement.
More to follow.
.99
Quote from: poynt99 on June 11, 2011, 04:41:43 PM
Referring to schema07.png and the associated scope shot scope13.png, we see that when the oscilloscope probes are placed directly across the terminals of one of the six batteries, the scope trace is essentially a flat line at the 12V level, indicating the battery’s DC voltage reading.
Poynt. There have now been many people who have now replicated your FIRST schematic. That schematic is based on A SINGLE battery - albeit at 72 Volts. What they have all found is that the battery voltages oscillate through extreme values. It has also been replicated by experimentalists who have ONLY used a supply battery - even to drive the switch. Those tests ALSO show that the battery OSCILLATES. The test was first replicated on Simitrex? (I think it's called). THAT also was represented by 1 battery supply. it also OSCILLATES. ALSO. ALL our tests with the probe placed directly across the battery terminals OSCILLATE. WHERE then, does that 'FLAT LINE' you now claim - come from? Is it a theoretical assumption? Is it an an IMPOSED condition? Because it certainly is NOT consistent with the experimental or simulated evidence. And isn't that the point of simulations? But whether it oscillates or NOT - is IRRELEVANT. If the sum of the voltage across the CSR is negative then a product of this and the battery voltage will ALSO be NEGATIVE. That's all that's required to give an INFINITE COP. And the sum of the voltage across the CSR is INDEED negative. So. Your argument is INDEED SPURIOUS.
Quote from: poynt99 on June 11, 2011, 04:41:43 PMProviding that the battery’s internal resistance is reasonably low (typically less than 0.01 Ohms when fully charged), the scope trace will be reasonably, if not perfectly flat, with no ripple caused by the circulating currents.
And then this? The scope trace is NEVER flat. And our batteries are FULLY CHARGED. Now you're progressing from SPURIOUS to FATUOUS as follows...
Quote from: poynt99 on June 11, 2011, 04:41:43 PMIn practice however, there will always be a finite internal resistance, and at times when the battery is not fully charged, we may in fact see some small amount of ripple riding on the flat 12V trace.
...to downright FANTASTICAL. That
'ripple'. Golly. As a gentle ocean wave is to a tsunami is that proposed 'ripple' to that ACTUAL OSCILLATION. Which makes your following points somewhat understated, utterly misleading and ENTIRELY INAPPROPRIATE.
Quote from: poynt99 on June 11, 2011, 04:41:43 PMDepending on the currents being drawn from the battery and the battery’s state of charge (SOC), the amount of ripple might vary from a few millivolts, to several hundred millivolts. In most cases, the ripple won’t exceed 1Vp or so.
You wish. ::)
Quote from: poynt99 on June 11, 2011, 04:41:43 PMGenerally speaking however, when measuring the battery voltage on a loaded but charged battery, the resulting trace will essentially be a flat line at the voltage level present directly on the battery terminals. For all intents and purposes, this voltage is “pure DCâ€, and will be referred to as “DC†from this point forward.
And there you have it. Inference based on assumptions and then proposed as FACT. All that does is shoot science in both feet - then in the knees - and then WHEN IT FALLS OVER - you kick it in the teeth. Science is based on EXPERIMENTAL EVIDENCE. NOT ON FABRICATIONS AND NOT ON ASSUMPTIONS.
Quote from: poynt99 on June 11, 2011, 04:41:43 PMReviewing the methodology involved in obtaining the measurement of average input power, we have:
Pi(ave) = AVE[VBAT(t) x VCSR/CSR(t)], or in words;
Then you give us this? Pi is WHAT? P IS POWER. It is not USUAL to multiply POWER with 'i' or CURRENT. POWER is the product of volts x amps. And what - in heavens name is 'ave'? If you mean average then its usual abbreviation is avg. 'ave' is how Romans greeted each other long, long ago. And if you mean Vbat avg then you cannot also append (t) because t is TIME and it CANNOT BE BOTH AVERAGED AND CALCULATED IN REAL TIME. And while VCSR/CSR may have merit - the fact is that you CANNOT use the average of the battery voltage unless you ALSO apply the average of the current sensing resistor. Therefore nor can you apply (t) to your VCSR/CSR. Followed by more SMOKE AND MIRRORS....
Quote from: poynt99 on June 11, 2011, 04:41:43 PMAverage input power is equal to the average of the product of the instantaneous battery voltage, and the scaled (by the CSR value) instantaneous voltage across the CSR.
That is absolutely NOT what your equation reads. What your equation proposes is that you take the product of the average volts and the current flow measured at the current sensing resistor - then you multiply this with the amperage AGAIN - for some reason best understood by yourself - then you continue with this multiplication exercise by tracing multiple samples of the current flow through a full cycle. And all that will give you is GARBAGE IN compounded with EXPONENTIAL GARBAGE OUT. And so it goes...
Then to those 'words' - repeated here lest we miss the significance.
Quote from: poynt99 on June 11, 2011, 04:41:43 PMAverage input power is equal to the average of the product of the instantaneous battery voltage, and the scaled (by the CSR value) instantaneous voltage across the CSR.
WHAT is INPUT POWER? Power is either delivered or dissipated. INPUT into where? The battery? The circuit? What? And WHEN IS POWER AVERAGED? Power is computed. That's it. IT IS NOT AVERAGED. You can, perhaps, 'round off' the amount of power then represented as JOULES which is based on the wattage delivered over time. But POWER - Poynty Point? That's not a term you can bandy around, dressed in your preferred frame of reference. Not unless you are upending classical protocols.
Quote from: poynt99 on June 11, 2011, 04:41:43 PMFor the moment, we will acknowledge that the CSR value will vary (due to the presence of 200nH of parasitic inductance in series with the CSR, as shown) under the conditions of a high frequency current through it.
And so the farce continues. The CSR value varies DUE TO THE IMPEDANCE AT THE APPLIED FREQUENCIES. You are confusing your terms. And that there are conditions of 'high frequency' as you mention - then that also implies a switching or 'reversing current'. Are you saying that this reversal somehow STOPS when it gets to the battery? That would be a first for the books. Something that would rivet the attention of the ENTIRE scientific community.
Quote from: poynt99 on June 11, 2011, 04:41:43 PMKnowing that a properly measured battery voltage will result in essentially a flat DC trace, we can slightly alter the above power equation to the following:
And then the innuendos. The 'properly measured' battery voltage? By implication our measurements are not 'proper'? Golly. That means that our beautiful little LeCroy and that Tektronix - are NOT properly measuring those voltages? And that all those scope shots that have been taken are PURE FABRICATION? And only your claimed and badly qualified AVERAGED voltage with it's never actually seen or measured 'splash and ripple' are, in fact CORRECT? And all this nonsense followed by more nonsense...
Quote from: poynt99 on June 11, 2011, 04:41:43 PMPi(ave) = AVE[VBAT(DC) x VCSR/CSR(t)], or in words;
Average input power is equal to the average of the product of the battery voltage (in DC), and the scaled (by the CSR value) instantaneous voltage across the CSR.
Poynty. SPARE US YOUR EQUATIONS. They're HOPELESSLY FLAWED.
And then to your conclusion.
Quote from: poynt99 on June 11, 2011, 04:41:43 PMFrom this we can see that the DC battery voltage is simply a constant multiplying factor that is applied to the VCSR/CSR(t) factor in the power equation.
.Even as such it would result in INFINITE COP. But it is WRONG POYNTY. JUST SIMPLY WRONG. Do not EVER try and multiply an average in real time. It's either the 'ONE OR T'OTHER' - NEVER EITHER OR. Average your current AND battery. Or average NEITHER.
Quote from: poynt99 on June 11, 2011, 04:41:43 PMThere are no phase considerations involved here because the phase angle between a DC voltage and any current (varying or not) is 0º.
This is getting boring. There can INDEED be no phase considerations PROVIDED ONLY THAT YOU FACTOR THIS OUT IN AVERAGING OVER TIME. So. You're RIGHT - but more assuredly you are also ASBOLUTELY WRONG.
Quote from: poynt99 on June 11, 2011, 04:41:43 PMThe COS of 0º is 1, and this means that the power factor associated with a DC source is 1. So although still valid, it should now be obvious that an oscilloscope channel is NOT required to properly obtain the required battery voltage for a DC INPUT power measurement! A digital voltage meter (DVM, DMM) placed directly across the battery terminals is all that is needed.
May I disabuse you here. You may, indeed, if you wish to DENY the benefits or otherwise of phase angles - IGNORE THEM by AVERAGING. But ignoring the evidence does not make it OBVIOUSLY right. On the contrary. It then becomes OBVIOUSLY WRONG.
Quote from: poynt99 on June 11, 2011, 04:41:43 PMWhat if we don’t measure the battery voltage with the probes placed directly across the battery terminals? Well, it turns out that if dealt with properly, this is not a huge problem at all. We know that the battery voltage should be essentially a flat line representing the battery terminal voltage. We also know that if we take a battery voltage measurement with the probes placed across two points that include any amount of parasitic inductance (i.e. battery wiring), the measurement points will show a considerable amount of ripple riding on the true DC voltage if observed with an oscilloscope. No problem.
Because we know that the battery voltage should be “flatâ€, we are permitted to apply a significant amount of filtering (or averaging) to the signal being measured across these two “displaced†battery measurement points. The result is a reading of DC voltage minus a small DC voltage drop across the battery wiring resistance. In other words, this voltage measurement will be extremely close to the same measurement made with the probes directly across the battery terminals.
No Poynty Point. You do not KNOW that the battery voltage should be flat. You are ASSUMING that it SHOULD BE FLAT. Well. It's NOT FLAT. NOR DOES IT RIPPLE. It oscillates - that tsunami thing again. HUGE VOLTAGE VARIATIONS.
I've just previewed. This post is way too long and way too repetitive. I need to end it.
Regards,
Rosemary
Guys,
I keep hoping this thread will close - at least until I get the paper published. All that's happening is that Poynty is delaying this closure by his endless and utterly unscientific analyses. I think that either he or I should get to the gullet of the argument.
There has, for some time on these forums - been the evidence of a 'voltage spike' that is widely known to result from counter electromotive force, or back electromotive force. This is the energy that is traditionally understood to be stored on circuit components as a result of current flow from a supply source. And our claim has been, from the beginning, that the voltage 'spike' represents - not stored but - 'regenerated' energy. Here's why.
Inductive laws state that a changing magnetic field induces an electric field and vice versa. When the energy supply from the source is prevented - in open circuit conditions - and as provided for by a switched period, then this is what happens. The stored potential difference on the circuit material collapses. In collapsing it is also a 'changing magnetic field'. By changing it is inducing a reversed voltage. That reversed voltage induces a current flow. That current flow is able to move in anti phase to the initialised voltage from the source. The proposal is that the level of voltage is equal to the voltage first applied. Therefore the amount of current flow generated from that 'changed' or regenerated potential difference is equal to the amount of energy that was first applied from the source. Therefore - theoretically - as much can be returned as was first applied.
But here's the thing. That 'spike' is invariably contested. It's full value can never be seen on standard oscilloscopes because they don't have the bandwidth required to pick it up at the speed at which it manifests. More sophisticated oscilloscopes do have this - but their accessibility is limited which also makes the full value of the results of those spike, less accessible.
So. We've circumvented that problem. Here's what the circuit does. Instead of just 'spiking' there is a path that is now available to the circuit to allow the current that it generates, to flow UNOBSTRUCTED. Now we can see the full 'current' potential of that spike and get to the actual questions as to what is happening.
Instead of getting there - Poynty is tying himself into knots and then throwing that knotted mess into the air in the hopes that it'll stand there - like a Fakir's rope trick. He's arguing that a battery can only deliver a steady dc current flow. This is right. But by the same token it can ONLY be recharged by a reversed current flow. We see a reversed current flow. The question then is 'does this recharge the battery? That's the ONLY question that still remains to be resolved. Because, according to classical protocols it is REQUIRED that this is recharged. And our evidence is that the battery only 'retains' its charge. Now we get to the actual questions. What then makes current flow - because if the battery always ends up at it's initial voltage value - then why? According to the measured returning current - it should also have INCREASED - substantially.
And that goes to the heart of the thesis which is the ONLY thing that no-one is inclined to get their minds around. But hopefully it will be addressed if that paper is published. So. It's absolutely futile to speculate on whether or not there is a gain to potential difference. That's conclusively evident. There is none. And it's futile to speculate on whether or not the battery is outperforming its watt hour rating. That's conclusively evident. It does. The circuit is able to dissipate SUBSTANTIAL wattage without any reduction in battery voltage - over significant time periods. But the questions remain. Why does the battery voltage not climb to greater than it's starting voltage. And by the same token - why does it not fall in line with its measured capacity? Both are highly problematic because there are no scientific precedents to explain either question.
Regards,
Rosemary
From the last installment in this detailed analysis, it was established that for INPUT power measurements involving DC sources, the source voltage can be measured with either an oscilloscope (using the MEAN computation) or DMM. It was shown that the DC source voltage measurement could be taken directly across the battery terminals, or at the far end of a considerable length of battery feed wiring, with essentially the same resulting average voltage reading.
This DC source voltage measurement is a DC value with essentially no ripple associated with it. With heavy enough averaging in the DMM (with the aid of an RC low-pass filter if necessary), the resulting measurement will be a smooth DC value. This DC value becomes a “constant†multiplicand that is multiplied with the instantaneous current to produce instantaneous power. As there is zero phase angle between a DC voltage and any current, phase considerations need not be taken into account for this INPUT power measurement.
At this point, the equation for average INPUT power (Pin) is as follows:
Pin(avg) = AVG[VBAT(DC) x VCSR/CSR(t)], and in words;
The average input power is equal to the average of the product of the DC battery voltage (in DC) and the scaled (by the CSR value) instantaneous CSR voltage (which is battery current).
As the AVG and DC values of a DC quantity are equal, the DC battery voltage in the above equation can be moved outside the square brackets as follows:
Pin(avg) = VBAT(AVG) x AVG[VCSR/CSR(t)], where VBAT(AVG) is readily obtained (as previously described) by using a DMM or scope, and is a constant, eg. “71Vâ€.
In summary, we have established that the voltage of a voltage source is essentially a constant, and that in order to obtain the average INPUT power figure, this constant is multiplied with the average of the source’s instantaneous current.
What is “the average of the source’s instantaneous current�
Before we answer that question, let’s briefly look at an important aspect of the DC source INPUT power measurement. What this measurement strictly entails, is the net average power from or to the source. Although pulsed alternating currents may be involved, there will always be a net average power either being supplied by the DC source to the circuit, or vice-versa.
So the average of the DC source’s current is obtained simply by applying an averaging function to the instantaneous voltage wave form across the CSR. As you may have already surmised, this averaging function can readily be accomplished with the use of a DMM, with or without the implementation of an optional non-loading RC low-pass filter.
What this measurement results in, is a constant and stable net DC voltage across the CSR. Once this DC voltage is divided by the value of the CSR, we are left with the net average current from or to the DC source (battery) (and this value of current is DC).
Important Note: The DMM or oscilloscope probe positioning across the CSR is far more critical than is the case for the battery voltage measurement. This is due to the fact that the true battery voltage is a constant (permitting us to heavily filter out any ripple caused by parasitic inductance), whereas the battery’s current is not. In order to obtain an accurate average current reading from the DC source (battery), it is imperative that a non-inductive CSR be used, and that the probes be placed as close as possible to its body. In the simulation, there is 200nH of parasitic inductance associated with the CSR. I found that the resulting added ripple caused an error of only a few percent, but folks should be aware of this potential pitfall nonetheless.
As we are permitted to heavily filter (average) the battery voltage measurement (because in reality it is a constant voltage when measured directly across its terminals), for a similar reason (i.e. a fixed CSR) we are also permitted to heavily “filter†the value of the CSR resistor. In the simulation, when we apply averaging to both the voltage across and current through (using the PSpice current probe) the CSR, then divide this average voltage by the average current (Ohm’s law), the result is in fact the resistive value as marked on the CSR.
In the case as applied to the oscillator circuit, this has been verified as shown in a previous installment of the analysis, i.e. the CSR value used for computing average current is 0.25 Ohms.
So finally, we are left with an extremely simple, accurate, and accessible method for obtaining the average INPUT power measurement Pin(avg) for any DC source;
Pin(avg) = VBAT(avg) x VCSR(avg)/CSR, which reads;
The average (DC source) input power is equal to the average battery voltage, times the average CSR voltage, divided by the CSR value (as marked or measured).
A special note for anyone wishing to verify the proper orientation of the measurement probes placed across the battery and the CSR:
Remove any switching or oscillating circuitry such that your inductive/resistive load is powered directly and only by the DC source. Leave the CSR in the circuit, and measure the voltage across both the battery and CSR. Note the polarity of the voltage and orientation of the probes for each.
Re-introduce your switching/oscillating circuitry and be sure to connect the measurement probes EXACTLY the same way as the previous test. Make the same notes and compare the polarities noted in each test case.
If you wish to prove that your DC source is acquiring energy or charge, this simple comparison test will without a doubt, reveal the truth.
.99
EDIT: Changed "device" to "DC source" in last paragraph.
Dear Poynt. Are you presuming to advise our members on a new way to determine power that has no bearing on standard protocols? Because if so, you're doing a good job of it. Some time back you proposed the application of the terms Pin and Pout. But that use is decidedly NOT standard and it is also DECIDEDLY FLAWED. If you are trying to get these measurements established on readily accessible ammeters and voltmeters - then I'm afraid that it's an exercise in futility. The resonating frequency of these oscillations exceeds your average DMM's capabilities. This is PRECISELY why these benefits have been so entirely hidden and for so long.
The fact is that the oscillations that are evident over the battery are that extreme that they can take the battery from almost zero to upwards of twice it's input voltage. Indeed, there are some settings where it is possible to take the battery voltage to a negative voltage for really brief moments in that switching cycle. And no amount of suggestion, or proposal or argument to AVERAGE that value will cut it. And this is PRECISELY because you are EXCLUDING the 'recharge' cycle that results AFTER the 'discharge' cycle. Current discharged from the battery will DISCHARGE potential difference. Current returned to the battery will RECHARGE potential difference. It's that simple.
Now. To get back to your obsessive determination to average your battery voltage. We are using a SWITCHED CYCLE. Regardless of the voltage potential that is evident - regardless of the waveforms - just consider this. The standard 'switched' cycle implies that for some period of each switching cycle the battery is DISCONNECTED. It is not able to discharge anything at all. That Pin - if it means anything at all then becomes Pin x ONLY the period while the battery has a circuit path that is also closed - that it can discharge any energy at all. Now. Just for a moment - look at the oscillation across the current sensing resistor. It is sometimes recharging and it is sometimes discharging. Therefore during that period - REGARDLESS - 50% of the time MAY be considered as coming from the battery. And 50% of the time it most certainly cannot be considered to be coming from the battery. So. If you are still relying on Pin as a measure of the energy delivered by the battery - then CORRECTLY time comes into the equation. And it needs to be divided - at its least - by 2. AND if there's also an applied switching period from an applied duty cycle - then it also CORRECTLY needs to factor in that ON time AS WELL. So. Time is no longer an 'appendage' to that equation. It requires some much needed qualifications.
THEN. Look if you will to the path that is made available for the battery to discharge any energy at all. Let's start with our own Test 2 of the report. There is a switching period - but the offset has been set that only a limited current can discharge from the battery during this 'on' time. This means, effectively, that notwithstanding the closed circuit conditions that allow a discharge from the battery supply - we've 'choked' off the most of that potential that we're getting in the region of 0.175 amps for about 18% of each switching period. Then look at that oscillation that is triggered during the period when the battery CANNOT DISCHARGE ANY CURRENT AT ALL. There is very real evidence of both a positive and a negative part of each cycle in that subsequent oscillation. Where does that energy come from if the battery cannot supply any current? And how can you ASSUME that it's discharging when - SELF EVIDENTLY - it is also recharging during the time that it's oscillating.
The proposal is that the added energy to the system, comes from a current generated in the material of the circuit itself. Let's speculate that this is a possibility and ASSUME - for purposes of this argument that indeed the circuit components have GENERATED a current flow from those collapsing fields. And in line with this - presume also that that material has become an energy supply source. How then would it perform? It would discharge a counterclockwise current flow that would recharge the battery and that current would then return to its own terminal supply source - being the circuit material itself. So. Also for the purposes of this argument let's assume that this in fact happens. Effectively the circuit presents two terminals - in the same way that the battery has two terminals. But UNLIKE THE BATTERY - the circuit path for the flow of that current flow - HAS NO RESTRICTIONS.
And the availability of the path? This is now established at the body diodes of Q2. It's polarity can most certainly accommodate a reverse current flow. BUT. What flows is now greater than was initially discharged as it has the added benefit of that extra voltage at the battery. It now has all that extra oomph. That's the proposed SOURCE of those extreme oscillations. Then the cycle repeats itself - because in discharging it represents changing magnetic fields. Changing magnetic fields induce electric fields - and so it goes.
So. To your equations and your post. Your last installment established NOTHING. It was a parade of poor equations and excessively flawed argument. Input power - as you put it - refers, presumably, to power delivered by the battery. Since half the time in each oscillation power is being returned to the battery you need to divide your Pin by 2 - for starters. Alternatively you need to factor in both Pin and Pout. Better still, just stick to standard protocols. Watts delivered minus watts returned x time = Joules = measure of Power delivered by the battery supply.
Regarding where your voltage should be read? I would have thought that this should be as close to the supply source as possible. And regarding what voltage should be read over that battery - then it may be fair to 'average' this but THEN - you will also need to divide this average by the time period as - for 50% of the oscillation period it is absolutely NOT delivering any energy at all. The average of the recharge and the average of the discharge may leave one with a stable voltage. But there is STILL THAT PERIOD WHERE IT IS NOT DELIVERING ENERGY. And again. That MUST be factored in.
And my comments regarding the correct computation of amperage. This pertains. It is ABSOLUTELY required that this is the SUM of that oscillation. And to determine this true value you need to get some good measuring instruments. Regarding the need to factor in 0.25 Ohms - I'm not sure why you stress this. In the first instance - it does NOTHING to change the evident polarities of that current flow. The oscillations persist - regardless. And unless any of those who replicate this test - actually apply that PURE NON-INDUCTIVE resistor - then it's irrelevant. If it's a pure resistor take the Ohms as read. If it's not - then don't. Don't assume that REGARDLESS of it's induction - you can still apply the 'as read' ohmage. Because that's quite simply WRONG. All of which makes your equations as wrong as they ever were.
Quote from: poynt99 on June 14, 2011, 11:15:14 PM
Pin(avg) = AVG[VBAT(DC) x VCSR/CSR(t)], and in words;
The average input power is equal to the average of the product of the DC battery voltage (in DC) and the scaled (by the CSR value) instantaneous CSR voltage (which is battery current).
This is, therefore, and most decidedly WRONG. When you've addressed this then only will we be back on track.
Regards,
Rosemary
ADDED Here's my own proposal for the correct equation as the basis of your power computation. Vi dt. It's simpler and it has the added merit of being CORRECT in all aspects. the downside is that you need some sophisticated measuring instruments. Alternatively, if you must average everything - then multiply your average battery voltage by current determined as the sum of voltages across that CSR divided by its Ohms value. That value, at least, incorporates the period when the battery is recharging. Sorry. I had to delete a paragraph. It was wrong. I'll try it again later when I've got time.
Guys - this is important. It's back to the ACTUAL conditions and the ACTUAL questions that standard protocols don't strictly apply. This too may show WHY all this needs a fuller investigation.
Standard protocols are this. A battery's potential difference is measured to be greater than zero. And when it discharges this potential difference, as current, then the current moves clockwise through a circuit. And when, correspondingly, we recharge a battery - then, the applied voltage relative to that supply is NEGATIVE. And the current flow that is applied to the supply is also negative - shown as an counter clockwise current flow through that circuit. So far so good.
Now we get to our circuit. The clockwise flow of current is prevented when the circuit opens. Then the negative or anticlockwise current flow kicks in. This HOWEVER - results in a REDUCTION in that battery voltage. And when this, again REVERSES at the end of the first oscillation - it then results in a clockwise flow of current that INCREASES the battery voltage. Which puts paid to the EXPECTED results of the flow of current.
So. One can then ask why? Why, notwithstanding a recharge or a counter clockwise current flow - is there a resulting discharge to the supply? And notwithstanding a discharge or a clockwise current flow - is there a resulting recharge to the supply?
Again. Traditionally amperage is seen to result in a DISCHARGE of energy from the supply. Effectively it's at the cost of the energy from the supply. But HERE - on this circuit, when there's an APPARENT DISCHARGE - when the current flow is greater than zero - when the current flow is moving in a clockwise direction through the circuit the result is an INCREASE - a HUGE increase - in the battery voltage.
And correspondingly when the amperage is seen to result in a RECHARGE of energy from the supply then we expect it to be to the benefit of the supply. HERE AGAIN. When there's an APPARENT RECHARGE - when the current flow is less than zero - when the current flow is moving in an counter clockwise direction through the circuit then the actual result is a DECREASE - a HUGE decrease in the battery voltage.
So. The question. What price vi dt as per classical protocols? Because vi dt in either cycle is going to result in the potential difference being retained at the supply rather than otherwise. It's either a reduction to voltage as a result of negative current flow - or it's an increase to voltage with a positive current flow. The ONLY way this can be resolved is if one assumes that there is a second supply source. Then one can take it as read that the second supply source is working in anti phase to the first or primary supply source. And apparently the two together to establish a retention of the potential difference at both sources. And that much is evident. But it's only evident during the negatively triggered oscillation phase.
Then one can also ask this. How come the current from the supply can only be discharged during the ON period of the switching cycle when the circuit is, effectively, closed? Why is it that there is no oscillation evident then? This too can only be answered by applying a property to current flow that is different when it comes from the supply than when it comes from the source. But you will rightly argue - current is current. Indeed. However, if you attribute a polarised property to its actual material then there would be that to restrict it's flow through the body diodes in one direction which would NOT be afforded in an opposite direction. Effectively - if current has an inherent polarisation then it would determine it's potential passage - or not - through those diodes. Therefore, perhaps current has a polarised property. And possibly it is, indeed coming from an alternate source than the supply.
Then you may ask - so what? We all know that current can be seen as 'positively biased' or 'negatively biased' precisely because it can present either above or below zero - moving either in one direction or the other through a circuit. BUT. The point is this. If indeed that bias is that fundamental that it also presents EITHER a POSITIVE or a NEGATIVE - then the material that it comprises cannot be an electron - as this ALWAYS HAS A NEGATIVE CHARGE. Therefore - the next question is this. IF the current does not comprises electrons - then what is it? And that comes back to the thesis which proposes a dipole and that the fields that are structured from this dipole always have EITHER a positive justification or a NEGATIVE justification.
In any event the equation vi dt is no longer applied in terms of averaging anything at all as Poynty is trying to infer. Because, quite simply, the anti phase angles of that oscillation also require some factoring in of that anomalous relationship where the clockwise current flow evidently CHARGES the battery when it should be discharging. And where the counter clockwise current flow evidently DISCHARGES the battery when it should, in fact be recharging.
And until the implications of this are taken on board - then we are not doing any kind of justice to what is clearly an anomalous result - evident experimentally and on simulations. It's simply inappropriate to apply standard averaging values - as they, in turn, are based on assumptions that have NO relevance to this circuit result.
I hope that makes the position clearer. I'm tired of Poynt's endless attempts to fudge and minimise these results. They're extraordinary. Fortunately there are those who are also able to think the problem through more deeply - and who are also more committed to finding the actual answer to the actual questions
Regards,
Rosemary
CORRECTED
To be completely honest, most of this is over my head. What I really don't understand is why you haven't run this setup continuous for the last 6 or 7 months. If after this time the batteries are still at full charge, I would have to agree with you as many others would. But until then, there is always some doubt.
Something also doesn't seem right to me. Here you have Poynt99 trying to explain the measuring procedure and points and instead of indicating or discussing why you are doing it the way you are, you try to discredit him.
To me, there are more credible people telling me that you are wrong then there are agreeing with you.
Why haven't you run the circuit continuously for the last 6 months? Don't you think that it would be a way to prove your claim?
Quote from: MrMag on June 15, 2011, 07:48:49 PM
Something also doesn't seem right to me. Here you have Poynt99 trying to explain the measuring procedure and points and instead of indicating or discussing why you are doing it the way you are, you try to discredit him.
Are you serious? Do you really propose that it's me trying to discredit Poynt.99? That's got to be a joke. Here's a man who has actively encouraged and advanced whole THREADS on his forum to his members to let rip on my reputation. NO HOLDS BARRED. On record is a solemn undertaking not to moderate anything at all. To this day they hold record of post after post after post where I am accused of FRAUD - LUNACY - DUPLICITY - DELUSIONAL CONFUSIONS - IDIOCY. Actually that last was qualified. Apparently it's presumptuous to even consider myself an IDIOT. I'm in fact - MORONIC. He has gone on record to say that he will DEBUNK our claim and has advised all and sundry that I have ABSOLUTELY NO KNOWLEDGE OF ANYTHING SCIENTIFIC. He has written spiteful emails to me to tell me that it's laughably absurd for me to comment on anything at all - least of all matters scientific. He has INVITED people to join his forums for the sole purpose of - let me emphasise this - with NO OTHER AGENDA THAN TO DISCREDIT ME IN ANY WAY THEY SEE FIT. And while all this was going on he BLOCKED MY VIEW OF THESE COMMENTS through the simple expediency of accessing my IP ADDRESS. And if you think - like he claims - that I am LYING - then I suggest you take a stroll there and look at this for yourself. Nor does it end there. He contributed to and actively supported a BLOGSPOT dedicated to maligning my reputation. He has allowed publication and links to private videos that I rather recklessly trusted to certain replicators who then attempted to claim our technology as their PERSONAL DISCOVERY. And if you want proof of all that - then it's also all there. Loud and clear and unambiguous. Not only that - but this is the REAL JOKE. All those members ONLY JOINED his forum to INDULGE THAT ATTACK ON MY GOOD NAME. Never joined before. Never seen since. That little pack of dogs, the Pickles, and Mookies and Fuzzies.
SO MR MAG. I suspect that your pointing your finger at the wrong person. All you can accuse me of is that I tried to stay motivated NOTWITHSTANDING. What I'm now trying to do, rather urgently - is to try and point out that POYNTY POINT seems to have a disproportionate need to discredit these results. And you can put any spin on that which you prefer. Personally I'm satisfied that there's an agenda. But that's just my opinion. It's rather born out though in that, somewhat against the traditions of good science - he now refuses to acknowledge the very results that his own simulations show. Which is a joke. Or it would be - if it were actually funny. And meanwhile he - like so many of you - is also ACTIVELY encouraging REALLY expensive builds of Romero's device. Probably because they all know that results here - unlike on our own device - will probably remain inconclusive - unhappily. Another successful distraction. So. That way the members here will move away from working and proven technology and waste their time on yet more replications.
Quote from: MrMag on June 15, 2011, 07:48:49 PMTo me, there are more credible people telling me that you are wrong then there are agreeing with you.
Which only goes to show how successful is that agenda. :'( More's the pity.
The simple fact is this. We - that is - the ENTIRE OU COMMUNITY - all those MANY who have worked - for countless hours - at untold expense - to generate and puzzle out the significance of that SPIKE - that ETERNAL EVIDENCE OF SOMETHING BACK FOR WHAT APPEARS TO BE AT NO COST FROM A SUPPLY - when we, our small team of dedicated researchers here in SA - FINALLY - determine that that SPIKE IS TRULY MEANINGFUL - TRULY AMAZING - TRULY PROOF OF THE GENERATION OF ENERGY rather than the result of STORED ENERGY - THAT IT IS TRULY GREATER THAN UNITY - IN FACT THAT ALSO NOW MEASURES COP INFINITY - THAT IT CAN BE APPLIED IN JUST ABOUT ANY WAY AT ALL - AND THAT IT WILL ALWAYS ADVANCE CLEAN GREEN - when FINALLY - we manage to UNFOLD the ACTUAL PROOF - then you would, nonetheless - prefer to believe Poynty Point and his utterly pointless, utterly absurd, utterly unscientific equations? Like I say. More's the pity. And JUST CONSIDER. That's a tragedy in the making for Over Unity. And how COMFORTABLY this falls in with that REQUIRED AGENDA. May I suggest, with the utmost respect - that you too are DUPED.
Quote from: MrMag on June 15, 2011, 07:48:49 PMWhy haven't you run the circuit continuously for the last 6 months? Don't you think that it would be a way to prove your claim?
This is why. We use a functions generator. The setting on ALL THOSE GENERATORS are brittle. Either that or something in the experiment factors in. The settings CHANGE. For whatever reason - it then it develops SO MUCH ENERGY over the circuit apparatus that EVERYTHING COOKS and we've even had an occasion where the battery caught alight. THEREFORE IT NEEDS CONSTANT MONITORING. If it's run continuously - it would need to be monitored DAY AND NIGHT. I do not have the energy to manage this. I do not have the funds to pay for this continual monitoring. BUT I AM ON RECORD. IF THERE IS ANY SOLEMN UNDERTAKING BY THE SCIENTIFIC COMMUNITY THAT SUCH A RESULT WILL BE CONSIDERED UNEQUIVOCAL - THEN I WILL HAPPILY RUN THIS TO THE EXTENT OF THE BATTERIES' WATT HOUR RATING. But I'm NOT about to embark on that test UNLESS there's that undertaking. Because my experience is that NOTHING - NO EVIDENCE WHATSOEVER - is going to cut it. Unhappily.
:'( ???
Rosemary
Quote from: Rosemary Ainslie on June 16, 2011, 01:36:33 AM
- he now refuses to acknowledge the very results that his own simulations show.
Those that have followed my posts and the recent analysis I gave, know that the truth is quite the opposite.
In actual fact Rose, it is
you that is refusing to acknowledge what the simulations show.
.99
Quote from: poynt99 on June 16, 2011, 08:19:06 AM
Those that have followed my posts and the recent analysis I gave, know that the truth is quite the opposite.
In actual fact Rose, it is you that is refusing to acknowledge what the simulations show.
.99
Truth or otherwise has nothing to do with this. Experiments can't lie. Nor - for that matter can they 'tell the truth'. It simply 'is what it is'. What you've done is to so profoundly alter the bases of that experiment that it's no longer experimentally relevant. And your subsequent analysis of that experiment has nothing to do with the evidence put forward either by ourselves or by you. It has even less to do with standard measurement protocols and good scientific practice. And it has absolutely nothing whatsoever to do with acceptable mathematical practices and protocols. It's a romp in misinformation, muddled mathematics and sundry confusions.
The 'lie' comes in when you try to pass yourself of as having sufficient knowledge to comment. Because you clearly need a refresher course in power computations. The only other thing that I can barely accept is that the members here are that ill informed that they also cannot see it for the nonsense that it is. But I still depend on the caliber of those many readers of this thread Poynt. I think the saying is that you can fool some of the people some of the time - something like that. But that's when TRUTH really has the edge. It survives abuse and it survives all that nonsense. And experimental evidence survives EVERYTHING. That's always the final arbiter.
Rosemary
Rosemary, your first statement does sound a little delusional and idiotic. Just because threads are not moderated it doesn't mean he is out to get you. I think it is more of a " freedom of speech" thing. Do you know for a fact that he invited people there "only to discredit you"? I know there was a couple of guys there that might of got a little carried away but you have to understand that this is expected. As strong as you are for your thoughts of this circuit, you are going to have others who are far more against it. I do check into Poynt's forum 3 or 4 times a week and right now there is very little discussion of your circuit. I'm still trying to figure out if this is a good thing or not.
This forum and Poynt's forum are overunity forums. If you really think they are against a system that shows a COP of infinity, there is definitely something wrong. I really think he is only trying to point things out to you not discredit you but I can see from your point of view that it would look that way.
As far as your second statement goes, I am not a product of his agenda or duped. The only "Actual proof" that would convince me that your circuit has a COP of infinity is a continuous run to the watt hour rating. It's really too bad that you will not do the continuous run unless the "Scientific community" will accept it. You know this will never happen. Who is the scientific community and do you think that they would actually make a decision? They are comfortable in their little boxes and don't want anything to shake it up. Who I would want to prove this to is other OU researchers. If you did this test and there was no drop in the batteries watt hour rating, I wouldn't care what anyone said against the circuit. To me, and I'm sure a lot of others, that is the proof I'm looking for.
If you really want acceptance from the OU community, the only way you are going to get it is with a continuous run of the circuit. If I were you, I would find a way to do this because if you don't, I feel it will never be accepted.
I honestly do hope you are right and I give you credit for sticking with it so long. This does show your faith and belief in the circuits capabilities. Your next step is to convince us and you know what it will take. You just need to do it.
No Mr Mag. I am absolutely NOT interested in convincing you or, indeed, ANY members on the overunity forums. I only post here because I can depend on those adverse and usually absurd objections and arguments to strengthen our own. If I write for anyone at all it's for those silent and noncontributing readers. It's like all democracies. We only ever hear from the noisy minority. I would have to be delusional indeed to think that there's an ounce of courtesy, loyalty or integrity in the most of the members here - let alone the forum owners. They, like you, are fickle and self-serving and pretend to authority that is absolutely not yours or theirs to own. Very few exceptions to this. Poynty knows NOTHING about power analysis - much less equations. Stefan knows NOTHING about our circuit that he presumes to comment on. Both ACTIVELY work against our evidence. And why? If, indeed, they want to promote clean green? Because there's nothing cleaner or greener than the circuit that we've now reported on.
And DO NOT TELL ME TO DO THAT BATTERY TEST UNLESS YOU CAN ALSO TELL ME WHAT THE ADVANTAGES ARE. Convincing you is certainly of NO advantage to me. You'll endorse it today and then deny it tomorrow. THAT'S how the members here work.
Rosemary
Your technology will need to be able to self sustain to prove it's validity and viability. Refusing to just let it run makes no logical sense if it actually works.
Quote from: happyfunball on June 16, 2011, 10:03:51 AM
Your technology will need to be able to self sustain to prove it's validity and viability. Refusing to just let it run makes no logical sense if it actually works.
your comment makes no logical sense. heat pumps are often cop>3-5... do they self sustain or self run? does their failure to do so make them invalid and nonviable? ::)
Quote from: Rosemary Ainslie on June 16, 2011, 09:20:46 AM
No Mr Mag. I am absolutely NOT interested in convincing you or, indeed, ANY members on the overunity forums. I only post here because I can depend on those adverse and usually absurd objections and arguments to strengthen our own. If I write for anyone at all it's for those silent and noncontributing readers. It's like all democracies. We only ever hear from the noisy minority. I would have to be delusional indeed to think that there's an ounce of courtesy, loyalty or integrity in the most of the members here - let alone the forum owners. They, like you, are fickle and self-serving and pretend to authority that is absolutely not yours or theirs to own. Very few exceptions to this. Poynty knows NOTHING about power analysis - much less equations. Stefan knows NOTHING about our circuit that he presumes to comment on. Both ACTIVELY work against our evidence. And why? If, indeed, they want to promote clean green? Because there's nothing cleaner or greener than the circuit that we've now reported on.
And DO NOT TELL ME TO DO THAT BATTERY TEST UNLESS YOU CAN ALSO TELL ME WHAT THE ADVANTAGES ARE. Convincing you is certainly of NO advantage to me. You'll endorse it today and then deny it tomorrow. THAT'S how the members here work.
Rosemary
I understand where you stand now. You just want to post with no questions or comments from others. It is nice to know that you think that most of us have no integrity, courtesy or loyalty. If you really think this way of us and don't care what we think why do you even bother posting at all?
I guess if you don't know what the advantage of running the battery test is, don't bother.
Why do people who make claims of huge discoveries start to attack people when they are questioned or have recommendations?
And you think that you know more about power measurement then Stefan or Poynt? Who is delusional?
The only recommendation I had was to do a continuous circuit run test to prove that the batteries wouldn't drain down. I thought that it would help you get more people on your side. But since most of us lack integrity and you don't really care what we think, I won't bother questioning the almighty any further. What a bitch.
Quote from: MrMag on June 16, 2011, 12:00:27 PM
I understand where you stand now. You just want to post with no questions or comments from others. It is nice to know that you think that most of us have no integrity, courtesy or loyalty. If you really think this way of us and don't care what we think why do you even bother posting at all?
I've already explained this.
Quote from: MrMag on June 16, 2011, 12:00:27 PM
I guess if you don't know what the advantage of running the battery test is, don't bother.
Not sure where you got that from? I never said anything about there not being an advantage to running the test. I only said that I could not AFFORD to run it as required. I explained this? Did you even bother to read it?
Quote from: MrMag on June 16, 2011, 12:00:27 PMWhy do people who make claims of huge discoveries start to attack people when they are questioned or have recommendations?
No idea. As we have NEVER CLAIMED A DISCOVERY let alone a HUGE discovery - then I suppose this question has nothing to do with me.
Quote from: MrMag on June 16, 2011, 12:00:27 PMAnd you think that you know more about power measurement then Stefan or Poynt? Who is delusional?
Who indeed? I have NO IDEA whether or not Stefan understand power measurements or not. What I DO know is that he has NO IDEA what's happening on our circuit. Poynty has NO IDEA on power measurements. His efforts are absurd.
Quote from: MrMag on June 16, 2011, 12:00:27 PMThe only recommendation I had was to do a continuous circuit run test to prove that the batteries wouldn't drain down. I thought that it would help you get more people on your side. But since most of us lack integrity and you don't really care what we think, I won't bother questioning the almighty any further. What a bitch.
I explained this. How often do you need me to spell it out? To run that test comprehensively and with the correct controls and with the required supervision would cost me of upwards of R10 000.00. Are you seriously proposing that I run this to satisfy your curiosity? And am I therefore a bitch - because I decline? That's tough. That I claim a certain want of integrity in contributing members such as yourself - is PRECISELY because you see fit to DEMAND whatever evidence you whimsically require - and when I CANNOT comply - you then claim that the test would FAIL. That's the level of integrity that I've been obliged to deal with here. How typical.
Rosemary.
Quote from: happyfunball on June 16, 2011, 10:03:51 AM
Your technology will need to be able to self sustain to prove it's validity and viability. Refusing to just let it run makes no logical sense if it actually works.
WHAT A JOKE. Can you read? If so then KINDLY READ MY REPLY AND ANSWER IN THE CONTEXT OF THAT REPLY. Unless you wish to donate the cost of running that test. Then - by all means. I'll oblige.
R
Added
And what's more we will GUARANTEE A SUCCESSFUL OUTCOME. So? How deep are your pockets HAPPYFUNBALL? I'm more than game to do this PROVIDED I do not carry that expense of monitoring.Changed 'poked' to pockets. Poked was probably more apt.
Rosemary,
Is it possible to test your circuit on smaller (capacity) batteries?
So that your test run will be a few hours or so.
GL.
Quote from: Groundloop on June 16, 2011, 02:13:53 PM
Rosemary,
Is it possible to test your circuit on smaller (capacity) batteries?
So that your test run will be a few hours or so.
GL.
Hi Groundloop. The short answer is that I don't know. The whole thesis requires an intimate relationship between the mass of the circuit and the mass of the supply. What I do know is that we've had similar results with a single battery - so. It's more than possible. But our own circuit does NOT oscillate with a single battery supply. Which also means that this mass ratio may have to be factored in. We can certainly get some significant results with just two batteries - but there again - we don't get that high dissipation which, in my opinion - is what needs to be tested to the duration. But frankly - I"m not interested in this side of things. We included our battery draw down rate in a previous submission - the one published in Quantum. There we ran two tests concurrently with a control dissipating the same level as our test. The control was dead - at 10 volts per battery - when the experimental batteries had not even dropped by a quarter volt. We included those results and Professor Jandrell - the reviewer - categorically refused to allow any reference to battery draw down rates. Apparently it establishes NOTHING conclusively. And my interests are ONLY to get this to the academic forum - somehow. And they ONLY want classical measurement protocols. Quite apart from which any evaluation of the battery performance actually DOES need chemistry experts. We're none of us qualified to comment - not on our team.
But it should not be required. Think back. Everyone looked at the evidence of battery performance on Bedini's tests and then they wanted MEASUREMENTS. Now that they've got MEASUREMENTS they want battery performance. It should be MORE than enough to point to the fact that our batteries have now lasted 9 months without a recharge. And they're ALL at the kick off voltages. What more evidence is there required?
In any event - I'll do those tests gladly. But provided ONLY that it EITHER is considered conclusive by all EXPERTS - or that someone pays me to do them. I'm not picking up another tab unless there's some value. These last three years have cost an awful lot of money. And I've dedicated my time here with none of the benefits that I normally get in trading. And it's been a thankless task. A baptism by fire. And the only plus is that it's attracted the attention of some academics that we could, at least, get it to a technical college for progress. The rest of the experience has been decidedly futile. I realise now that there's way more ego here than anything else. I just wish I had not learned so much about so many. I preferred it when I thought these forums were crammed by genuine enthusiasts. I now feel that they're just a bunch of old lady bashers - and that they selectively choose their evidence on the basis of the masculinity or otherwise of the members. Which makes me somewhat underqualified. Not a happy time Goundloop.
Kindest regards,
Rosemary
Quote from: WilbyInebriated on June 16, 2011, 10:26:58 AM
your comment makes no logical sense. heat pumps are often cop>3-5... do they self sustain or self run? does their failure to do so make them invalid and nonviable? ::)
Heat pump analogy is absurd. No moving parts with rosemary's device, purely electrical/ heat. she should simply loop it.
Rose,
I fully acknowledge and understand what the simulations are indicating. The real problem however, is that you clearly don't.
.99
Quote from: Rosemary Ainslie on June 16, 2011, 12:38:52 PM
WHAT A JOKE. Can you read? If so then KINDLY READ MY REPLY AND ANSWER IN THE CONTEXT OF THAT REPLY. Unless you wish to donate the cost of running that test. Then - by all means. I'll oblige.
R
Added
And what's more we will GUARANTEE A SUCCESSFUL OUTCOME. So? How deep are your pockets HAPPYFUNBALL? I'm more than game to do this PROVIDED I do not carry that expense of monitoring.
Changed 'poked' to pockets. Poked was probably more apt.
Lol you already have the batteries and the circuit/ function generator. Why would it cost you a dime
Quote from: Rosemary Ainslie on June 16, 2011, 02:37:14 PM
Hi Groundloop. The short answer is that I don't know. The whole thesis requires an intimate relationship between the mass of the circuit and the mass of the supply. What I do know is that we've had similar results with a single battery - so. It's more than possible. But our own circuit does NOT oscillate with a single battery supply. Which also means that this mass ratio may have to be factored in. We can certainly get some significant results with just two batteries - but there again - we don't get that high dissipation which, in my opinion - is what needs to be tested to the duration. But frankly - I"m not interested in this side of things. We included our battery draw down rate in a previous submission - the one published in Quantum. There we ran two tests concurrently with a control dissipating the same level as our test. The control was dead - at 10 volts per battery - when the experimental batteries had not even dropped by a quarter volt. We included those results and Professor Jandrell - the reviewer - categorically refused to allow any reference to battery draw down rates. Apparently it establishes NOTHING conclusively. And my interests are ONLY to get this to the academic forum - somehow. And they ONLY want classical measurement protocols. Quite apart from which any evaluation of the battery performance actually DOES need chemistry experts. We're none of us qualified to comment - not on our team.
But it should not be required. Think back. Everyone looked at the evidence of battery performance on Bedini's tests and then they wanted MEASUREMENTS. Now that they've got MEASUREMENTS they want battery performance. It should be MORE than enough to point to the fact that our batteries have now lasted 9 months without a recharge. And they're ALL at the kick off voltages. What more evidence is there required?
In any event - I'll do those tests gladly. But provided ONLY that it EITHER is considered conclusive by all EXPERTS - or that someone pays me to do them. I'm not picking up another tab unless there's some value. These last three years have cost an awful lot of money. And I've dedicated my time here with none of the benefits that I normally get in trading. And it's been a thankless task. A baptism by fire. And the only plus is that it's attracted the attention of some academics that we could, at least, get it to a technical college for progress. The rest of the experience has been decidedly futile. I realise now that there's way more ego here than anything else. I just wish I had not learned so much about so many. I preferred it when I thought these forums were crammed by genuine enthusiasts. I now feel that they're just a bunch of old lady bashers - and that they selectively choose their evidence on the basis of the masculinity or otherwise of the members. Which makes me somewhat underqualified. Not a happy time Goundloop.
Kindest regards,
Rosemary
Rosemary,
Thank you for taking time to answer my question. So you need a rock solid power supply to make it work.
Will it work if we rectify the mains and make a rock solid power supply? I'm thinking of a "black box" solution
where we can plug the system between a space heater and the mains. Then we can use a "Kill'oWatt"
meter to measure the power usage into the circuit. Now if the space heater is marked 2000 Watt/h and the
"Kill'oWatt" meter is shown less that that, then you have proved that your circuit has a practical application
benefit. What do you think of such a solution?
Regards,
Groundloop.
Quote from: happyfunball on June 16, 2011, 04:48:49 PM
Lol you already have the batteries and the circuit/ function generator. Why would it cost you a dime
Why indeed? You make a good point HAPPY. We'll need to monitor those tests. But that's the easy part. I'll do the first solid 8 hour night shift - as that's likely to be the least popular. Then I'll get someone to do the next 8 hour shift - and a third person to do the third 8 hour shift in every 24 hours. We'll all have to 'hole in' because we won't be able to take a break for lunch or tea - or anything at all. But that's no problem. Provided only that we get to the solution.
Now. Conservatively speaking
on the water to boil test - we're running that battery current at an outside maximum of 0.1 volts over 0.9 Ohms x 60 volts x 18% duty cycle which represents the ONLY measurable discharge from the battery - and that during the ON period of each switching cycle. That comes to a wattage discharged at 1.19 watts. The capacity of each of those batteries is let's say 10 amp hour MAX. Therefore each battery's maximum wattage potential is 120 watts - being 10 amps x 1 hour. We use 5 in series to get it to that 'water to boil' point. The batteries are in series. So. 1.19/6 = 0.199 watts per battery. Again. Each battery has a capacity of 10 amps x 1 hour = 120 watts. This means that each battery will last 120/0.19 = about 630 hours or so. Theoretically. 5 batteries will therefore last a mere 3150 hours or so. 3150 hours / 24 means the test should be proved after a test run of only 131 days. So now the three of us will be able to give you a conclusive result over a little under a 4 months. That's assuming that any energy at all is being discharged at the battery. Because we can't find that in the results.
Alternatively - let us assume that we're dissipating not less than 100 watts as measured in the heat discharged. That would be the amount of energy needed to get a little under 1 liter of water to boiling point. Now we get to the following sum. The battery's capacity is 120 watts. We've got 6 in series giving us a maximum capacity of 720 watts. We're dissipating 100 watts as evident in the temperature of the water. Therefore in a mere 7 hours and 12 minutes we would have ENTIRELY discharged all those batteries.
Now - this is the question. Have we run that test period? We've been running those tests for about 5 hours a day for a period of 9 months. NOTA BENE. We have NEVER recharged those batteries except for the 2 that caught fire. We've tested varying extremes of temperature over that entire time. We have now also tested them on different loads and different driving signals. THERE IS ABSOLUTELY NO EVIDENCE OF ANY LOSS OF VOLTAGE OVER THOSE BATTERIES.
And again. A 7.5 hour test period is DOABLE. I will happily oblige. But we'll still be left with a ZERO DISCHARGE. I'll report this. No-one will believe it. They'll ask for double. Then they'll ask for triple. And so it goes. Finally they'll ask for 130 days. If no-one is satisfied, by now that there is a zero discharge to the battery, then THERE IS ABSOLUTELY NOTHING THAT WILL SATISFY ANYONE EVER THAT THE BATTERIES ARE NOT DISCHARGING.
I am on record. If you want me to run that test for 10 days continuously - and if you will pay for the monitoring THEN I WILL DO IT. Because I cannot expect 2 people to sacrifice 8 hours a day for a 10 day period to come and sit tight and see that nothing catches fire. I will need to pay them. And frankly - even at the end of that monitoring period I am ABSOLUTELY SATISFIED that NO-ONE WILL ACCEPT THAT EVIDENCE.
SO. DO NOT ASK ME TO RUN THAT BATTERY CONTINUOUSLY. We've done this. Conservatively speaking - over a 9 month period we've dissipated not less than 4500 watts calculated at a conservative 100 watts a day x 5 days a week x 9 months.
And ALL THOSE BATTERIES ARE ALL STILL FULLY CHARGED.Rosemary
And it has to be constantly monitored. There could be a fire, etc. Its not a flashlight were talking about here. ;]
Most probably think you can just check in every week for 6 months, no trouble at all. sheesh. ;]
Hows it going Rose? Just keep on keepin on. ;]
Mags
Quote from: Magluvin on June 16, 2011, 11:37:35 PM
And it has to be constantly monitored. There could be a fire, etc. Its not a flashlight were talking about here. ;]
Most probably think you can just check in every week for 6 months, no trouble at all. sheesh. ;]
Hows it going Rose? Just keep on keepin on. ;]
Mags
Hi Mags. Always nice to see you around. Take care of yourself, and thanks for the support. Always in need of it
Rosie
;D
Quote from: Groundloop on June 16, 2011, 05:18:12 PM
Rosemary,
Thank you for taking time to answer my question. So you need a rock solid power supply to make it work. Will it work if we rectify the mains and make a rock solid power supply? I'm thinking of a "black box" solution where we can plug the system between a space heater and the mains. Then we can use a "Kill'oWatt" meter to measure the power usage into the circuit. Now if the space heater is marked 2000 Watt/h and the "Kill'oWatt" meter is shown less that that, then you have proved that your circuit has a practical application benefit. What do you think of such a solution?
Regards,
Groundloop.
There's nothing wrong with your suggestion - as ever GL. Except that we don't have the tolerances in standard MOSFETS. There is no amount of paralleling that will accommodate those high voltages that are induced in the oscillating cycles. Get past this problem and we're there. We don't even have to speculate on the outcome. It is most CERTAINLY result in a benefit. We've tested this through a variac with VERY good results. But then the objections were based on the amount of energy drawn by the variac.
Groundloop - you're the only one who's really applying himself to a solution and I'm awfully grateful for the efforts. I need to get to the nitty gritties of the technology and I'm not sure that you want to bend your mind around this. If you've got the time and the patience please read the following carefully.
We RELY on a current that has a FIXED direction. Now. When you apply a rectified AC signal here's what happens. The sine wave moves above and below zero. The assumption is that the positive voltage generates a current that moves clockwise through the circuit. And, correspondingly, the negative voltage moves the current flow counter clockwise through the circuit. So. In your mind's eye - see this as an applied current in one direction - changing back to zero and then moving in the opposite direction. Effectively you have the application of two current flows from every one cycle.
Then you rectify this. Now what happens? Here the negative component of that sine wave is only REDIRECTED. It's STILL a negative flow. But instead of presenting at the positive or drain of the circuit - it's routed through the 'back door' so to speak - that it presents at the drain as a positive. It has NOT followed the same path as the applied positive. It's still flowing in a different path. In effect the source of the positive and the source of the negative current flows are still different.
What the thesis relies on is this. Every current flow has a distinct CHARGE. A positive current flow leads with the positive - something like this >-+ -+ -+. And correspondingly a negative current flow leads with a negative charge - like this <-+ -+ -+. Now. Put those two together as they present in real time as in a sine wave. It would be >-+ -+ -+>then<-+ -+ -+<. You see for yourself that there's no conflict of like charges. NOW. Back to our circuit and let's factor in the charge at the gate. There's an applied current coming from the battery. It's justification is >-+ -+ -+> In order for this to find an appropriate charge at the bridge the functions generator would need to APPLY a '-+' because IF that charge was presented '+-' then the two positives '-+ +-' would repel. But to present that '-+' the functions generator is actually presenting a NEGATIVE charge that simply 'reads' as a positive charge relative to the system. So. Now we correctly should see that as a charge coming from the generator <-+ . It's leading with a NEGATIVE signal. The battery current sees this applied charge as a PERFECTLY POSITIVE charge alignment to link up and flow to its own source or negative rail. But the DIRECTION of that charge from the FG has reversed.
THEN. The charge presented at the gate reverses. It moves from a <-+ to a >+-. NOTA BENE AGAIN. The direction of charge from the FG has reversed relative to supply. The justification of the current from the battery is still >-+. It meets with the applied <+- charge. And then it is repelled. It SHUTS OFF the supply. The battery can no longer discharge. AGAIN. We now have >-+ -+ -+ and then <+-.
Now there's nothing to stop the potential difference on the circuit components from discharging their own voltage - that potential difference established during the time that the current flowed from the battery. It discharges to zero. The discharge involves changing magnetic fields. Changing magnetic fields induce electric fields. This induces a reverse polarity which - in turn - produces a reverse current flow. And this current flow is coming from the inductive components of the circuit material. This now presents as a NEGATIVE VOLTAGE with a NEGATIVE AND REVERSE CURRENT FLOW. So what we now have is this. <-+ -+ -+. Bear in mind the presentation of charge at the gate of that MOSFET. It is still <+-. So there is NO WAY the induced current can flow through that Q1 MOSFET. Here again is the configuration of charge. From the battery <-+ -+ -+ and <+- at the gate. Which is where the body diode of Q2 kicks in.
The system is now discharging current with the following justification. <-+ -+ -+ and the body diode of Q2 is perfectly polarised to allow this flow of current. So. In discharging that current it is also moving from a high negative voltage back to zero. In the process of discharging it represents changing magnetic fields. And changing magnetic fields induce changing electric fields. So. This current then first DISCHARGES to zero in a counter clockwise direction. Then it moves through zero to a positive value relative to zero. Then it again becomes >-+ -+ -+. But it's passage through Q1 is still blocked because - relative to this directional flow the charge at that gate is +-. However it's passage through that body diode of Q2 is enabled provided that the charge presentation stays the same but that the directional flow is reversed. That much explains the paths for the flow of this current.
But here's the thing. Why does that second discharge - that cycle that is triggered by the negative voltage from the system - then result in an INCREASE in the voltage across the battery? Under normal circumstances a positive current flow will represent a REDUCTION to the battery voltage. Instead of reducing the battery voltage now climbs from it's previous value of, say 60 volts - to anything up to and greater than twice its rated voltage potential to about 150 volts or more? Here's why.
IF indeed we have two energy supply systems working in anti phase to each other - then a discharge of energy from the one will represent a recharge of energy to the other. Therefore, correctly, when the second supply source is discharging it's potential difference - during that negative flow of current - then this will present an increased negative potential to the entire system. The probe across the battery is measuring the REAL potential difference on the ENTIRE circuit. It first measured a total of +60 volts. Now it's factoring in the applied potential difference at its ground. Ground now measures something less than -60 volts. And the resulting voltage then moves from plus to +60 to something considerably less than it's earlier voltage. Notwithstanding which, the current that is measured to flow through that battery is, nonetheless, flowing in a counter clockwise direction and thereby indicating a 'recharge' cycle to that battery supply source.
And correspondingly when that new cycle kicks in. When the negative voltage AGAIN moves into it's positive cycle, as required by Inductive Laws, with a current flow that is now 'permitted' or allowed for, at the gate of Q2 - then the voltage over the battery climbs from it's previous value of say +60 to something more than twice it's value as it also includes the positive value of voltage or potential difference that is now available from the circuit material.
So. The apparent anomalies are perfectly resolved PROVIDED ONLY that one FIRST assumes that current flow can be positive or negative, that the charge of the material comprising current flow can also be positive or negative and finally that there is a second or supplementary supply source of potentials and energy from the circuit material itself. And as this impacts on conventional or mainstream thinking - it's only departure is as it relates to the nature and properties of current flow. And since that has NOT, historically, been resolved, then this all should assist in resolving those question.
Golly. This is probably a very long post. I don't think I'll risk a preview to prove this because I don't feel up to shortening it.
Regards,
Rosemary
Quote from: poynt99 on June 16, 2011, 04:48:23 PM
Rose,
I fully acknowledge and understand what the simulations are indicating. The real problem however, is that you clearly don't.
.99
lol Exactly HOW do you acknowledge this? By trying to tell us that power is Pi? Or by AVE'ing - as you put it - the battery voltages? Dear me Poynty Point. You don't even have the intellectual muscle to work out the protocols of simple power analysis - and you PRESUME to tell me what you understand? The truth is that you're something of a poseur - pretending to understand what you clearly don't. It's a shame. Because you're very good at those simulations and you're also very good at working out the circuit parameters from very little clues. Still. We all have our strengths and our weaknesses. Your weakness, MOST DECIDEDLY, is in trying to get your head around anything to do with POWER analysis. And that's probably correctable - over time. But it would be nice if you didn't also try and engage our members here with your own muddles. It seems that those such as HAPPY and MR MAG are as ignorant as you are.
Unless, of course, all this is because you're overly anxious to misinform as many people as you possibly can that there is nothing unusual in those wild battery voltages. But then you'll also be arguing against the evidence. And, as I've said - the EVIDENCE always speaks loudest and last. What continues to puzzle me is that you are so anxious to discount this? Are you even prepared to UPEND known and required power measurement protocols simply to deny the evident gain? You see it won't work. Not when actual qualified analysts get to this question. It's therefore fated to be a short term benefit. Are you just buying time? Is that it?
Rosemary
QuoteWhy indeed? You make a good point HAPPY. We'll need to monitor those tests. But that's the easy part. I'll do the first solid 8 hour night shift - as that's likely to be the least popular. Then I'll get someone to do the next 8 hour shift - and a third person to do the third 8 hour shift in every 24 hours. We'll all have to 'hole in' because we won't be able to take a break for lunch or tea - or anything at all. But that's no problem. Provided only that we get to the solution.
Buy an inexpensive webcam for $25 or less, plug in your circuit and put it on any free live internet service for everyone to see it run forever as you claim.
No excuse for not doing that.
The Boss
Rose:
I know this has been suggested before by me, and some others...but why not run your circuit from a single boostcap of say 3,000 Farad? Yes, I realize that part of the magic of your circuit MAY depend upon something inherent inside those batteries, but, maybe it doesn't?
In other words, if you did this test, which would not take a very long time to do, and it works, then there you go. IF it does not work, most here realize that it may indeed have to do with those batteries as part of the circuit. So, a chance to win, and an chance to say we still don't know..inconclusive.
Myself, I believe it will work from a single supercap or boostcap. (Available now for like $10.00 from Electronics Goldmine, 3,000 F.)
Just a suggestion is all.
Bill
PS In all of my experiments, I love these caps because they capture any and all high spikes and can output them as power...much better than any battery I have ever worked with. I can charge a 2.7 v 650 F cap from my earth battery fully fairly quickly even though the EB only outputs like 1.9-2.0 volts. On my scope you can see very high spikes that the cap is capturing, and, as seen in my videos, I can use this power to run almost anything.
Quote from: Pirate88179 on June 17, 2011, 08:22:02 AM
Rose:
I know this has been suggested before by me, and some others...but why not run your circuit from a single boostcap of say 3,000 Farad? Yes, I realize that part of the magic of your circuit MAY depend upon something inherent inside those batteries, but, maybe it doesn't?
In other words, if you did this test, which would not take a very long time to do, and it works, then there you go. IF it does not work, most here realize that it may indeed have to do with those batteries as part of the circuit. So, a chance to win, and an chance to say we still don't know..inconclusive.
Myself, I believe it will work from a single supercap or boostcap. (Available now for like $10.00 from Electronics Goldmine, 3,000 F.)
Just a suggestion is all.
Bill
Hi Pirate. I'm knee deep at the moment. But a friend of mine has brought a capacitor here for precisely this test. We've just not got around it to yet. Probably next week and after the paper is submitted.
Take care Bill,
Kindest regards,
Rosemary
Guys here's an extract from the paper dealing with this. Hopefully it'll make it more understandable. And if the description needs further clarification - THEN PLEASE ADVISE ME. I can no longer tell if anything I write makes any kind of sense at all. ::)
Under normal conditions, the discharge of current from a battery supply source is determined from a voltage that is greater than zero. This is then commensurate with an expected and measured drop in the voltage from that supply depending on the rate of current flow. Correspondingly, when a counter or negative flow of current is applied relative to that supply, as for example, through a standard battery charger, then the voltage over the battery supply increases, again depending on the rate of current flow. However, what is evident during this oscillation period is that the negative flow of current results in a marked increase in the battery voltage rather than the expected increase. And correspondingly, the positive discharge of current flow results in the marked decrease in battery voltage rather than the expected decrease.
The explanation for this is that the battery voltage that is measured across the terminals includes the sum of the two opposing potentials that are induced from counter electromotive force from collapsing fields in the circuit material, evident during each oscillating cycle. Effectively a negative applied voltage from the circuit material increases the voltage of the battery supply above its actual potential and, likewise the positive applied voltage from the circuit material then decreases the voltage of the supply below its actual potential. Therefore does the potential difference resulting from that circuit material, impose itself on the measured voltage across the battery to exceed or diminish that supply above or below its actual rated potential. And precisely because the voltages measured across the battery then exceed their rated potential the evidence is that the energy or potential difference responsible for this oscillation, is extraneous to the supply. In as much as this oscillation is also evident on simulations it obviates the signal generator as the source of this extra energy. Therefore the only other viable source for the extra energy is from the circuit material itself as a result of its induced potentials.
In as much as the battery voltage swings in both directions both above and below its rated potential, then, as mentioned, the evidence is that the circuit is imposing two opposing potentials in each cycle. But the resulting current flow, from those collapsing fields, retains the justification of that applied voltage. In each cycle, the voltage across the current sensing resistor first moves a negative value indicating a recharge to the supply. Then at a critical level determined by the level of counter electromotive force, it again reverses to move back to a positive value consistent with a discharge of current flow from the supply.
Computation of wattage is based on the product of voltage and amperage over time or vi dt. But standard protocols have assumed a single supply source to the circuit. The measure of the potential difference from these induced voltages on the circuit cannot be precisely established except as it relates to the battery supply source. However, it is correctly represented as the sum of the voltages that are now evident in the oscillations measured across the battery supply. Therefore vi dt is the correct measure of energy delivered to and from that supply, incorporating, as it does, the sum of both the applied potential difference from the circuit and from the supply.
SORRY ALL - It doesn't help that I transposed the increase to decrease and vice versa. it's now fixed.
The complete final analysis wrapped up in a single pdf. This includes most of the relevant posts and all schematics and scope shots.
Also included at the end are explanatory excerpts from a brief private discussion with an OU member.
Regards,
.99
Quote from: happyfunball on June 16, 2011, 04:47:20 PM
Heat pump analogy is absurd. No moving parts with rosemary's device, purely electrical/ heat. she should simply loop it.
it most certainly is NOT absurd... ::) and your 'no moving parts' argument is wholly irrelevant... ::)
simply use the oh so well worn "black box" scenario that is pimped so often by your type...
ie: the heatpump is in a "black box".. measure input and output.
rosemary's apparatus is in a "black box".. measure input and output.
now, if you can loop rosemary's device as you claim because it's COP is > than 1 (or whatever arbitrary number you deem viable) then a heatpump should be able to be looped as well.
from poynt's pdf.
QuoteIn terms of convincing a physics professor or EE, indeed the math speaks for itself, and if they believe in math, they will see it clearly.
"Take the division 64/16. Now, canceling a 6 on top and a six on the bottom, we get that 64/16 = 4/1 = 4."
"Wait a second! You can't just cancel the six!"
"Oh, so you're telling us 64/16 is not equal to 4, are you?"
math is not infallible... ::) nor is it immune to misuse.
Quote from: Magluvin on June 16, 2011, 11:37:35 PM
And it has to be constantly monitored. There could be a fire, etc. Its not a flashlight were talking about here. ;]
Most probably think you can just check in every week for 6 months, no trouble at all. sheesh. ;]
Hows it going Rose? Just keep on keepin on. ;]
Mags
The only reason she won't do it is that I really think she knows that the batteries will drain down. It does not need to be constantly monitored, by a person anyways. It can be done very cheaply. Stick it outside in a broken down fridge. Place an IP camera inside to monitor it. Can probably be done for under $200.00. sheesh.
I was looking for Rose's blog and came across this one. Not sure if you've seen it or not Rose http://rosemaryainslie-publicblog.blogspot.com/ . Can you please post your blog address.
Rose's blog:
http://www.newlightondarkenergy.blogspot.com/
Quote from: MrMag on June 18, 2011, 06:50:27 PM
The only reason she won't do it is that I really think she knows that the batteries will drain down. It does not need to be constantly monitored, by a person anyways. It can be done very cheaply. Stick it outside in a broken down fridge. Place an IP camera inside to monitor it. Can probably be done for under $200.00. sheesh.
I was looking for Rose's blog and came across this one. Not sure if you've seen it or not Rose http://rosemaryainslie-publicblog.blogspot.com/ . Can you please post your blog address.
Hello again MrMag. Another BRILLIANT suggestion. That way when everything goes up in smoke then I can buy another IP camera and all the parts required to assemble another test apparatus. And then I can replace the scope probes - and probably the scope itself - for a mere R100 000.00 or thereby - which, in dollars, is roughly $14 000.00. No problem at all. I have NO IDEA why such a logical solution didn't occur to me. Golly. And if I do this then I'll advance the very real benefit of satisfying your idle curiosity. I say idle because you either do not have the skills or the interest to test this all for yourself.
That blog that you took the trouble to advertise is the one that I mentioned in my earlier gripe. It was the comment that you dismissed ENTIRELY because your own search skills left you unable to find the evidence on OUR.com. Let me repost it lest you missed this as well.
Are you serious? Do you really propose that it's me trying to discredit Poynt.99? That's got to be a joke. Here's a man who has actively encouraged and advanced whole THREADS on his forum to his members to let rip on my reputation. NO HOLDS BARRED. On record is a solemn undertaking not to moderate anything at all. To this day they hold record of post after post after post where I am accused of FRAUD - LUNACY - DUPLICITY - DELUSIONAL CONFUSIONS - IDIOCY. Actually that last was qualified. Apparently it's presumptuous to even consider myself an IDIOT. I'm in fact - MORONIC. He has gone on record to say that he will DEBUNK our claim and has advised all and sundry that I have ABSOLUTELY NO KNOWLEDGE OF ANYTHING SCIENTIFIC. He has written spiteful emails to me to tell me that it's laughably absurd for me to comment on anything at all - least of all matters scientific. He has INVITED people to join his forums for the sole purpose of - let me emphasise this - with NO OTHER AGENDA THAN TO DISCREDIT ME IN ANY WAY THEY SEE FIT. And while all this was going on he BLOCKED MY VIEW OF THESE COMMENTS through the simple expediency of accessing my IP ADDRESS. And if you think - like he claims - that I am LYING - then I suggest you take a stroll there and look at this for yourself. Nor does it end there. He contributed to and actively supported a BLOGSPOT dedicated to maligning my reputation. He has allowed publication and links to private videos that I rather recklessly trusted to certain replicators who then attempted to claim our technology as their PERSONAL DISCOVERY. And if you want proof of all that - then it's also all there. Loud and clear and unambiguous. Not only that - but this is the REAL JOKE. All those members ONLY JOINED his forum to INDULGE THAT ATTACK ON MY GOOD NAME. Never joined before. Never seen since. That little pack of dogs, the Pickles, and Mookies and Fuzzies
POYNT. How do you explain the fact that a diode across Q1 can replace Q2 to sustain that oscillation?
And guys, I'm ABSOLUTELY NOT ABLE TO SUBMIT THAT PAPER. It has to be 2 papers at least - the one to qualify the other. And I'm running out of energy. I've tried to duck this but have had feedback from some really qualified people that the argument is NOT fully supported. Which is a blow.
Anyway. I'm up for it. So. Poynty Point. The first thing that needs clarification is that replacement diode as it relates to current flow. Do you have an explanation? And do you even understand the question? I'd be MOST interested to hear your explanation if you have one. If you don't answer I'll assume you don't know.
Regards,
Rosemary
Actually guys, right now I'm just feeling so angry. Here's why. IF we're going to ignore the evidence measured in the results then the thing to do is to close our text books and deny that ANY MEASUREMENTS TAKEN ON ANY TECHNOLOGIES TO DATE - are even roughly relevant. All science - to date - based on a figment of the imagination. That's the first point.
The second point is this. According to their rating each battery is capable of delivering about 430 000.00 Joules. 8 such batteries therefore affords a capacity of 3 456 000.00 Joules. The batteries used in these experiments have been used on a regular basis for over 10 months. They have been dissipating an average wattage conservatively assessed at 20 watts for five hours of each working day, during that period, continually subjected as they were, to both light and heavy use. This amounts to about 14 400 000.00 Joules which is more than 4 times it's rated capacity. Notwithstanding this extensive use, they have never shown any evidence of any loss of voltage at all. Nor have they been recharged except for two batteries that caught fire.
YET you all demand further proof? At what point is the required level of evidence simply ABSURD? I propose that we're long past the point. And all it means is that EVEN ON THESE FORUMS - DEDICATED AS THEY ARE TO OVER UNITY CONSIDERATIONS - there's actually ONLY the requirement to DENY AND DENY AND DENY. So sad. Evidently you'll only consider doing more inconclusive tests and then chatter away amongst yourselves about all those inconclusive results - compounded by the EXTRAORDINARY applications of wattage analysis that has NOTHING TO DO WITH STANDARD MEASUREMENT PROTOCOLS. You're all led by the nose to believe the absurdities in Poynty's analyses with it's horribly flawed protocols. And then - with all the satisfaction of the excessively smug - you presume to NOMINATE the required test parameters. Dear God. If there's to be a continued pollution of this our poor planet - then you're ACTIVELY co-operating with that agenda.
You would not see a benefit if it stood up to introduce itself. And you certainly won't recognise it even when it eventually reaches out to bite you - where it hurts most - which is somewhere in the region of your intellects - which are evidently unable to ask questions - let alone answer them.
This is the most of you. Obviously it excepts those very few people who are still actively engaged in this research or who are really capable of asking the right questions.
Rosemary
Quote from: Rosemary Ainslie on June 19, 2011, 01:16:05 AM
Hello again MrMag. Another BRILLIANT suggestion. That way when everything goes up in smoke then I can buy another IP camera and all the parts required to assemble another test apparatus. And then I can replace the scope probes - and probably the scope itself - for a mere R100 000.00 or thereby - which, in dollars, is roughly $14 000.00. No problem at all. I have NO IDEA why such a logical solution didn't occur to me. Golly. And if I do this then I'll advance the very real benefit of satisfying your idle curiosity. I say idle because you either do not have the skills or the interest to test this all for yourself
Rosie it seems that you are looking for excuses when it comes to doing a practical test, no one is suggesting that you spent $14,000 did you actually read and understand MrMag suggestion ???
I myself and I think others suggested to you some time ago that you do a comparison test.
Heats water at a set temperature using a conventional method running from the same amount of batteries as the test using your circuit heating an identical volume of water to the same temperature,
and see which one lasts longest, but clearly these suggestions are two simple for you, what are you afraid of, that these tests might fail ?
No doubt your response if I get one, will blame other people, and you will argue ::) Ow how you argue, that people are misinterpreting your work.
so simple practical tests would seem the best way to gain support But you would rather argue about measurements, if you really have got something here Then you're doing extremely good job at discouraging people from getting involved with your circuit.
All you do is have arguments about measurements
Quote from: powercat on June 19, 2011, 07:47:28 AM
Rosie it seems that you are looking for excuses when it comes to doing a practical test, no one is suggesting that you spent $14,000 did you actually read and understand MrMag suggestion ???
I myself and I think others suggested to you some time ago that you do a comparison test.
Heats water at a set temperature using a conventional method running from the same amount of batteries as the test using your circuit heating an identical volume of water to the same temperature,and see which one lasts longest, but clearly these suggestions are two simple for you, what are you afraid of, that these tests might fail ?
No doubt your response if I get one, will blame other people, and you will argue ::) Ow how you argue, that people are misinterpreting your work.
so simple practical tests would seem the best way to gain support But you would rather argue about measurements, if you really have got something here Then you're doing extremely good job at discouraging people from getting involved with your circuit.
All you do is have arguments about measurements
No Cat - I'm NOT making excuses. I'm simply NOT interested in doing those tests. Feel free. Do it yourselves. I'm only interested in getting this to an academic forum. And they DON'T accept any draw down battery tests as evidence. Good gracious. If they did I'd have done the tests - GLADLY. And I absolutely have NO INTEREST in 'encouraging' as you you put it - people to get involved in our circuit. Frankly I prefer it that they don't. My previous exposure to this was an outright attempt by a replicator to CLAIM it as his independent and personal 'DISCOVERY'. Why should I want anyone to replicate?
My ONLY interest is in the thesis and the implications of the waveform - because that's where the magic is. I don't think there's any RULE against my sharing what I think is happening. And if you or anyone don't want to read here - so what? I'm not holding a gun to your heads. The general reach on these forums is to demand the evidence - in any way you want. I'm under NO obligation to cater to that demand. Frankly if I were to run around and do what everyone wanted as I used to - then I'd be considerably poorer and have progressed no further. What really gets me down is that one academic has actually proposed that we do that 'black box' test. That's the test that we designed for the public demonstration. You may remember. Not A SINGLE EXPERT ATTENDED. What a joke. The academics won't look at the evidence - and the rest of you can't understand the measurements - nor their implications. And I can assure you that not one of you will believe the evidence when I've completed that test. There'll be new criteria. So it goes. It's not so much extraordinary claims needing extraordinary proof - it's that an extraordinary claim will never be accepted regardless of the proof. That's the killer.
Here's the trade off Cat. Find some experts who will guarantee accreditation of any results that show excess energy dissipated to the rated battery capacity - ANY AT ALL - then I'll do those tests GLADLY. I think a consensus of 5 should cut it. See what you can do. Me I have found precisely 1 and I very much doubt that there will be others. And we've asked not less than 45 experts to attend a demo that shows JUST THIS.
Rosemary
Quote from: Rosemary Ainslie on June 19, 2011, 01:25:34 AM
POYNT. How do you explain the fact that a diode across Q1 can replace Q2 to sustain that oscillation?
The first thing that needs clarification is that replacement diode as it relates to current flow. Do you have an explanation? And do you even understand the question? I'd be MOST interested to hear your explanation if you have one. If you don't answer I'll assume you don't know.
Regards,
Rosemary
If you are referring to the attached diagram, then "D1" replaces Q1, not Q2 as you have stated above.
As I have explained some time back, Q2 (M4 in the attached diagram) is the only
active device in this circuit (or paralleled Q2-Q5), and it is this device that causes the oscillation.
D1, as I explained, is the internal body diode of Q1, and causes the asymmetry seen in the wave forms. The circuit oscillates just as well without D1 (Q1), but then the asymmetry vanishes.
.99
Quote from: poynt99 on June 19, 2011, 11:00:59 AM
If you are referring to the attached diagram, then "D1" replaces Q1, not Q2 as you have stated above.
As I have explained some time back, Q2 (M4 in the attached diagram) is the only active device in this circuit (or paralleled Q2-Q5), and it is this device that causes the oscillation.
I missed that. Thanks Poynty. What then is the function of that diode?
Regards,
Rosemary
Added. What I'm actually asking is does it work WITHOUT the diode?
Quote from: Rosemary Ainslie on June 19, 2011, 11:07:54 AM
I missed that. Thanks Poynty. What then is the function of that diode?
Regards,
Rosemary
Added. What I'm actually asking is does it work WITHOUT the diode?
Quote from: poynt99 on June 19, 2011, 11:00:59 AM
D1, as I explained, is the internal body diode of Q1, and causes the asymmetry seen in the wave forms. The circuit oscillates just as well without D1 (Q1), but then the asymmetry vanishes.
D1 was added to the circuit to emulate and illustrate what function Q1 is actually serving. It is not a perfect replacement because of other parasitic components in the MOSFET, but that body diode is the fundamental component causing the asymmetry in the circuit. Just as well, the actual Q1 could be left in the circuit.
.99
Quote from: poynt99 on June 19, 2011, 11:00:59 AM
As I have explained some time back, Q2 (M4 in the attached diagram) is the only active device in this circuit (or paralleled Q2-Q5), and it is this device that causes the oscillation.
.99
This is WRONG by the way. Q2 is responsible for the oscillation. I know this. But for the total control of the required heat outputs we need Q1. I'm not sure how else to increase the heat to get the system to work. It needs the oscillating cycle but the heat output is exponentially increased subject to some small required output from the battery during that short 18% ON time. It only needs to be a little under a quarter of a watt to get the element to that 240 degrees centigrade.
Quote from: poynt99 on June 19, 2011, 11:17:16 AM
D1 was added to the circuit to emulate and illustrate what function Q1 is actually serving. It is not a perfect replacement because of other parasitic components in the MOSFET, but that body diode is the fundamental component causing the asymmetry in the circuit. Just as well, the actual Q1 could be left in the circuit.
.99
Do you KNOW this? Here's what I'm asking. What happens to the oscillation when there's NO diode and NO Q1? Have you done this?
Thanks for the answer btw
regards,
Rosie
Quote from: Rosemary Ainslie on June 19, 2011, 11:32:41 AM
Do you KNOW this? Here's what I'm asking. What happens to the oscillation when there's NO diode and NO Q1? Have you done this?
Thanks for the answer btw
regards,
Rosie
Yes, I have done this in the simulation, a long time ago when I reduced the circuit down to just Q2. I may not have posted a scope shot, but I believe the oscillation frequency increased slightly, and the wave forms became more symmetrical.
.99
Quote from: poynt99 on June 19, 2011, 11:39:38 AM
Yes, I have done this in the simulation, a long time ago when I reduced the circuit down to just Q2. I may not have posted a scope shot, but I believe the oscillation frequency increased slightly, and the wave forms became more symmetrical.
.99
Poynty - We all REALLY need that waveform. It gets to the heart of the argument. May I impose on you to give us a picture of this?
By the way. To the second part of the question. Can do you explain this?
Rosemary
Also - What do you mean by 'MORE SYMMETRICAL'. Flatter waveforms? Or cleaner? Or just no 'cut off' at the positive peaks? You see why we need a picture.
OK, I have used a diagram that is slightly different than the previous I posted, although they are essentially equivalent.
The main difference being, and I would recommend anyone building this, change the position of D1 from Drain to Ground (shown in my previous post), to Drain to Gate as shown in these schematics here. The "effect" (i.e. higher oscillating "Vbat" voltage) D1 has is increased when connected Drain-to-Gate.
The "Vbat" wave form is almost double the peak-to-peak amplitude with the Q1 body diode in place, as shown.
What I mean by "symmetry", is the wave shape for the top and bottom excursions of the wave form. Without the body diode, the wave form is more sinusoidal and symmetrical. The oscillating frequency is also slightly higher in this case.
From briefly looking at this "effect", it appears the addition of the Drain-to-Gate (D-G) diode forces the Q2 MOSFET to turn OFF more completely during that part of the cycle, and this allows the Drain, and hence "Vbat" voltage to oscillate at a higher amplitude.
.99
Quote from: Rosemary Ainslie on June 19, 2011, 10:37:00 AM
No Cat - I'm NOT making excuses. I'm simply NOT interested in doing those tests. Feel free. Do it yourselves. I'm only interested in getting this to an academic forum. And they DON'T accept any draw down battery tests as evidence. Good gracious. If they did I'd have done the tests - GLADLY. And I absolutely have NO INTEREST in 'encouraging' as you you put it - people to get involved in our circuit. Frankly I prefer it that they don't. My previous exposure to this was an outright attempt by a replicator to CLAIM it as his independent and personal 'DISCOVERY'. Why should I want anyone to replicate?
So, do this test ourselves but you would rather that we didn't. Is it true that you have been working on this for 10 years or more and have never done the test we are asking? Why is that? I would think that if anyone wanted to prove the device, this would be one of the first tests to accomplish. If it worked, then I would worry about scope shots to see exactly what was happening so that it could be explained. Also, my recommendation was to only place the batteries, circuit and IP camera inside the enclosure. If you want to open the door and take readings once in a while it would be fine but you don't need to connect a scope to it. You are to busy trying to think of reasons not to do the test then just reading what was posted.
Quote from: Rosemary Ainslie on June 19, 2011, 10:37:00 AM
My ONLY interest is in the thesis and the implications of the waveform - because that's where the magic is. I don't think there's any RULE against my sharing what I think is happening. And if you or anyone don't want to read here - so what? I'm not holding a gun to your heads. The general reach on these forums is to demand the evidence - in any way you want. I'm under NO obligation to cater to that demand. Frankly if I were to run around and do what everyone wanted as I used to - then I'd be considerably poorer and have progressed no further. What really gets me down is that one academic has actually proposed that we do that 'black box' test. That's the test that we designed for the public demonstration. You may remember. Not A SINGLE EXPERT ATTENDED. What a joke. The academics won't look at the evidence - and the rest of you can't understand the measurements - nor their implications. And I can assure you that not one of you will believe the evidence when I've completed that test. There'll be new criteria. So it goes. It's not so much extraordinary claims needing extraordinary proof - it's that an extraordinary claim will never be accepted regardless of the proof. That's the killer.
The rest of us can't understand the measurements? Many of us here have 20 or more years of experience in the electronics field and you think WE don't know how to take measurements. I think it may be the other way around.
Quote from: Rosemary Ainslie on June 19, 2011, 10:37:00 AM
Here's the trade off Cat. Find some experts who will guarantee accreditation of any results that show excess energy dissipated to the rated battery capacity - ANY AT ALL - then I'll do those tests GLADLY. I think a consensus of 5 should cut it. See what you can do. Me I have found precisely 1 and I very much doubt that there will be others. And we've asked not less than 45 experts to attend a demo that shows JUST THIS.
I guess it depends on what you classify as an expert. I would think that there are probably 5 or more here on this forum who could be classified as experts. I could probably pop over to OUR and dig up a few more if need be.
What I don't understand is why you do not want to do this simple test. There are a lot of people here that would like to see it done. There are ways to make it safe so that the batteries don't catch fire and you know this so stop using it as an excuse. If you have nothing to hide just do the test.
Listen up Mags. Our very first paper PUBLISHED in Quantum was a test that was run in conjunction with battery controls. The test period determined when the control batteries voltages each dropped BELOW 10 Volts. At the end of, from memory I think it was, a 17 hour test - the controls were at 10 when the test battery had NOT LOST EVEN A QUARTER VOLT. Then we recharged BOTH sets of batteries. And then we swapped them and applied the control to the test and vice versa to obviate any claims of battery vagaries. Then we ran that test again. The results were the same. And then we were dealing with COP 17 NOT COP INFINITY.
NOW. PAY ATTENTION. We were instructed to TAKE THAT INFORMATION OUT OF THE PAPER AS ANY REFERENCE TO BATTERY PERFORMANCE WAS LIKELY TO BE UNRELIABLE DUE BATTERY VAGARIES. That was the explanation given us by the editor. The reviewer - who simply edits things for Quantum magazine - as it is NOT a reviewed journal - WAS A PROFESSOR JANDRELL AT WITS UNIVERSITY. If you are that interested - then write to him and ask him for an explanation. And here's the thing. THE EXPERT IS NOT IN THE LEAST BIT INTERESTED IN BATTERY PERFORMANCE. THAT'S IT.
So. DON'T GIVE ME THAT OVERWORKED COMPLAINT THAT IN 10 YEARS I HAVE NEVER TRIED TO DO THAT BATTERY COMPARISON TEST. WE'VE DONE IT TO DEATH. ALL OUR TESTS WERE DONE ON THAT BASIS IT MEANT NOTHING - RESULTED IN NOTHING.
Now you want us to repeat that test - but this time it is likely to last considerably longer as our control will need to include 6 batteries. I'll do it. GLADLY. Just find me not less than 5 experts who will guarantee us FULL RECOGNITION OF THOSE RESULTS AT THE END OF THE TEST PERIOD. And their names must be citable as expert accreditors. ELSE WE'RE WASTING OUR TIME.
And as for your forlorn hope that there's the required expertise on Poynty's forum - disabuse yourself. They're all trying to follow Poynt's examples of Pin and Pout measurements which are UTTERLY meaningless - as they are certainly NOT the required protocols in mainstream science. AND they're certainly NOT citable as they all shelter their reputations behind aliases - LIKE YOU. And notwithstanding this protection they afford their own reputations - they actively work to try and destry mine.
I'm absolutely NOT prepared to answer any more of your posts. They're a waste of my time. Just do your own tests. There's nothing stopping you.
Rosemary
Added. And while I'm at it - may I also add that I find NOTHING quite as despicable and contemptible and cowardly as the extraordinary freedoms you all indulge in your opinion of my hard work - when you all shelter behind those 'screen names' as Fuzzy rather pathetically refers to it. If you're going to show the courage of your convictions then post under your own name. Else there's the very real danger that not only will you be considered a big mouthed bully - but that you're a self-serving hypocritcal coward to boot. JUST LEVEL THOSE PLAYING FIELDS. It's easy playing fast and loose with other people's reputations. Put your own on the line and be counted.
Thanks Poynt. Now all we need is the shunt and battery voltages per your math trace. Can you oblige?
Ta muchly,
Rosie
Rose, your kidding me right? We are not talking about a 17 hour test here are we. Do you even bother to read the post from us asking to do a draw down test or are you just thinking of finding ways to attack us. I am not asking about battery performance, I am asking to run a continuous test to see if your circuit can keep the batteries charged. If you don't understand this simple request I can try to put it in a simpler manner for you. ( I typed the above two sentences very slowly for your convenience).
Correct - A battery comparison test probably doesn't mean anything.
Running your circuit continuously for a duration of the battery watt/hour rating will prove something. It will prove if your device performs like you say it will or not. It's that simple.
In the last 10 years have you ran your circuit continuous for the above time period? If not, Why?
I am not sure what you have against screen names. Is this all you have left to attack us with? Does it really matter what I use as a name on here? If we ask relevant questions and ask for relevant test does it really matter what I call myself? Maybe, just maybe, a lot of us use screen names so that we are not personally attacked by deranged people. I don't necessarily mean you but there are some out there.
If you really want people to take you serious, you should start talking a little more professionally. No wonder you can't get any "Experts" to review your work. Your present attitude towards people who have made a simple request of you is very disturbing. What do you think the "Experts" would think of this.
"Added. And while I'm at it - may I also add that I find NOTHING quite as despicable and contemptible and cowardly as the extraordinary freedoms you all indulge in your opinion of my hard work - when you all shelter behind those 'screen names' as Fuzzy rather pathetically refers to it. If you're going to show the courage of your convictions then post under your own name. Else there's the very real danger that not only will you be considered a big mouthed bully - but that you're a self-serving hypocritcal coward to boot. JUST LEVEL THOSE PLAYING FIELDS. It's easy playing fast and loose with other people's reputations. Put your own on the line and be counted. "
I don't know about that Rosey, All I asked is for you to do a continuous test of your circuit. You are the one coming across as the big mouth bully. All the name calling when you don't even know us or our background. Even if I told you my real name, would you know my background or qualifications. I'll tell you what, find 5 experts and have them request my real name and then I'll do it. And, as far as ruining your reputation, your doing a pretty good job of that yourself. I don't think you need help from me or anyone else.
I started out here giving you the benefit of the doubt. All you have done is attack me. I honestly think that you have something to hide by just making up excuse not to perform the test we have asked you to do. I am starting to think that all those comments in that blog about you are true.
I really think you need to get some psychiatric help.
MrMag et al,
A draw down test against the amp-hour rating of the battery is only doable if you have an accurate and reliable measurement of the power consumption, or more specifically, the net average ampere usage.
Unless a DMM is placed across the CSR, or if the scope is set to compute MEAN of the CSR trace, we would not know what the net average ampere usage is. And this is a volatile subject all on its own because of the misunderstanding regarding probe orientation.
The best test as I mentioned long ago, is a battery state of charge (SOC) measurement over time. The beauty of this method is that it does not require weeks or months of testing. At most all that would be required is about a week. Take a SOC reading every 12 hours, plot the readings out vs. time, and look for a trend.
.99
PS. Measuring a battery's SOC:
http://www.diy-nos.freeserve.co.uk/testing-battery.htm
Or possibly, with this meter sufficient testing would be done in less than an hour.
A DC amp-hour meter. $60 ;)
http://www.rc-electronics-usa.com/ammeters/dc-amp-meter.html?wmrd
http://www.rc-electronics-usa.com/ammeters/amp-meter-specs.html
I'm not sure how well it works with pulsed currents though.
.99
Thanx poynt, but isn't she running with a heater connected to boil water? If this is the case, wouldn't the continuous monitoring be irrelevant. Over time the batteries would slowly discharge. Or does the circuit in question not have the heating element in place.
Indeed Rose has used the element to boil water before.
Working backwards from a boiling quantity of water (the output) to determine the net average input current would require a bit of mathematical acrobatics I think.
IMHO, it would be easier to monitor the batteries' SOC over time, OR accurately measure the net average current through the CSR.
.99
OK, I see where your heading with this and yes, I think you are right about it. It is so much easier to discuss things with a true professional. When things are presented in a clear manner, it is a lot easier to understand. What you have posted makes a lot more sense to me then the following statements:
Quote from: Rosemary Ainslie on June 16, 2011, 09:20:46 AM
No Mr Mag. I am absolutely NOT interested in convincing you or, indeed, ANY members on the overunity forums. I only post here because I can depend on those adverse and usually absurd objections and arguments to strengthen our own. If I write for anyone at all it's for those silent and noncontributing readers. It's like all democracies. We only ever hear from the noisy minority. I would have to be delusional indeed to think that there's an ounce of courtesy, loyalty or integrity in the most of the members here - let alone the forum owners. They, like you, are fickle and self-serving and pretend to authority that is absolutely not yours or theirs to own. ......
And DO NOT TELL ME TO DO THAT BATTERY TEST UNLESS YOU CAN ALSO TELL ME WHAT THE ADVANTAGES ARE. Convincing you is certainly of NO advantage to me. You'll endorse it today and then deny it tomorrow. THAT'S how the members here work.
Quote from: Rosemary Ainslie on June 17, 2011, 04:57:31 AM
But it would be nice if you didn't also try and engage our members here with your own muddles. It seems that those such as HAPPY and MR MAG are as ignorant as you are.
Quote from: Rosemary Ainslie on June 19, 2011, 02:28:51 AM
You would not see a benefit if it stood up to introduce itself. And you certainly won't recognise it even when it eventually reaches out to bite you - where it hurts most - which is somewhere in the region of your intellects - which are evidently unable to ask questions - let alone answer them.
Quote from: Rosemary Ainslie on June 19, 2011, 03:08:43 PM
And as for your forlorn hope that there's the required expertise on Poynty's forum - disabuse yourself. They're all trying to follow Poynt's examples of Pin and Pout measurements which are UTTERLY meaningless - as they are certainly NOT the required protocols in mainstream science. AND they're certainly NOT citable as they all shelter their reputations behind aliases - LIKE YOU. And notwithstanding this protection they afford their own reputations - they actively work to try and destry mine.
I'm absolutely NOT prepared to answer any more of your posts. They're a waste of my time. Just do your own tests. There's nothing stopping you.
Added. And while I'm at it - may I also add that I find NOTHING quite as despicable and contemptible and cowardly as the extraordinary freedoms you all indulge in your opinion of my hard work - when you all shelter behind those 'screen names' as Fuzzy rather pathetically refers to it. If you're going to show the courage of your convictions then post under your own name. Else there's the very real danger that not only will you be considered a big mouthed bully - but that you're a self-serving hypocritcal coward to boot. JUST LEVEL THOSE PLAYING FIELDS. It's easy playing fast and loose with other people's reputations. Put your own on the line and be counted.
Poor, poor Rose. The biggest problem with Rose is that she is saying 1+1=3. No matter who or how many people try to explain to her that 1+1=2 she will never accept it. If she would only try to listen instead of being so defensive.
Quote from: Rosemary Ainslie on June 19, 2011, 04:01:53 PM
Thanks Poynt. Now all we need is the shunt and battery voltages per your math trace. Can you oblige?
Ta muchly,
Rosie
POYNT - I'm reposting this to remind you. We all need to see that number and, ideally, the waveform across the shunt.
R
I deleted an earlier post. I got sucked in - AGAIN - into answering yet more irrelevant absurdities. I need to stay focused. So. Poynty Point. Please share the math numbers from that latest sim posting. I'm trying to find out where that v1 -5 value comes from. Is it the voltage across the shunt?
And by the way - are there any setting on the sim that can take the battery voltage below zero at any stage of that oscillation?
Regards,
Rosemary
Quote from: MrMag on June 19, 2011, 08:59:29 PM
Rose, your kidding me right? We are not talking about a 17 hour test here are we. Do you even bother to read the post from us asking to do a draw down test or are you just thinking of finding ways to attack us. I am not asking about battery performance, I am asking to run a continuous test to see if your circuit can keep the batteries charged. If you don't understand this simple request I can try to put it in a simpler manner for you. ( I typed the above two sentences very slowly for your convenience).
Correct - A battery comparison test probably doesn't mean anything.
Running your circuit continuously for a duration of the battery watt/hour rating will prove something. It will prove if your device performs like you say it will or not. It's that simple.
In the last 10 years have you ran your circuit continuous for the above time period? If not, Why?
Actually I REALLY need to answer this escalating piece of absurdity. It just gets under the skin.
The idea in determining the performance of a battery can ONLY BE MEASURED AGAINST ITS WATT HOUR RATING. IF a battery's watt hour rating is 10 ampere hours - then it means that the battery can deliver 10 amps x 12 volts x 60 seconds x 60 minutes x 1 hour giving a maximum POTENTIAL output of 430 000 JOULES. This value can be marginally INCREASED OR DECREASED depending on the rate of current discharge.
THEREFORE to CORRECTLY DETERMINE OUR NUMBERS ALL THAT IS REQUIRED IS TO RUN A CONTROL IN CONJUCTION WITH THE TEST BATTERIES. Provided that they are dissipating the same amount of heat then one must expect them to discharge at the same rate. IF THE BATTERIES on the CONTROL discharge BEFORE the batteries on the test - then there is a proof of the TEST BATTERIES are producing the SAME AMOUNT OF WORK at the cost of less energy from that supply. Therefore there is proof of an OUT PERFORMANCE of the test batteries as determined by their watt hour rating.
There is ABSOLUTELY NO OTHER APPROPRIATE TEST AND THAT TEST ONLY DETERMINES THE CIRCUIT PERFORMANCE AS IT RELATES TO A BATTERY SUPPLY. There is nothing in our findings that precludes these advantages being shown from any supply source at all - be it a utility supply, or solar or wind generators.
And if you think for one moment that there are any professionals anywhere in the world who care two hoots if your name is Mr Mags or Dr Dolittle - or Professor Poseur - THEN DISABUSE YOURSELF. No-one cares. Evidently. Not even you.
Rosemary
Quote from: poynt99 on June 19, 2011, 09:13:38 PM
MrMag et al,
A draw down test against the amp-hour rating of the battery is only doable if you have an accurate and reliable measurement of the power consumption, or more specifically, the net average ampere usage.
Unless a DMM is placed across the CSR, or if the scope is set to compute MEAN of the CSR trace, we would not know what the net average ampere usage is. And this is a volatile subject all on its own because of the misunderstanding regarding probe orientation.
The best test as I mentioned long ago, is a battery state of charge (SOC) measurement over time. The beauty of this method is that it does not require weeks or months of testing. At most all that would be required is about a week. Take a SOC reading every 12 hours, plot the readings out vs. time, and look for a trend.
.99
PS. Measuring a battery's SOC:
http://www.diy-nos.freeserve.co.uk/testing-battery.htm
Hi .99
Isn't the claim now that the batteries do not discharge.... that the circuit, in operation, keeps the batteries charged?
And the competing claim is that the energy to boil the water, or heat the load, is supplied by the battery and so the battery will discharge at a particular rate... that is, its amp-hour capacity is a published figure and should indicate how long the system should run if nothing unusual were occurring.
So the test proposed by MrMag is simple and good, and doesn't need any sophisticated analysis at all. The energy required to boil a known quantity of water is known, or to heat a load to a certain equilibrium temperature is known (or can be, by calibrating with DC). Hence, all that is necessary to PROVE that Rosemary is right is to show that the circuit will continue to run. If the COP is infinite then the batteries should not discharge at all and the circuit will only stop when a component fails.
On the other hand.... should the circuit only run as long as the battery's A-H capacity would predict..... that would prove something else entirely.
No apparatus beyond the Ainslie circuit and a watch... or calendar.... is needed for this test. You don't even need a control experiment. Just hook the thing up and let it run... and run.... and run...... until the batteries either discharge, or we die of old age.
My predictions are these:
First, Rosemary won't do the simple test.
Second, when the test IS done, the batteries will run down in a normal amount of time.
Don't forget.... who was the FIRST one to boil water using the Ainslie circuit?
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=C7zQdplnCA8 (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=C7zQdplnCA8)
Quote from: Rosemary Ainslie on June 20, 2011, 01:33:39 AM
And if you think for one moment that there are any professionals anywhere in the world who care two hoots if your name is Mr Mags or Dr Dolittle - or Professor Poseur - THEN DISABUSE YOURSELF. No-one cares. Evidently. Not even you.
Golly Rose, I know I don't care what name anyone uses but apparently you do.
Quote from: Rosemary Ainslie on June 19, 2011, 03:08:43 PM
Added. And while I'm at it - may I also add that I find NOTHING quite as despicable and contemptible and cowardly as the extraordinary freedoms you all indulge in your opinion of my hard work - when you all shelter behind those 'screen names' as Fuzzy rather pathetically refers to it. If you're going to show the courage of your convictions then post under your own name. Else there's the very real danger that not only will you be considered a big mouthed bully - but that you're a self-serving hypocritcal coward to boot. JUST LEVEL THOSE PLAYING FIELDS. It's easy playing fast and loose with other people's reputations. Put your own on the line and be counted.
I honestly don't understand how you cannot figure out exactly what my request was. It's really pretty simple and I think most people here know what I'm talking about. Do you mind telling me exactly what type of background you have. I'm not being sarcastic, I really would like to know.
And as for your laughably UNPROFESSIONAL advice that we put the apparatus outside - in our cape winter - inside an old fridge? which presumably I get from a junk yard - which will need to be what? Open to the varying conditions of rain, wind and sunshine - typical of our Cape winters - or CLOSED? In which case when all that water has finally boiled out of the container and transferred itself to the space in that fridge - then the element can got back to it's previous temperature in the region of 300 degrees centigrade - and then it can start to melt the inside of the container of that was holding 0.85 liters of water - then when it's worked its way through that it can drop onto the wall of the fridge and do whatever damage is required there. And meanwhile that camera will get all steamed up and wrecked. And the probes that are needed to monitor the applied voltage to ensure the system is still oscillating will be vaporised. And the scope to which the probes are connected will now be destroyed by their exposure either to the steam from inside the fridge or the rain from outside the fridge - depending on where it's positioned. And we'll have to use other measuring instruments to track the ambient temperatures as they vary from high to low - hot to cold - windy to windless rain to sunshine - day and night - all of which instruments are likely to UTTERLY unreliable as AMBIENT in and out the fridge will be the sum of an onslaught of variables that would exceed the limits of any quantum averaging. And then? When all is destroyed? What exactly would you conclude - MR MAGS WHO WANTS PROFESSIONAL INPUT?
As you so eloquently put it Sheesh!!!
Oh...and Rosemary, since you mentioned the Quantum article.... let's not forget that there was, according to you, an error in that article, in the circuit diagram, remember.... and that the interpretation of the results you got are affected by this grave error. Let's also not forget that I duplicated your reported heat profile results, using the circuit you published in the Quantum article... INCLUDING the error. I am of course talking about your duty cycle confusion.
When I used the duty cycle you CLAIMED to use--3.7 percent ON, very little heating of the load occurred, and many other researchers at the time confirmed this. When I used the duty cycle ACTUALLY delivered by the published circuit from the Quantum article -- 96.3 percent ON--- the load heated up just fine, and closely followed the temp vs. time and the maximum equilibrium temps that you reported in that article.
You will recall how difficult it was for you to admit that the Quantum circuit produced an inverted duty cycle from what you had originally claimed. And I must conclude that you in fact used this mostly ON duty cycle in your original experiment-- since I got substantially the same numbers when I did it that way.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=18raNyVTL6g&NR=1 (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=18raNyVTL6g&NR=1)
In the face of all this, perhaps it would be best if you simply did not mention your Quantum article, because using it as an example of the proper way to do things makes you look all that more laughable.
Quote from: TinselKoala on June 20, 2011, 02:02:06 AM
Oh...and Rosemary, since you mentioned the Quantum article.... let's not forget that there was, according to you, an error in that article, in the circuit diagram, remember.... and that the interpretation of the results you got are affected by this grave error. Let's also not forget that I duplicated your reported heat profile results, using the circuit you published in the Quantum article... INCLUDING the error. I am of course talking about your duty cycle confusion.
When I used the duty cycle you CLAIMED to use--3.7 percent ON, very little heating of the load occurred, and many other researchers at the time confirmed this. When I used the duty cycle ACTUALLY delivered by the published circuit from the Quantum article -- 96.3 percent ON--- the load heated up just fine, and closely followed the temp vs. time and the maximum equilibrium temps that you reported in that article.
You will recall how difficult it was for you to admit that the Quantum circuit produced an inverted duty cycle from what you had originally claimed. And I must conclude that you in fact used this mostly ON duty cycle in your original experiment-- since I got substantially the same numbers when I did it that way.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=18raNyVTL6g&NR=1 (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=18raNyVTL6g&NR=1)
In the face of all this, perhaps it would be best if you simply did not mention your Quantum article, because using it as an example of the proper way to do things makes you look all that more laughable.
TK. You offer a person that extraordinary comfort of predictability. I ALSO seem to recall that I went through the absurd lengths of APOLOGISING for a mistake in the duty cycle as CLAIMED by ONLY YOU. THEN - fortunately - MANY RALLIED TO PROVE THAT THERE WAS, INDEED NO MISTAKE. Then I RETRACTED that apology. Where you are true to type is that you remember the one event and forget the other. History within the excessively limiting constraints of your SELECTIVE recall. It's a kind of character determinant. Something on the lines of an Achilles heel. Much required for propaganda purposes. Nothing whatsoever to do with FACTS. It's why you also manage to CLAIM to take water to boil but OMIT to relate that you did this at NO APPARENT BENEFIT TO THE SYSTEM. I'm under the general impression that one can take 'water to boil' with nothing more dramatic than a small fire under a tin can. Alternatively, one can use thermonuclear energy or indeed electric energy. Take your pick. Nothing exceptional there that I know of.
Anyway - it's nice to see you rise up - yet again - like the phoenix from it's own ashes. But I do wish you'd transmute into a more reasonable and scientific version of your former self. Your previous rendition was patently less than effective. You need to do better.
Rosie
Quote from: Rosemary Ainslie on June 20, 2011, 01:54:42 AM
And as for your laughably UNPROFESSIONAL advice that we put the apparatus outside - in our cape winter - inside an old fridge? which presumably I get from a junk yard - which will need to be what? Open to the varying conditions of rain, wind and sunshine - typical of our Cape winters - or CLOSED? In which case when all that water has finally boiled out of the container and transferred itself to the space in that fridge - then the element can got back to it's previous temperature in the region of 300 degrees centigrade - and then it can start to melt the inside of the container of that was holding 0.85 liters of water - then when it's worked its way through that it can drop onto the wall of the fridge and do whatever damage is required there. And meanwhile that camera will get all steamed up and wrecked. And the probes that are needed to monitor the applied voltage to ensure the system is still oscillating will be vaporised. And the scope to which the probes are connected will now be destroyed by their exposure either to the steam from inside the fridge or the rain from outside the fridge - depending on where it's positioned. And we'll have to use other measuring instruments to track the ambient temperatures as they vary from high to low - hot to cold - windy to windless rain to sunshine - day and night - all of which instruments are likely to UTTERLY unreliable as AMBIENT in and out the fridge will be the sum of an onslaught of variables that would exceed the limits of any quantum averaging. And then? When all is destroyed? What exactly would you conclude - MR MAGS WHO WANTS PROFESSIONAL INPUT?
As you so eloquently put it Sheesh!!!
I really don't know why you are bringing this up again. You said you weren't going to do it anyways. My point was that it could be done very easily and at a much lower cost then you mentioned. I was just pointing out a way that it could be done without anyone standing there watching it 24/7. You can say what you like, it doesn't bother me. You just have to agree that it could be done without someone sitting in front of it. And, you don't need a scope or anything hooked up to it. Just hook it up and let it run. If you will do the test, we could take a serious look at ways to enclose the device safely and try to minimize damage if a fire occurs.
Why are you so defensive and what's with all the name calling. You've called me more things in the last 4 days then I've been called in all the time I've been here. Please don't look at me as a threat, I only asked you to do a simple test and I still don't know if you understand what I am asking. TK seemed to explain it maybe a little better then I did, but I don't think I deserve all the things you've been saying. Please be a little more lady like.
Can you please tell me about your background.
Best Regards,
Mr. Mag
My background and my history and anything at all about me is MY BUSINESS. What you need to take cognisance of MR MAGS is that you unwittingly BOUGHT INTO the general consensus of my dependable stupidities. And then you PRESUMED to post accordingly. That comment 'I'm inclined to see why it is that people call you delusional' - the PATRONISING PRESUMPTION to advise me on measurement requirements when it's been the ENTIRE FOCUS of my work for over 10 years. You like most readers here NEED that perspective - because it gives you the fleeting and much needed illusion that your opinion matters at all.
I have been the VICTIM of the single most focused attack of any member of any of these forums. The reason for this is because I'm onto something. That attack HAS WORKED. It's managed to persuade you all that our contributions are VALUELESS. And that's the TRAGEDY. SO. If you expect me to indulge the fact that YOU TOO HAVE BEEN DUPED - then may I caution you. It makes my blood boil. I rather REQUIRE those who are still able to EVALUATE things for themselves.
R
Quote from: Rosemary Ainslie on June 20, 2011, 02:36:21 AM
My background and my history and anything at all about me is MY BUSINESS.
That's fine, I only asked. The reason I asked is that it seems that you try to come across as being highly educated yet you talk like you have some type of phobia. I'm not sure what it's called but you have to put others down to try to make yourself seem better or smarter then them. It is a bit amusing.
Quote from: Rosemary Ainslie on June 20, 2011, 02:36:21 AM
What you need to take cognisance of MR MAGS is that you unwittingly BOUGHT INTO the general consensus of my dependable stupidities. And then you PRESUMED to post accordingly. That comment 'I'm inclined to see why it is that people call you delusional'
If you reread your past posts to me, you will see where I would of come to that conclusion.
Quote from: Rosemary Ainslie on June 20, 2011, 02:36:21 AM
the PATRONISING PRESUMPTION to advise me on measurement requirements when it's been the ENTIRE FOCUS of my work for over 10 years. You like most readers here NEED that perspective - because it gives you the fleeting and much needed illusion that your opinion matters at all.
It's just hard to believe that in the last 10 years that you haven't tried to run the system continuously. (longer then 17 hours). I would also think that you are in need some type of opinions. 10 years and there is still questions on how to take measurements. Come on, something is wrong, you do need help. A few batteries, a handful of parts and still no idea if it actually works after 10 years.
Quote from: Rosemary Ainslie on June 20, 2011, 02:36:21 AM
I have been the VICTIM of the single most focused attack of any member of any of these forums. The reason for this is because I'm onto something. That attack HAS WORKED. It's managed to persuade you all that our contributions are VALUELESS. And that's the TRAGEDY. SO. If you expect me to indulge the fact that YOU TOO HAVE BEEN DUPED - then may I caution you. It makes my blood boil. I rather REQUIRE those who are still able to EVALUATE things for themselves.
Is it really an attack or are people just trying to explain things to you and you are taking it as an attack. It's hard for me to believe that people in an overunity forum would attack you if you were onto something. I want free energy just as much as you and everyone else here does. If we didn't, we wouldn't be here. All I did was ask you to do a simple test that most people would have done in the first month of the discovery. Here after 10 years you haven't even done that. I'm not talking about your batteries. I'm saying run the complete circuit for a couple of months or so to see if the batteries loose their charge. No scope, just run the circuit and see what happens when the test is complete. I also read one of your posts where you say there are many uses for your circuit. In the last 10 years have you tried any of these? I really think that you can get 50 experts together and if they tell you that you are wrong, you still won't agree with them.
You really need to take a break. You've been talking in circles. Earlier on you said if we wanted to do the test we should do it ourselves and then you say that you don't want us to do it. Even this last statement. You say that our opinion don't matter at all and then you say that you require those who are still able to evaluate things for themselves. So I guess that means that you only want to hear from those who agree with you. I just hope you don't take it real bad when you realize that you have wasted 10 years of your life because of a measurement error.
I wish you luck, but things don't look to promising from where I'm at.
Mr Mag. If you were not quite such an intellectual lightweight I'd argue your last post. But as the significance of what I write ENTIRELY eludes you - then I must needs let it pass.
And Poynty - just a reminder. We need to see the result of that Q2 as it impacts on the waveform across the shunt. Please oblige. You must have it there as you show -5 volts across something. Not sure if it's the shunt or the battery.
Regards,
Rosemary
At least I know how to measure a voltage ;D
Regards,
(insert any name here)
Quote from: Rosemary Ainslie on June 20, 2011, 04:08:58 AM
And Poynty - just a reminder. We need to see the result of that Q2 as it impacts on the waveform across the shunt. Please oblige. You must have it there as you show -5 volts across something. Not sure if it's the shunt or the battery.
Regards,
Rosemary
I've shown the "incorrect" battery voltage trace only thus far. That is what the green trace is in the scope shots. If you followed and understood my detailed analysis, it should be obvious why this measurement point is incorrect and why it yields an erroneous power computation if sampled by the scope and used as v(t) rather than AVGv(t). The only way to obtain an accurate AVG Pin measurement using this
displaced battery voltage measurement point that I've referred to as "vbat", is if it is averaged before being multiplied by the battery current.
One of the fundamental issues that was addressed in my detailed analysis was that taking the instantaneous battery voltage at that measurement point was erroneous. I showed it here again only for comparison sake to those shown throughout the analysis. Using that voltage measurement results in a negative average battery power. Using the "correct" measurement point
directly across the 72V battery yields a positive average battery power, just as I illustrated before. I know this because I ran a couple of tests yesterday to confirm.
There is a huge amount of work that goes into doing these sims and producing the labeled wave form scope shots etc. Over the last month and a half I've easily put in over 140 hours of my time doing these sims, scope shots, and technical write-ups.
It would seem that you do not yet understand the schematic I posted; no, the FG is applying -5V to the MOSFET Source, not the shunt nor the battery.
The traces I showed are of the erroneous "vbat" node, at the far end of the battery wiring. I will post the CSR wave form later today if I have time.
.99
Quote from: MrMag on June 20, 2011, 04:34:09 AM
At least I know how to measure a voltage ;D
Regards,
(insert any name here)
but you don't know how many lemons it takes to light a filament bulb... ::)
if you guys would stop moving the goalposts (you do it so often it has become ridiculously asinine...) and if you "experts" could come up with an agreed upon protocol instead of each of you bloviating different methods of what is the "best" and/or
only method to measure this device we might see some progress... ::)
and one more time for the cheap seats... since you and happy and catty can't seem to do the very thing you are accusing rose of... which is
read what was writtenQuote from: Rosemary Ainslie on June 16, 2011, 11:16:29 PM
And again. A 7.5 hour test period is DOABLE. I will happily oblige. But we'll still be left with a ZERO DISCHARGE. I'll report this. No-one will believe it. They'll ask for double. Then they'll ask for triple. And so it goes. Finally they'll ask for 130 days. If no-one is satisfied, by now that there is a zero discharge to the battery, then THERE IS ABSOLUTELY NOTHING THAT WILL SATISFY ANYONE EVER THAT THE BATTERIES ARE NOT DISCHARGING.
And frankly - even at the end of that monitoring period I am ABSOLUTELY SATISFIED that NO-ONE WILL ACCEPT THAT EVIDENCE.
SO. DO NOT ASK ME TO RUN THAT BATTERY CONTINUOUSLY. We've done this.
Rosemary
Quote from: WilbyInebriated on June 20, 2011, 01:29:50 PM
but you don't know how many lemons it takes to light a filament bulb... ::)
if you guys would stop moving the goalposts (you do it so often it has become ridiculously asinine...) and if you "experts" could come up with an agreed upon protocol instead of each of you bloviating different methods of what is the "best" and/or only method to measure this device we might see some progress... ::)
and one more time for the cheap seats... since you and happy and catty can't seem to do the very thing you are accusing rose of... which is read what was written
After all these years I should know better than to respond to your post, as generally you seem to thrive on confrontation, so I'll give it one shot ;D
Your defence of Rosie's work indicates that you believe that it actually works and she has achieved OU, is this blind faith in what she is telling you or have you actually done a practical test ?
You probably intend to answer this by attacking me and my level of knowledge in these matters and asking me why I have not done the test myself.
I generally find myself guided by others on the forum and over the years have come to trust the judgement (generally) of certainn members.
In this link Wilby you will recognise members from this forum they all failed to match that OU claim
http://www.youtube.com/results?search_type=videos&search_query=Rosemary+Ainslie+circuit&search_sort=video_date_uploaded&suggested_categories=28&uni=3
Over the years that I have followed these threads of Rosie's I have hoped that successful replications were going to start appearing within a reasonable amount of time, specially as Rosie comes across as being sincere and dedicated,
unfortunately after all these years there have been no successful replications of Rosie circuit by anyone here,
but of course we have not seen your replication Wilby, if I believe as strongly as you do that this circuit works as claimed I would have started replication a long time ago.
I have a lot of respect for Rosie's dedication and I believe there has to be a way of making an OU device I just don't believe Rosie's device is it, research yes claiming OU no
It would be fantastic Wilby if you could show the members here how to make this circuit work as claimed.
catty ;)
Quote from: Rosemary Ainslie on June 20, 2011, 02:17:13 AM
TK. You offer a person that extraordinary comfort of predictability. I ALSO seem to recall that I went through the absurd lengths of APOLOGISING for a mistake in the duty cycle as CLAIMED by ONLY YOU. THEN - fortunately - MANY RALLIED TO PROVE THAT THERE WAS, INDEED NO MISTAKE. Then I RETRACTED that apology. Where you are true to type is that you remember the one event and forget the other. History within the excessively limiting constraints of your SELECTIVE recall. It's a kind of character determinant. Something on the lines of an Achilles heel. Much required for propaganda purposes. Nothing whatsoever to do with FACTS. It's why you also manage to CLAIM to take water to boil but OMIT to relate that you did this at NO APPARENT BENEFIT TO THE SYSTEM. I'm under the general impression that one can take 'water to boil' with nothing more dramatic than a small fire under a tin can. Alternatively, one can use thermonuclear energy or indeed electric energy. Take your pick. Nothing exceptional there that I know of.
Anyway - it's nice to see you rise up - yet again - like the phoenix from it's own ashes. But I do wish you'd transmute into a more reasonable and scientific version of your former self. Your previous rendition was patently less than effective. You need to do better.
Rosie
Rosemary, I am ashamed for you. You know that what you say above simply isn't true, and so do several others reading here. I invite ANYONE and EVERYONE to build the 555 timer circuit as specified in the original Quantum article, or simulate it using whatever circuit sims you like, and report your results here.
As far as "claiming" to boil water using YOUR original circuit and a LOAD which MATCHED your original reported parameters: you can see it for yourself, if you ever figure out how to view YT videos. I've already given the link above.
GO ON.... ANYONE.... build the circuit. If you can't find the original Quantum diagram that HAS NOT BEEN EDITED.... here it is:
http://www.mediafire.com/imgbnc.php/99a0a1d879266d1bb50a2c40c9e6cc5f0c8e30e32706364361cf95514355a1d65g.jpg
Even your one-time sycophant Err-on had to admit I was right, finally.
And in case there is any further doubt about the performance of that circuit:
http://www.mediafire.com/imgbnc.php/c0a9d8c2e307dd7bddd9ae2c6a16abf694b48c90ed2abb5f467e9cc0d333ef615g.jpg
And here is the scope shot of your circuit heating in the above experiment, using your preferred oscilloscope, showing your specified "random aperiodic Hartley oscillations" that you specified as necessary for your effect.
http://www.mediafire.com/imgbnc.php/f1ddc6a0bf5d36f2ece82f50c6ff02c00bf697f2ab212d386b983f6d18bec4265g.jpg
@MrMag: You politely asked about Rosemary's background, and for some reason she bristled at you.
But over the years, she has revealed quite a lot. IIRC (and please correct me if I am wrong, Rosie) she has no post-secondary education, no mathematics education beyond simple algebra, certainly no calculus. Her "high school" was what we might call "alternative" here in the good old USA.
She is self-taught wrt physics in general and electronics in particular, and until she started posting here and on Energetic Forum, she had no idea what, for example, a capacitor was or what it was for.
She believes that a scientific theory can be made up out of whole cloth and doesn't need to make testable predictions or be consistent with current knowledge... have you read her "zipon theory" which she says will replace QED? And yet it makes not a single numerical prediction....
For a long time she referred to her "Patent" as if she had a... well... patent, or something. Unfortunately this "patent" turned out to be an APPLICATION for an international patent, which was never granted and which application was allowed to lapse. For a while, she posted a paper submission under IEEE header, that was REJECTED by IEEE.
She has been pursuing this line of... er.... reasoning for years on many websites. I first started following her on the Naked Scientists forum years ago. She has been banned from NS, EF, and has had several "enforced breaks" from this forum.
Nobody, but nobody, has been able to charge up a battery "overunity" or show excess heat production using her circuits. I have, however, shown that the high-voltage spike produced by her circuit can be siphoned off and used to charge capacitors or EXTERNAL batteries. As can any inductive spike from any inductive collapse circuit, even a Joule Thief.
Other than that, she seems like a benign little old lady from South Africa, who would be better off making tangerine marmalade in her kitchen, than messing with MOSFETS.
BTW, I have repeatedly challenged the Rosie supporters to apply the same output power calculations they like to use on her circuit, to my TinselKoil, and report the COP that they find.
Here are the CSR voltage v(t) and v(avg) traces with the Q1 body diode installed as shown in the schematic.
Pin(avg) = 72V x 103mV/0.25 = 29.7W
.99
Out of interest, here is the P(t) and AVG[P(t)] for the load RL.
PRL(avg) ~ 15.9W dissipation.
.99
M1 (Q2) traces for P(t) and AVG[P(t)].
PM1(avg) ~ 12.1W dissipation
Tally so far: 15.9W + 12.1W = 28W
.99
Thanks Poynt. Interesting to see that you put in the power dissipated at the load. How did you work this out? Also an average? ;D
Anyway - for now, let's concentrate on the questions.
There are two parts in each oscillating cycle across the shunt. The one shows a voltage reading moving above zero - to a positive voltage peak - and then collapsing back to zero. The second shows a voltage reading moving from zero to below zero to a negative voltage peak - and then collapsing back to zero. Effectively it's a sinusoid. Convention applies that current flow moves from the anode to the cathode. The + terminal of the battery is the anode. The - terminal of the battery is the cathode. Therefore current flows from the anode to the cathode represented as the positive voltage across the shunt. Likewise the current then reverses to flow from the battery's cathode to the anode represented as the negative voltage across the shunt. How is the 'positive' anode to cathode flow of current enabled through Q2?
Actually just start by answering that question. I'll move on from there.
Thanks,
Rosemary
Quote from: Rosemary Ainslie on June 21, 2011, 12:35:59 AM
Thanks Poynt. Interesting to see that you put in the power dissipated at the load. How did you work this out?
PSpice has a handy "W" probe that you place on top of the device for which you want to see P(t).
Quote
Also an average? ;D
To determine the effective power dissipated in a device, the average of P(t) is computed when vi(t) sampling is used.
Quote
How is the 'positive' anode to cathode flow of current enabled through Q2?
Q2 never turns OFF completely throughout the oscillation cycle. In the case where Q1 is present (and hence its body diode), some of the current path is through Q2 and some through Q1's body diode. When Q1 is removed, all the current path is through Q2. There is also the body diode of Q2; if it is ever forward biased (it never is in this case), it too provides a current path from Source to Drain.
.99
Quote from: TinselKoala on June 20, 2011, 08:59:59 PM
@MrMag: You politely asked about Rosemary's background, and for some reason she bristled at you.
But over the years, she has revealed quite a lot. IIRC (and please correct me if I am wrong, Rosie) she has no post-secondary education, no mathematics education beyond simple algebra, certainly no calculus. Her "high school" was what we might call "alternative" here in the good old USA.
Golly. I'm not sure that the English education system is correctly described as 'alternative'. I think that anyone qualifying for the O levels and GCE's and M levels would be inclined to protest. I was held back for a year as it was considered that I was just too emotionally immature to cut it so I wrote my M levels 'university entrance to SA universities' when I was 15. I then went to university - only because I was too young to get a job. BUT when I was old enough to make my OWN decisions I LEFT UNIVERSITY. That was after 2 years when I FINALLY turned 18. And 1 year before my finals. And from then until now I worked for myself - first in catering then in property development and finally in trading. Since NONE of these endeavors included science they are also ENTIRELY irrelevant. And since all of them require some measure of a functioning intelligence I think you can largely discount Poynt's assessment of me being an outright moron. But since I still post here then even I'm inclined to doubt this.
Quote from: TinselKoala on June 20, 2011, 08:59:59 PMShe is self-taught wrt physics in general and electronics in particular, and until she started posting here and on Energetic Forum, she had no idea what, for example, a capacitor was or what it was for.
This is also a lot of baloney. I was VERY CAPABLY TAUGHT by the writings of Gary Zukov, Murray Gell Mann - and a list too long and too boring to include here. AND most specifically - I was also taught by Dyson in that IMPECCABLE STUDY OF CONCEPTUAL PHYSICS. SO. I was taught DIRECTLY by the masters or by brilliant writers ABOUT the master - not through the fractured muddles of those who teach the MASTERS. And my lack of knowledge as it pertains to ELECTRONICS PERSISTS. I only USE circuit components in a VERY LIMITED APPLICATION to prove my thesis. I STILL do not know how a capacitor works. AND I wont know until I've finally taken one apart and worked it out for myself. I cannot be accused EVER to taking anyone's word for it on any issue at all - unless I've also UNDERSTOOD the issues. That's the downside in being me.
Quote from: TinselKoala on June 20, 2011, 08:59:59 PMShe believes that a scientific theory can be made up out of whole cloth and doesn't need to make testable predictions or be consistent with current knowledge... have you read her "zipon theory" which she says will replace QED? And yet it makes not a single numerical prediction....
FAR from NOT making a single numerical prediction it RELIES on a close analysis of mass/size ratios and a close analysis of the properties of charge. It is ALL OF IT NUMERICAL. And the most glaring prediction is that in the transfer of electric energy UNITY CAN MOST CERTAINLY BE EXCEEDED. That you cannot understand it is also understandable. At it's least you'll need a facility with concept. And I certainly HOPE that the thesis will not REPLACE QED. What a thought! That would be a travesty of the highest order. It REPLACES NOTHING. Nor does it DISCOVER ANYTHING. It simply resolves some very real anomalies - which is the broadly applied euphemism when our mainstream scientists can't answer questions. lol.
btw. Here's that LINK
http://newlightondarkenergy.blogspot.com/2011/03/98-model.html
Quote from: TinselKoala on June 20, 2011, 08:59:59 PMFor a long time she referred to her "Patent" as if she had a... well... patent, or something. Unfortunately this "patent" turned out to be an APPLICATION for an international patent, which was never granted and which application was allowed to lapse. For a while, she posted a paper submission under IEEE header, that was REJECTED by IEEE.
ALSO NOT TRUE. The paper was pubished on SCRIBD and withdrawn because FUZZY claimed it was his WORK. And he's not capable of writing an articulate paragraph let alone that paper. Nor can he dream up the parameters required for the tests he replicated and then CLAIMED was his own work. lol. Right now that paper is PUBLISHED on my blogspot and has enjoyed a VERY WIDE readership.
Quote from: TinselKoala on June 20, 2011, 08:59:59 PMShe has been pursuing this line of... er.... reasoning for years on many websites. I first started following her on the Naked Scientists forum years ago. She has been banned from NS, EF, and has had several "enforced breaks" from this forum.
For 'many years' read 3 years - and during the most of 1 of those 3 years I was pretty effectively SILENCED.
Quote from: TinselKoala on June 20, 2011, 08:59:59 PMNobody, but nobody, has been able to charge up a battery "overunity" or show excess heat production using her circuits.
And this is also true - provided that you exclude Glen's replications, sundry tests that Aaron has done - The tests designed and accredited by BP (SA), ABB Research, SASOL (SA) SPESCOM - CISR - POWER ENGINEERS (part of the Alstom group) the directors of MTN SCIENCENTRE where it was demonstrated for a couple of weeks and a veritable HOST of independent engineers. And latterly by 3 replicators here in CAPE TOWN. But otherwise TK is SPOT ON. Just read that 'Nobody but nobody' - as a double negative - which we all know - makes a positive.
Quote from: TinselKoala on June 20, 2011, 08:59:59 PMI have, however, shown that the high-voltage spike produced by her circuit can be siphoned off and used to charge capacitors or EXTERNAL batteries. As can any inductive spike from any inductive collapse circuit, even a Joule Thief.
;D More of those euphemisms TK.
Quote from: TinselKoala on June 20, 2011, 08:59:59 PMOther than that, she seems like a benign little old lady from South Africa, who would be better off making tangerine marmalade in her kitchen, than messing with MOSFETS.
It's true. I make a very good marmalade. I LOVE cooking.
Quote from: TinselKoala on June 20, 2011, 08:59:59 PMBTW, I have repeatedly challenged the Rosie supporters to apply the same output power calculations they like to use on her circuit, to my TinselKoil, and report the COP that they find.
I don't think anyone cares enough about anything you claim TK. We all know you as a propagandist. And once propaganda is seen for what it is - then it rather loses its edge.
Rosie
Added a link to what TK refers to as my 'ZIPON' theory. ENJOY. lol.
Quote from: poynt99 on June 21, 2011, 01:04:38 AM
Q2 never turns OFF completely throughout the oscillation cycle. In the case where Q1 is present (and hence its body diode), some of the current path is through Q2 and some through Q1's body diode. When Q1 is removed, all the current path is through Q2. There is also the body diode of Q2; if it is ever forward biased (it never is in this case), it too provides a current path from Source to Drain.
.99
Not sure what you mean by 'forward biased'. If the body diode is positioned that the anode is against the anode of the battery - as it IS and as it's shown in your schematics in your 'replacement' of Q1 - then it does indeed provide a path from the source to the drain. Correctly you should be putting that body diode across Q2 with that same 'forward bias' as you put it. And it will certainly PREVENT a discharge of positive current from the anode to the cathode of the battery. The question is how does it allow a current flow from the drain to the source? Because there's evidently a flow in this direction.
Now. Back to my question. What in the circuit enables that 'positive' current flow through Q2? You really just need to give a simple answer here Poynty. One assumes that there is a path because the current is most decidedly positive. WHERE DOES IT FIND THAT PATH?
It goes from the + at the battery terminals - then it flows to the Gate of Q2? or WHAT? on it's way back to the negative terminal of the battery.
Regards again,
Rosie
Quote from: Rosemary Ainslie on June 21, 2011, 05:32:57 AM
Not sure what you mean by 'forward biased'.
With reference to a diode, "forward biased" means that the anode of the diode is at least 0.7V higher in potential than the cathode. When forward biased, a current path is formed in the direction from anode to cathode.
Quote
Now. Back to my question. What in the circuit enables that 'positive' current flow through Q2? You really just need to give a simple answer here Poynty. One assumes that there is a path because the current is most decidedly positive. WHERE DOES IT FIND THAT PATH?
It goes from the + at the battery terminals - then it flows to the Gate of Q2? or WHAT? on it's way back to the negative terminal of the battery.
Regards again,
Rosie
The normal flow of current through a N-channel MOSFET is from Drain to Source, as long as the Gate is sufficiently potentialized to turn the MOSFET on to a degree. The Drain to Source current path is created when the MOSFET is "ON". The degree to which the MOSFET is "ON" is determined in general by the Gate to Source voltage.
.99
Quote from: poynt99 on June 21, 2011, 08:38:53 AM
With reference to a diode, "forward biased" means that the anode of the diode is at least 0.7V higher in potential than the cathode. When forward biased, a current path is formed in the direction from anode to cathode.
The normal flow of current through a N-channel MOSFET is from Drain to Source, as long as the Gate is sufficiently potentialized to turn the MOSFET on to a degree. The Drain to Source current path is created when the MOSFET is "ON". The degree to which the MOSFET is "ON" is determined in general by the Gate to Source voltage.
.99
OK. SO. Assume that the drain to source is clockwise - positive as it relates to ground. Correspondingly source to drain is negative - counter clockwise - negative as it relates to ground. Now. Look at the body diode. That's only polarised to allowed a counter cockwise flow. And the signal at the gate of Q2 is what? Negative? As you've shown it? -5v's?
So. WHAT path does the current flow when it's generated from the CEMF when it flows clockwise? Because it really DOES flow clockwise for 50% of each of those sinusoidal waveforms.
Thanks
R
Quote from: Rosemary Ainslie on June 21, 2011, 10:28:39 AM
And the signal at the gate of Q2 is what? Negative? As you've shown it? -5v's?
The voltage at the Gate wrt the Source (called VGS), has about a +5V potential (minus some drop across the 2 Ohm resistor). The VGS is also modulated up and down by the oscillation.
Quote
So. WHAT path does the current flow when it's generated from the CEMF when it flows clockwise? Because it really DOES flow clockwise for 50% of each of those sinusoidal waveforms.
The current paths are a combination of the Q2 D-S channel, and through the Q1 body diode and wire down to ground.
.99
Quote from: poynt99 on June 21, 2011, 10:48:07 AM
The voltage at the Gate wrt the Source (called VGS), has about a +5V potential (minus some drop across the 2 Ohm resistor).
That's not what you show in your schematic. I'll post it again. You show -5 volts. Are you saying that you're actually applying a positive or +5 volt signal at the gate of Q2?
Quote from: poynt99 on June 21, 2011, 10:48:07 AMThe VGS is also modulated up and down by the oscillation.
I've looked at those voltages very carefully. When you say 'up and down' are you implying that the voltage across the gate ALSO crosses ZERO
during the oscillation phase?
Quote from: poynt99 on June 21, 2011, 10:48:07 AMThe current paths are a combination of the Q2 D-S channel, and through the Q1 body diode and wire down to ground.
This explains NOTHING. The question is this. WHERE EXACTLY is the path in your Q2 - sans Q1 schematic - that allows a POSITIVE cycle of each half of that sinusoidal waveform??
R
here's that schematic again.
added.
Do you see where I'm going with this Poynty? Here are the options. The signal at Q2 HAS to be positive else the positive flow from the battery cannot have a path. So. Why do you show this as a negative or -5V's. Do you see now why I did NOT realise that you were referring to the voltage applied to the gate? You need to explain this. Are your schematics WRONGLY configured?
Regards,
R
I'm in a panic that you won't see this. So. For PERFECT CLARITY. If the applied voltage at the Q2 is postive as it relates to the source voltage - then it's negative as it relates to the drain voltage. Therefore. Counter clockwise current flow is permitted. Clockwise current flow is BLOCKED. IS THIS RIGHT?
QuoteThe voltage at the Gate wrt the Source (called VGS),
Do you know what that means? If so, please explain it, otherwise this discussion can not progress.
.99
Quote from: poynt99 on June 21, 2011, 11:43:53 AM
Do you know what that means? If so, please explain it, otherwise this discussion can not progress.
.99
NO POYNTY. You're ducking the issue. Here's what you wrote.
'The voltage at the Gate wrt the Source (called VGS), has about a +5V potential (minus some drop across the 2 Ohm resistor). The VGS is also modulated up and down by the oscillation.'If the voltage WRT the SOURCE is +5V then is the voltage WRT the DRAIN -5V?
And don't get sniffy with me. That 'this discussion is going nowhere' bit. I'm asking some very appropriate questions and I very much doubt that you'll be able to answer them. I hope to be proved wrong.
Again
R
Quote from: Rosemary Ainslie on June 21, 2011, 11:51:36 AM
If the voltage WRT the SOURCE is +5V then is the voltage WRT the DRAIN -5V?
No.
I admit I am losing patience with you and I prefer not to get into another arduous discussion that results in you still not understanding anything I am trying to convey.
.99
Thanx for the info TK and thank-you Rose for the clarification of the comments.
Quote from: Rosemary Ainslie on June 21, 2011, 01:28:33 AM
I was held back for a year as it was considered that I was just too emotionally immature to cut it so I wrote my M levels 'university entrance to SA universities' when I was 15. I then went to university - only because I was too young to get a job. BUT when I was old enough to make my OWN decisions I LEFT UNIVERSITY. That was after 2 years when I FINALLY turned 18. And 1 year before my finals.
That's pretty good Rose. To bad you didn't decide to stay until you were finished. That was pretty stupid to just quit with only one year left before your degree. I'm also not sure that you have fully grown out of the emotional immaturity bit.
Quote from: Rosemary Ainslie on June 21, 2011, 01:28:33 AM
Since NONE of these endeavors included science they are also ENTIRELY irrelevant. And since all of them require some measure of a functioning intelligence I think you can largely discount Poynt's assessment of me being an outright moron. But since I still post here then even I'm inclined to doubt this.
Yes, interesting but I agree irrelevant. I was wondering more about a technical background or training. I hope Poynt didn't call you an outright moron. It's hard too believe that he has. Because if he did, why would he be putting in all the time and energy to try to help you understand the circuit.
Quote from: Rosemary Ainslie on June 21, 2011, 01:28:33 AM
This is also a lot of baloney. I was VERY CAPABLY TAUGHT by the writings of Gary Zukov, Murray Gell Mann - and a list too long and too boring to include here. AND most specifically - I was also taught by Dyson in that IMPECCABLE STUDY OF CONCEPTUAL PHYSICS. SO. I was taught DIRECTLY by the masters or by brilliant writers ABOUT the master - not through the fractured muddles of those who teach the MASTERS. And my lack of knowledge as it pertains to ELECTRONICS PERSISTS. I only USE circuit components in a VERY LIMITED APPLICATION to prove my thesis. I STILL do not know how a capacitor works. AND I wont know until I've finally taken one apart and worked it out for myself. I cannot be accused EVER to taking anyone's word for it on any issue at all - unless I've also UNDERSTOOD the issues. That's the downside in being me.
If you have learned by the writings of these people by reading their books, wouldn't you consider it self taught? It is a little confusing that you won't know how a capacitor works until you take one apart, but you believe in the writings of Zukov, Mann and others. Isn't a capacitor a little easier to understand then some of their statements. I really think your reaching here. It's the same as saying that I have a good understanding of magic and wizardry since I've read all of the Harry Potter books.
Quote from: Rosemary Ainslie on June 21, 2011, 01:28:33 AM
ALSO NOT TRUE. The paper was pubished on SCRIBD and withdrawn because FUZZY claimed it was his WORK. And he's not capable of writing an articulate paragraph let alone that paper. Nor can he dream up the parameters required for the tests he replicated and then CLAIMED was his own work. lol. Right now that paper is PUBLISHED on my blogspot and has enjoyed a VERY WIDE readership.
Just because you uploaded a couple of documents I wouldn't necessarily say that you published some papers. You make it sound as if they/it has been accepted which I don't think it has.
Quote from: Rosemary Ainslie on June 21, 2011, 01:28:33 AM
For 'many years' read 3 years - and during the most of 1 of those 3 years I was pretty effectively SILENCED.
I really don't think you were SILENCED because of your alleged discovery. I would guess that it was probably because of your unprofessional attitude and slanderous remarks to and about people.
Quote from: Rosemary Ainslie on June 21, 2011, 01:28:33 AM
;D More of those euphemisms TK.
What part of his comment is a euphemism and why do you say that it is.
Quote from: Rosemary Ainslie on June 21, 2011, 01:28:33 AM
It's true. I make a very good marmalade. I LOVE cooking.
No offense, but maybe this is your true calling.
Quote from: poynt99 on June 21, 2011, 12:21:56 PM
No.
I admit I am losing patience with you and I prefer not to get into another arduous discussion that results in you still not understanding anything I am trying to convey.
.99
lol. That's a cop out. There's not too much wrong with my comprehension Poynty Point. Try me. Otherwise I take it as a cop out and you don't know the answer - which, unhappily, is what I suspect.
Kindest regards,
Rosie
Guys - the sad truth is that when it gets down to that final question - how can the positive current flow find a path through either Q1 and/or Q2 during the oscillation phase - then we've actually got the the nub of the what's going on here. No surprise that Poynty's begged off. He can't answer it. There's no explanation within standard thinking about the properties of current flow. When they get to this point then everyone becomes horribly vague and fall into an excessive use of acronyms and muddled nonsense. Because they have NO SENSIBLE ANSWERS.
I'd love to hear an explanation that fits mainstream concepts. How about it Poynty Point.
Rosie
your response doesn't address a single salient point from my post... ::) imagine that. ;D
Quote from: powercat on June 20, 2011, 05:24:49 PM
After all these years I should know better than to respond to your post, as generally you seem to thrive on confrontation, so I'll give it one shot ;D
Your defence of Rosie's work indicates that you believe that it actually works and she has achieved OU, is this blind faith in what she is telling you or have you actually done a practical test ?
what i have done and/or what i
believe is irrelevant... i know you don't thrive on logic, but i'll give it one shot. ;D
Quote from: powercat on June 20, 2011, 05:24:49 PM
You probably intend to answer this by attacking me and my level of knowledge in these matters and asking me why I have not done the test myself.
I generally find myself guided by others on the forum and over the years have come to trust the judgement (generally) of certainn members.
In this link Wilby you will recognise members from this forum they all failed to match that OU claim
http://www.youtube.com/results?search_type=videos&search_query=Rosemary+Ainslie+circuit&search_sort=video_date_uploaded&suggested_categories=28&uni=3
wrong. i'll leave the red herrings and strawman arguments to you guys... you excel at them. ;D
and as an aside, there was no OU claim... it was a COP>1 claim if i recall. ::)
Quote from: powercat on June 20, 2011, 05:24:49 PM
Over the years that I have followed these threads of Rosie's I have hoped that successful replications were going to start appearing within a reasonable amount of time, specially as Rosie comes across as being sincere and dedicated,
unfortunately after all these years there have been no successful replications of Rosie circuit by anyone here,
but of course we have not seen your replication Wilby, if I believe as strongly as you do that this circuit works as claimed I would have started replication a long time ago.
you don't have any idea what i "believe"... please refrain from making yourself look so asinine by positing such ignorant assumptions and conjectures. ::)
Quote from: powercat on June 20, 2011, 05:24:49 PM
I have a lot of respect for Rosie's dedication and I believe there has to be a way of making an OU device I just don't believe Rosie's device is it, research yes claiming OU no
great, grand, wonderful. you made your
opinion more than known... on more than one occasion... we get it. will you shut up now?
Quote from: powercat on June 20, 2011, 05:24:49 PM
It would be fantastic Wilby if you could show the members here how to make this circuit work as claimed.
catty ;)
i'm no longer willing to demonstrate anything at this site. if you want reasons, look at my last posts in stiffler's thread... so dream on little pussycat. ;D
added: and once again, why is it that science, and all these 'educated' (read as indoctrinated) people like pussycat, the dancing bear and poynty, etc, etc, ad infintum, ad nauseam still
CANNOT tell me exactly how much 'juice' is in a battery... ::) that to me speaks volumes about their 'science' and its level of understanding.
if you have any more questions for me pussycat, please send me a pm instead of polluting threads with your irrelevancies... and next time you respond to one of my posts, please try to address the points i made with a cogent argument (if you know what one is...) instead of responding with irrelevant logical fallacies. thanks!
Quote from: WilbyInebriated on June 21, 2011, 03:04:53 PM
and as an aside, there was no OU claim... it was a COP>1 claim if i recall. ::)
This one was worth responding to, the claim was COP 17 and COP Infinity amongst others made.
Only Stefan can tell me what to do on this forum, wow you remind me so much of Omnibus.
In this link Wilby you will recognise members from this forum they all failed to match that OU claim
http://www.youtube.com/results?search_type=videos&search_query=Rosemary+Ainslie+circuit&search_sort=video_date_uploaded&suggested_categories=28&uni=3
If you go through the pages on that link you will see the members from this forum, maybe you could explain to them what they did wrong, but I guess you won't that's a real shame, it would really help if someone from this forum could have success with this circuit.
Now if you are not going to help then why bother posting support for Rosie's claims, you're the one with all the knowledge or so you insinuate.
pussycat :-*
Quote from: powercat on June 21, 2011, 04:44:04 PM
This one was worth responding to, the claim was COP 17 and COP Infinity amongst others made.
yeah that's what i said... cop>1... if you could read and comprehend. ::)
furthermore, i didn't "tell you what to do"... i made a couple requests of you, i even used the word please. ::)
the rest of your post isn't even worth responding to, you are simply repeating the irrelevant garbage from your first fallacious reply to my post.
Quote from: WilbyInebriated on June 21, 2011, 07:06:21 PM
yeah that's what i said... cop>1... if you could read and comprehend. ::)
furthermore, i didn't "tell you what to do"... i made a couple requests of you, i even used the word please. ::)
the rest of your post isn't even worth responding to, you are simply repeating the irrelevant garbage from your first fallacious reply to my post.
You really only see what you want to see, here is an example
Quote from: WilbyInebriated on June 21, 2011, 03:04:53 PM
if you have any more questions for me pussycat, please send me a pm instead of polluting threads with your irrelevancies... and next time you respond to one of my posts, please try to address the points i made with a cogent argument (if you know what one is...) instead of responding with irrelevant logical fallacies. thanks!
Things I remember about you arguing with other people is misdirection, so it's pointless me arguing with you,
you might well understand what I am telling you but you would rather have an argument about the way I said it.
basically you're not going to help anyone makes this circuit work, though you are going to stand by Rosie's claim
That is really useful to humanity, at a time when we need practical solutions, and you're supposed to be intelligent,
your scientific knowledge is far greater than mine and yet you choose to do nothing to help prove that this claim is true
Guys - Poynty - like so many others - is excessively uncomfortable when it comes to 'explaining things' unless he/they can hide behind a whole lot of acronyms and generalisations and hand waving. It's the dance of the 7 veils - but with transparent need to hide this essential truth. They CANNOT explain that oscillation. No-one can. Certainly NOT within the ambit of standard electrical engineering concepts with respect to - or as Poynty et al say - 'wrt' - current flow. lol
That asburd - 'I admit I am losing patience with you and I prefer not to get into another arduous discussion that results in you still not understanding anything I am trying to convey' ;D What excessive POMPOSITY and what empty POSTURINGS. Just ADMIT IT POYNTY POINT. There is NO PATH for the flow of positive current which is evident in EVERY SINGLE OSCILLATING CYCLE IN that waveform. NONE. Here's the problem. I've split the following posts as it's quite a comprehensive overview. And therefore, as ever, I doubt that there will be that many who read it. Which is a shame because the actual question really needs to be addressed.
Regards,
Rosemary
Standard thinking is this. At first, no current can flow from the battery. There's no path. On one side of the MOSFET there's a blocking diode. And the gate is open. At Q2 there's also a blocking diode and because, as yet no signal's been applied to either FET then its gate is also OPEN. For perfect clarity - let me add this. Both MOSFETs' body diodes are positioned that their anodes are parallel to the battery supply's anodes. Therefore it blocks a positive or clockwise current flow from the source battery.
THEN. There is a signal applied by the signal generator to the Gate of Q1. Its widely referenced as a POSITIVE signal which is possibly erroneous. But I'll get back to this. For now - and for this description - it most certainly IS positive with respect to ((wrt) ;D) the current that is now ABLE to flow from the anode of the battery to the cathode of the battery - from the plus terminal to the negative terminal. That's the standard - predictable - respectable - result - precisely in line with what a well behaved circuit should do. All's good. The previously OPEN circuit is now CLOSED. The gate has been bridged. The current can flow.
THEN. That applied signal REVERSES. It goes FROM POSITIVE to NEGATIVE. Again, I'm not sure that that's an accurate description of the property of that applied signal. But again, this much is still unarguable. Because. With respect to - or as our rather pretentious contributors prefer - wrt - the applied current from the source there's a clash of interests. The positive voltage from the battery CLASHES with the negative charge applied to the gate of Q1. THEY REPEL - precisely as like charges repel. So now, to all intents and purposes the battery supply is AGAIN facing OPEN CIRCUIT CONDITIONS.
THEN. Let's consider what's going on at Q2. We also have that body diode blocking the onrush of any current flow from the battery's positive terminal because the anode of its body diode is in parallel to the anode of the battery supply. So. Circuit is still open. BUT here's the thing. If the the signal at the gate of Q1 is negative then WHAT is the signal at the gate of Q2 with respect to Q1? IF the applied signal at the gate of Q1 is now a negative charge showing a voltage from zero to minus something then, in the same way the applied signal at the gate of Q2 reads minus something to zero. SO. That means that Q1 AND Q2 are OPEN. Again. NO CURRENT CAN FLOW FROM THE SUPPLY AS THE CIRCUIT CONDITIONS ARE OPEN.
THEN. All the circuit components had an initialising INDUCED voltage from the flow of current from the battery supply. That current flow was POSITIVE resulting in a positively induced voltage over all affected circuit components. But now that the signal at the gate has changed the current can no longer flow and all that positively induced voltage over the circuit material collapses from something above zero - to zero. Again. Whatever it was that took that voltage above zero - it now reverses to move back to zero.
THEN. Changing electric fields induce magnetic fields and changing magnetic fields induce electric fields. Inductive Laws must NOW kick in because collapsing voltage is simply the measure of magnetic fields that are 'changing' over time. So. These collapsing reversing fields then induce the second cycle thereby inducing an equivalent negative voltage potential to the previously applied positively induced voltage. In effect the positive voltage from the initial current flow reverses - thereby representing changing magnetic fields. Again. They collapse to zero to discharge that initial applied potential difference. Then they move through zero to establish an EQUAL but opposite voltage or potential difference over those same circuit components.
NOW. Let's take a look at the new circuit. The battery cannot apply any energy at all. It's effectively DISCONNECTED. BUT. The circuit is now CHARGED with POTENTIAL DIFFERENCE THAT IS EQUAL TO THE POTENTIAL DIFFERENCE FIRST APPLIED FROM THE POWER SUPPLY. So. What we've actually got is A SECOND ENERGY SUPPLY SOURCE because we all know that potential difference is MOST CERTAINLY a source of energy. And where we only had one energy supply source - in the battery - we've now got a second energy supply source in the circuit material.
THEN. Unlike the battery - there's a circuit path for the flow of current induced from all that negative energy. Here's that path. The body diodes in either Q1 OR Q2 or both - allows the flow of current from it's cathode through it's anode - back to the anode of the battery. The battery cannot offer any resistance to this because it's still effectively disconnected. Again. The battery source still cannot, itself, discharge any current as there's still no path available to it. So it simply takes this new and reversed inrush of current from it's anode through its cathode and that current flow then returns back to it's own source - being the circuit material that also discharged all that negative potential difference. And the result of this is that the battery voltage CLIMBS. It climbs to the full value of the current applied during this cycle times the voltage that was applied during that second cycle,
NOW. Here's the thing. This is the point where POYNTY et al need to learn new techniques of denial. Because, as Poynty as rightly pointed out - the battery voltage is determined by its ratings. It cannot, of itself CLIMB to some value well in excess of that rating. Any apparent climb must therefore be the result of potential difference applied OUTSIDE the battery. Since it's climbed to a 'readable' value of, say double the battery supply - then one can rightly compute that the applied voltage is the sum of the battery's rated voltage PLUS the increased voltage. And the rate of current flow is easily established by the voltage measured across the shunt over the resistive value of that shunt. So. P=vi dt - which is ABSOLUTELY IN LINE WITH GOOD, WELL ESTABLISHED, STANDARD MEASUREMENT PROTOCOLS.
THE LAST PART - YOU'LL BE PLEASED TO KNOW.
;D
THEN. Now comes the problematic part of that cycle. Here's what happens. When all that potential difference has effectively been transferred back to the circuit material - at the end of that discharge cycle - where the battery gets charged and the circuit has finally discharged all it's negative voltage then what happens? Well. Inductive Laws ALWAYS apply. The circuit components have now discharged all their negative potential. This voltage needs must collapse to back to zero. When it collapses - as ever, those voltages - which are simply magnetic fields - also simply change over time. Changing magnetic fields induce electric fields. And just as happened before in that first initialising cycle from the battery discharge - we now have a collapsing fields that are moving from negative to zero - then from zero through to some positive voltage. In effect we have ANOTHER INDUCED CYCLE OF VOLTAGE AND CURRENT from a previously INDUCED CYCLE OF VOLTAGE AND CURRENT. Two induced cycles at the price of one.
THEN. We also need to establish the path for that second positive current flow. That's the tricky part. The signal at Q1 is still negative. So. Clearly the positive current flow can't move through that gate. And nor is there the required positive signal at Q2. So. It also can't move through there? Nor can it breach the body diodes as they're also in anti phase to that flow of current. So back to that question that I asked Poynty. HOW DOES THAT POSITIVE CURRENT FLOW FIND ANY PATH AT ALL IN THAT CIRCUIT TO DISCHARGE ANYTHING AT ALL? Because what is clearly evident is that, notwithstanding these barriers and restrictions - the current INDEED flowed and wrt - or rather with respect to ;D all appropriate references that flow was POSITIVE and GREATER THAN ZERO. And we absolutely KNOW that it also impacted on the battery supply because the voltage across the battery DROPS - FALLS - COLLAPSES - WELL BELOW IT'S RATING.
That guys is the point of departure. That's when the ONLY explanation relies on a re-evaluation of the properties of current flow. OR POYNTY ET AL need to give us an EXPLANATION.
Kindest regards,
Rosemary
And here's the kicker - Guys,
PROVIDED THAT THE PROPERTIES OF CURRENT FLOW COMPRISE A MAGNETIC DIPOLE and ONLY if they comprise that dipole - then there are NO RESTRICTIONS OFFERED BY THAT CIRCUIT FOR THE CHARGE AND DISCHARGE OF NEGATIVE ENERGY IN BOTH INDUCED CYCLES. Therefore, my hope. That this oscillation PROVES that property - is the first point.
And IF IT DOES - then it also proves that the POTENTIAL DIFFERENCE can vary on a circuit without the MATERIAL LOSS OF ANY OF THOSE MAGNETIC DIPOLES. WHICH BEGS A TOTAL CONSERVATION OF ENERGY.
And IF IT DOES - then it also proves that the circuit material itself is a viable source of INDUCED POTENTIAL DIFFERENCE - to become an energy supply source all on its own.
AND it proves that therefore there are NO CONTRADICTIONS BETWEEN THIS RESULT AND THE LAWS OF THE CONSERVATION OF ENERGY.
And it proves that the amount of INDUCED ENERGY can EQUAL AND/OR EXCEED the amount of energy first applied WITHOUT contradicting the KNOWN LAWS OF PHYSICS.
and it proves that in as much as ALL CYCLES - the initlal applied current and the current resulting from both INDUCED CYCLES is able to dissipate energy at the circuit's workstations without any material reduction to that energy supply - then it is also FEASIBLE to generate work without a commensurate reduction to that potential difference. And that's easy to prove. JUST MEASURE THE HEAT AT THAT WORKSTATION. IF IT'S ABOVE AMBIENT THEN THERE'S ENERGY DISSIPATED.
Which has ALL GOT TO BE - A VERY GOOD THING.
;D
Rosemary
@ Mags
As a rule I quite like those trolls that tend to follow me around. Very few exceptions. But Fuzzy's one such. And you're another. I absolutely did NOT make any disclosures on my life for your edification. I believe I was answering TK.
And MR MAGS - I'm not sure you're right in advising me on anything at all. You're grossly under qualified. You do not have the required intelligence nor training. If I spent the rest of my life making marmalade - as you suggest - then how would I be able to indulge my love of and talents for and interest in logic and language and physics and art. I realise that you can't share this. But that speaks to your own limitations. Not mine. I express myself very clearly.
What shows me an extreme want of decency in your character is that you KNOW that my threads are not moderated. So you indulge in this off topic excursion with relative freedom from harm. Which effectively makes you an opportunistic, unprincipled bully. You are to the forum what hyenas are to the wild. No bigger coward when the top predator comes to the party. And nothing braver than when those top predators aren't there. And no-one noiser.
So. Magsy - I propose you take your fatuous observations and your rather limited intellect elsewhere. You're incapable of contributing to anything constructively, if your advices regarding my interests are anything to go by. And you're utterly unequal to contributing to the science if your experimental proposals are anything to go by. And I'm not sure that you can contribute anything at all to the general health of the planet or it's population as you're also afflicted with a certain want of principle and morality. But I would MUCH prefer it if you would stay off this thread.
Rosemary
Quote from: Rosemary Ainslie on June 21, 2011, 01:28:33 AM
Golly. I'm not sure that the English education system is correctly described as 'alternative'. I think that anyone qualifying for the O levels and GCE's and M levels would be inclined to protest. I was held back for a year as it was considered that I was just too emotionally immature to cut it so I wrote my M levels 'university entrance to SA universities' when I was 15.
I'm glad you have finally figured out how to intersperse comments and quotes. Since you had such a traditional English education, perhaps you could list some of the courses you took. Algebra? Geometry? Chemistry? Trigonometry? Physics? Anything like that at all in your O levels or M levels or GCEs? There certainly were in mine, and I'll wager that there were in the pre-university educations of most of our readers.
QuoteI then went to university - only because I was too young to get a job. BUT when I was old enough to make my OWN decisions I LEFT UNIVERSITY. That was after 2 years when I FINALLY turned 18. And 1 year before my finals.
Congratulations on making the right decision there. It's difficult to cut it at University if one doesn't have the maturity, discipline, or.... educational prerequisites required for success.
QuoteAnd from then until now I worked for myself - first in catering then in property development and finally in trading. Since NONE of these endeavors included science they are also ENTIRELY irrelevant.
On that much we are in complete agreement. NONE of your prior work gives you any qualification to be writing "theories" or doing "experiments".
QuoteAnd since all of them require some measure of a functioning intelligence I think you can largely discount Poynt's assessment of me being an outright moron. But since I still post here then even I'm inclined to doubt this.
No, Rosemary, you are clearly a very clever person. Your problem is that you have a huge chip on your shoulder and you cannot accept that you just might be wrong in your conception of the scientific process in general and the peer review process in particular.
Quote(referring to being an autodidact)
This is also a lot of baloney. I was VERY CAPABLY TAUGHT by the writings of Gary Zukov, Murray Gell Mann - and a list too long and too boring to include here. AND most specifically - I was also taught by Dyson in that IMPECCABLE STUDY OF CONCEPTUAL PHYSICS. SO. I was taught DIRECTLY by the masters
So you sat in class with Gell-Mann, sat exams for him, worked as a grad student of his, or Dyson's.... I laugh at your "taught DIRECTLY" because you have no conception of what it's really like to be a student of a great teacher.
Quoteor by brilliant writers ABOUT the master - not through the fractured muddles of those who teach the MASTERS. And my lack of knowledge as it pertains to ELECTRONICS PERSISTS. I only USE circuit components in a VERY LIMITED APPLICATION to prove my thesis. I STILL do not know how a capacitor works. AND I wont know until I've finally taken one apart and worked it out for myself. I cannot be accused EVER to taking anyone's word for it on any issue at all - unless I've also UNDERSTOOD the issues. That's the downside in being me.
You defend your ignorance with more vigor than anyone I have ever encountered.
Quote
FAR from NOT making a single numerical prediction it RELIES on a close analysis of mass/size ratios and a close analysis of the properties of charge. It is ALL OF IT NUMERICAL.
Please give an example of a mathematical calculation that comes from your theory. I'm sure we would all like to see it. Perhaps you can explain Maxwell's Equations or even just Faraday's Law in the context of your "theory", Mathematically.
QuoteAnd the most glaring prediction is that in the transfer of electric energy UNITY CAN MOST CERTAINLY BE EXCEEDED. That you cannot understand it is also understandable. At it's least you'll need a facility with concept. And I certainly HOPE that the thesis will not REPLACE QED. What a thought! That would be a travesty of the highest order. It REPLACES NOTHING. Nor does it DISCOVER ANYTHING. It simply resolves some very real anomalies - which is the broadly applied euphemism when our mainstream scientists can't answer questions. lol.
LOL is right. You do not even understand how absurd that last bit is.
Quote
(referring to the "paper")
ALSO NOT TRUE.
Did you or did you not allow the paper to appear on ScribD with the heading "IEEE" on the top of every page, AFTER you knew the paper had been rejected by all their journals to which it was submitted, giving the impression to the casual reader that it was "an IEEE paper"? Sort of like your "patent"?
QuoteThe paper was pubished on SCRIBD and withdrawn because FUZZY claimed it was his WORK. And he's not capable of writing an articulate paragraph let alone that paper. Nor can he dream up the parameters required for the tests he replicated and then CLAIMED was his own work. lol. Right now that paper is PUBLISHED on my blogspot and has enjoyed a VERY WIDE readership.
Methinks you do protest too much. Glen is a competent and careful researcher; he certainly did a lot more real work than you personally ever did on the project, and he --- like Err-on and some others-- was strongly on your side, until he realized --- like Err-on and Harvey and some others --- how full of ignorance you really are.
Quote
For 'many years' read 3 years - and during the most of 1 of those 3 years I was pretty effectively SILENCED.
And this is also true - provided that you exclude Glen's replications, sundry tests that Aaron has done - The tests designed and accredited by BP (SA), ABB Research, SASOL (SA) SPESCOM - CISR - POWER ENGINEERS (part of the Alstom group)
We've been here before. You can't produce any documentation of any of these "tests" and people have actually contacted some of these companies and asked about you... nobody's heard of you.
Quotethe directors of MTN SCIENCENTRE where it was demonstrated for a couple of weeks and a veritable HOST of independent engineers. And latterly by 3 replicators here in CAPE TOWN.
Really? So it should be all over the news then. But it's not even being reported on PESWiki... that should tell you something.
QuoteBut otherwise TK is SPOT ON. Just read that 'Nobody but nobody' - as a double negative - which we all know - makes a positive.
I thought English was your native language. I guess not. "Nobody but nobody" is not a double negative, it's a hyperbolic emphasis, and still very true. Nobody, but nobody, has shown any free energy, much less COP infinite or even COP>17 from your circuits.
Quote
;D More of those euphemisms TK.
Euphemism? What? Test my TinselKoil using your protocols and analysis. You'll get massive, truly massive, overunity results. Before you removed your comments from my videos, you were very impressed with my TinselKoil, remember. After all, it uses essentially the same switched mosfets driving a low inductance, low resistance load, the same ideas of resonant oscillation and self-excitation, and can even potentiate vodka into something drinkable.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5gSXi3BkkNA
Quote
It's true. I make a very good marmalade. I LOVE cooking.
I don't think anyone cares enough about anything you claim TK. We all know you as a propagandist. And once propaganda is seen for what it is - then it rather loses its edge.
Rosie
Added a link to what TK refers to as my 'ZIPON' theory. ENJOY. lol.
LOL is right. I'm no propagandist; I just hate to see intelligent and creative people wasting their time on non-productive BS when there's so much other, really interesting, stuff out there. And I am personally interested in your case particularly, Rosie, from a psychological aspect.
And I really don't give a hoot about what people think of me, but I will not put up with your lies and distortions. Stop lying, and I'll stop responding.
Hello TK
:-* - Like I said, it's a huge comfort when people are predictable. Eat your heart out TK. This circuit's a winner.
Rosie
it would be a sorry thing indeed if we could not learn directly from the thinking of really capable writers or if we were separated from the works of those Greats in Philosophy or Science - simply because we first had to be TAUGHT what to think about what we read about. Such a circuitous route? Do we need someone to teach us the power in Shakespeare's work? Or do we need to read an art critique before we could appreciate the works of Cezanne? Hieronymus Bosch - whoever? So? I still can't say I'm self taught. If I were then I'd have to exclude my exposure to so many highly capable teachers. And frankly, I'm inclined to give tribute where it's due. So think what you like TK. But I assure you I am NOT self-taught. Then I'd first need to be a genius.
And when you claim that I'm fabricating the facts about all those accreditors and test replicators then also know this. I'm way too old to care whether or not you believe what I've written. And I'm also too wise to make a claim of such magnitude if there was any chance at all that I misrepresented the facts. Because then I could be SUED for MISREPRESENTATION and LIBEL. And I'm also too cowardly to take on that kind of risk.
And when it comes to the 'required' mathematical analysis of my thesis - then I'm afraid that one of the more salient features of what's been uncovered is that the only mathematical proof is in the work of our string theorists. And that is so far out that most mathematicians can't follow it. So for me - who can barely get my head around simple arithmetic - there's absolutely NO HOPE. But what I can do is reconcile the mass / size ratio of the proton to the electron and I can then show some interesting solutions to many outstanding so called 'paradoxes' and 'anomalies' in classical and quantum physics - that is then resolved by proposing this magnetic dipole. But you would never be able to get your head around the proposals TK. It's not your thing. You're an engineer. It's a different mind set.
Rosie.
Quote from: Rosemary Ainslie on June 22, 2011, 03:05:02 AM
@ Mags
As a rule I quite like those trolls that tend to follow me around. Very few exceptions. But Fuzzy's one such. And you're another. I absolutely did NOT make any disclosures on my life for your edification. I believe I was answering TK.
Yeah but you did didn't rosy. I want to thank TK for telling US ALL about your qualifications and for you to further clarify it
Quote from: Rosemary Ainslie on June 22, 2011, 03:05:02 AM
And MR MAGS - I'm not sure you're right in advising me on anything at all. You're grossly under qualified. You do not have the required intelligence nor training. If I spent the rest of my life making marmalade - as you suggest - then how would I be able to indulge my love of and talents for and interest in logic and language and physics and art. I realise that you can't share this. But that speaks to your own limitations. Not mine. I express myself very clearly.
But rose, you have no idea what my qualifications or training is. If you are trying to tell me that I needed to be a waitress, real estate agent and used car salesman to have the same qualifications as you, then maybe you are right. But until you know what my background or training is, maybe you should not be to harsh with your words. You know nothing at all about me. You may have the love of them but you surely don't have the talent or logic.
Quote from: Rosemary Ainslie on June 22, 2011, 03:05:02 AM
What shows me an extreme want of decency in your character is that you KNOW that my threads are not moderated. So you indulge in this off topic excursion with relative freedom from harm. Which effectively makes you an opportunistic, unprincipled bully. You are to the forum what hyenas are to the wild. No bigger coward when the top predator comes to the party. And nothing braver than when those top predators aren't there. And no-one noiser.
Golly rosy, I'm not the one putting people down, telling them they are not qualified or have no intelligence. I think that if this thread was moderated for decency you would have been banned a long time ago. But, this forum is open to a degree to freedom of speech. That's why you are getting away with saying the things that you do.
Pretty strong statement when all I did was ask you to do an extended run down test. You know more then the 7.5 hour to 17 hour one. I still don't think that you comprehend exactly what my request entailed. Then when I pointed out to you that it could be done very cheaply, you started your attacks on me. This just proves that you do have something to hide. After 10 years, you have gotten nowhere with your circuit. Anyone that has tried it, had the same failures. You could of made a fortune selling that marmalade for the last 10 years!
Quote from: Rosemary Ainslie on June 22, 2011, 03:05:02 AM
So. Magsy - I propose you take your fatuous observations and your rather limited intellect elsewhere. You're incapable of contributing to anything constructively, if your advices regarding my interests are anything to go by. And you're utterly unequal to contributing to the science if your experimental proposals are anything to go by. And I'm not sure that you can contribute anything at all to the general health of the planet or it's population as you're also afflicted with a certain want of principle and morality. But I would MUCH prefer it if you would stay off this thread.
Well, it sounds to me that you are in the same boat. Here we are 10 years later and your circuit is still in question. Well, I shouldn't say in question. Most people who have tried your circuit say that it doesn't even show unity. You are the only one who hasn't been convinced. Which one of us has the limited intellect? If you had the required intelligence or training you might just see the truth about your circuit. You are just to grossly under qualified to comprehend it. Just think, after 10 years hardly anyone has even heard of it. After 10 years, where are all of your followers?? After 10 years, how many successful replications are out there? After 10 years, how many different applications have you used your circuit on?
Come on rosy, the only reason that you say Poynt, TK, Humburger, ... don't know what they are talking about is because they don't agree with you. Look how you got all sweet and kind to Poynt when he said he was going to help you out with some sims. As soon as he showed you your error, he became the pompous idiot again. I would think that their knowledge, training and experience trump your waiting tables and selling houses.
Since you have a love of literature, maybe you should write some fiction novels. You could possibly be the next Orsen Wells. But please leave the electronics to the experts as we all know that you do not have the intellectual aptitude for this field of study.
@ Mags
What? For property developer - READ ESTATE AGENT? For catering industry - READ WAITRESS? What a joke. May I assure all the readers here that I have NEVER sold a house in my life other than my own. And I most certainly have never worked as a waitress. Both very fine professions. But I do not have the manual or visual dexterity to manage the latter nor the interest to manage the former. And when it comes to 'making a fortune' as you seem to think is required I've managed to keep my head above water without selling marmalade.
What a despicable little man you are. And I wouldn't be too quick to put yourself in the same category as the other contributing members. For starters Poynty is HIGHLY INTELLIGENT and HIGHLY COMPETENT. He's just useless at power analysis. And I am entirely satisfied that you're useless at most things. Your technical comments are a dead give away.
R
Anyway. Moving on. It seems that MileHigh's cautions on RomeroUK's motor were, indeed, valid. I wonder if that's likely to re-instate him as a contributor at Poynty's thread. I do hope so. He's a really good writer. And I'm rather sorry to see that this device has flopped - or not withstood the required proof - whatever. I can't help thinking that the answer to this 'self runner' is to have two motors running concurrently but in anti phase - from the current generated in a third initialising motor. But that's an expensive build and is not likely to be tested. I personally had doubts when we didn't see more work from Lasersaber.
Anyway guys. We still have our own device and I assure you all that none of us are about to deny the evidence. It's just a shame that the evidence also requires power analysis and there are no competent analysts on this forum. ;D
Anyway, fyi and wrt our paper - I'm STUCK. I've been advised that the argument is NOT persuasive enough. To make it persuasive we'll need a second sort of qualifying paper - and I absolutely do not know if I can manage the argument. Thus far I've drawn a blank. I'm sort of hoping for inspiration. And right now I'm feeling rather miserable that that motor number didn't hit a home run.
Regards,
Rosemary
Quote from: Rosemary Ainslie on June 22, 2011, 09:47:04 PM
And I'm rather sorry to see that this device has flopped - or not withstood the required proof - whatever.
It's far from flopped or done. Inconclusive at worst at the moment.
Quote
Anyway, fyi and wrt our paper - I'm STUCK. I've been advised that the argument is NOT persuasive enough.
You don't say? ::) I think several, including myself have been advising you of the same for months, no, make that years.
Quote
To make it persuasive we'll need a second sort of qualifying paper...
I'm curious, a qualifying paper on what subject exactly?
.99
Quote from: poynt99 on June 22, 2011, 10:53:06 PM
It's far from flopped or done. Inconclusive at worst at the moment.
You don't say? ::) I think several, including myself have been advising you of the same for months, no, make that years.
I'm curious, a qualifying paper on what subject exactly?
.99
Hello Poynty Point.
You can't help me out here. Unfortunately. What's needed is some kind of explanation for those high voltage fluctuations across the battery and the shunt. We can't enjoy your own liberties with the truth because - also unlike you, we can't simply close our eyes to the evidence. Nor can anyone. And then we have the pesky problem of explaining HOW we can get ANY POSITIVE voltage in that oscillation when there's NO PATH. That argument entirely defeated you - remember? That's when you resorted to bluff and bluster - and got excessively sniffy.
And FINALLY - we're not at liberty to apply all that generous AVERAGING which you seem to manage without turning a hair. Because that is simply NOT acceptable to any expert on power measurements.
And UNLESS we average everything in sight - we're left with that HUGE INFINITE COP. ;D
Rosie
Quote from: Rosemary Ainslie on June 22, 2011, 11:15:38 PM
Hello Poynty Point.
You can't help me out here. Unfortunately. What's needed is some kind of explanation for those high voltage fluctuations across the battery and the shunt. We can't enjoy your own liberties with the truth because - also unlike you, we can't simply close our eyes to the evidence. Nor can anyone. And then we have the pesky problem of explaining HOW we can get ANY POSITIVE voltage in that oscillation when there's NO PATH. That argument entirely defeated you - remember? That's when you resorted to bluff and bluster - and got excessively sniffy.
And FINALLY - we're not at liberty to apply all that generous AVERAGING which you seem to manage without turning a hair. Because that is simply NOT acceptable to any expert on power measurements.
;D
Rosie
Oh tisk tisk Rosie-Posie. :'(
You may wish to have plenty of tissue on hand when I demonstrate these very measurements. ;)
.99
Quote from: poynt99 on June 22, 2011, 11:21:21 PM
Oh tisk tisk Rosie-Posie. :'(
You may wish to have plenty of tissue on hand when I demonstrate these very measurements. ;)
.99
Indeed. :'( I'll keep another box handy.
Take care of yourself Poynty. We've grown to rely on all that impartiality that you bring to every argument.
Rosie Posie
Claimed OU circuit of Rosemary Ainslie
http://www.overunity.com/index.php?topic=7620.0
That thread finished at 189 pages,I don't know if this one will last that long without something different happening.
The fact still remains that over 2 years no one on this forum can reproduce Rosie's claims of excess energy and Rosie continually arguing about measurements is not going to change anything
If you truly have excess energy, then it should be able to power itself the fact that this has not been done indicates that the claim of excess energy is a mistake or incorrect readings.
This forum has seen many such claims over the years and when nobody here can reproduce the results then a new direction is required but instead of that we get more pages of arguments about measurements.
In the early days of the forum a number of claims of excess energy were made by people showing more volts out then in, people like myself with a basic knowledge of electronics now understand not to take these claims so seriously,(this is an example of what happens on the forum and not specifically aimed at Rosie's work)
The main test on this forum is that other people can reproduce your work and match your results.
Quote from: Rosemary Ainslie on June 22, 2011, 11:15:38 PM
We can't enjoy your own liberties with the truth because - also unlike you, we can't simply close our eyes to the evidence.
That's a good one, " We can't enjoy your own liberties with the truth". And I think the problem is that you are closing your eyes to the evidence.
Quote from: Rosemary Ainslie on June 22, 2011, 11:15:38 PM
And FINALLY - we're not at liberty to apply all that generous AVERAGING which you seem to manage without turning a hair. Because that is simply NOT acceptable to any expert on power measurements.
Why can't you find an "Expert" on power measurements rosy. You seem to know a lot about what they would accept and not accept. Is this maybe why they don't want anything to do with you.
Quote from: Rosemary Ainslie on June 22, 2011, 11:15:38 PM
And UNLESS we average everything in sight - we're left with that HUGE INFINITE COP.
In comparison to a small infinite COP ?
Quote from: Rosemary Ainslie on June 22, 2011, 08:45:46 PM
@ Mags
What? For property developer - READ ESTATE AGENT? For catering industry - READ WAITRESS? What a joke. May I assure all the readers here that I have NEVER sold a house in my life other than my own. And I most certainly have never worked as a waitress. Both very fine professions. But I do not have the manual or visual dexterity to manage the latter nor the interest to manage the former. And when it comes to 'making a fortune' as you seem to think is required I've managed to keep my head above water without selling marmalade.
It's just when you have a COP<1 and call it COP> Infinity, I just used that exaggeration to surmise your actual background.
"May I assure all the readers here", Hahahaha, now that's funny. There is nothing wrong with you being a waitress or real estate agent rosy. I just wanted to know your background to see what kind of qualifications you have. You see, it really doesn't matter. I can tell that you have no professional training because a true professional would not try to belittle someone that they don't even know. Your comments seem to be more like a response I would get from a waitress that I complained to about bringing me burnt toast or something.
Quote from: Rosemary Ainslie on June 22, 2011, 08:45:46 PM
What a despicable little man you are. And I wouldn't be too quick to put yourself in the same category as the other contributing members. For starters Poynty is HIGHLY INTELLIGENT and HIGHLY COMPETENT. He's just useless at power analysis. And I am entirely satisfied that you're useless at most things. Your technical comments are a dead give away.
I'm not that little. Actually I'm about 5'10". I did not say that that I was in the same category did I. I am not even close to the same level as Poynt or some of the others here. I do admit that. But then neither are you, are you rose. The only reason that you say that Poynt is useless at power analysis is because his results don't back up your claims.
I may be useless at some things, but I wouldn't say most things. You must take a lot of pride in trying to belittle people. It must make you feel so big and professional. I think if more people would have left you bigger tips, you would have a better disposition. Did you also study the writings of Don Rickles? You do sound a lot like him.
My dear Cat. I seem to recall you posting here that everyone must now leave this thread and follow RomeroUK's work. What happened? Why are you back? I hope no-one's putting pressure on you to read here. Here's some essential differences between those claims and ours.
Romero was NOT prepared to invite every academic he could reach to come and witness a demonstration. We DO. He was NOT prepared to invite the news media to witness that self-running device. We ARE. He was not even prepared to allow his 'neighbours' to come and look. We not only DO invite neighbours but now have a whole lot more members on the team - all of whom are REPLICATING. We INVITED Stefan to come and assess the evidence and GUARANTEED that if we could not replicate the results while he was here - or if we did not IN FACT have over unity - then we would REFUND him is ticket. Stefan declined our offer. BUT. Stefan offered to visit Romero to take a look at his device. For some reason Romero DECLINED that offer. That's just on the test evidence. I'm absolutely satisfied that no number of personal threats would persist in the light of a wide public demonstration as Romero is suggesting. In fact, if he can show a motor turning without ANY standard supply - then the ENTIRE WORLD would rally to protect him.
NOW. Let's look at your second beef. The main object of this forum is to advance 'replications'. REALLY? The lack of restraint and the general parade of ego that goes on here rather discourages those active replicators from ever posting. All the members on our little team - with the entire exception of me, are professionals. And not ONE of them would sully or risk their names to public exposure here - PRECISELY because of people like you, TK, Poynty, and on and on and on. They see how I have been treated. They know better.
NOW. Let's look at your 'self-runner' demands. We have never recharged those batteries - with one exception. Two caught fire and BOTH were fully recharged. We've had those batteries since January 2010. We've been running them since August 2010. I've now FINALLY checked their rated capacities. They're 40 ampere hours each. We've used 6 of them continually since that time. According to this rating they are each able, theoretically to dissipate 12 volts x 40 amps x 60 seconds x 60 minutes x 1 hour x 6 batteries. That gives a work potential - a total potential output of 10 368 000 JOULES.
According to what has been carefully established it takes 4.18 Joules to raise 1 gram of water by 1 degree centigrade. We've taken a little under 900 grams of water to 82 degrees centigrade. We ran that test for 90 minutes. Then we upped the frequency and took that water up a further 20 degrees to 104. We ran that part of the test for 10 minutes. Ambient was at 16. Joules = 1 watt per second. So. Do the math. 4.18 x 900 grams x (82 - 16) 66 degrees C = 248 292 joules per second x 90 minutes of the test period = 22 342 280 joules. Then ADD the last 10 minutes where the water was taken to boil and now you have 4.18 x 900 grams x (104 - 16) 88 degrees C = 331 156 joules per second x 10 minutes = 3 310 560 Joules. Then add those two values 22 342 280 + 3 310 560 = 25.6 Million Joules. All 5 batteries maximum potential output - available for work - is 10.3 Million Joules. In that test alone the battery outperformed its watt hour rating. And that was just one test. Now. Over the 10 month period that those batteries have been running at various outputs - which, when added to the output on just this one test - then I think its safe to say that the evidence is conclusive. Those batteries have outperformed. They are still at OVER 12 volts EACH. They are all of them still FULLY CHARGED.
That was the test that was intended as a public demonstration and that was the same demo where no experts attended. What we planned was to take the water to boil and then simply make a couple of cups of tea.
Now. Back to your demands. You want conclusive evidence. It's already there. But you also NOW want us to run those batteries to death. I've offered to give you comparative draw down tests against a control. But again. I'll only do this if there is absolute consensus that this constitutes absolute proof. Otherwise I will be involved in yet more unnecessary time wasting.
And consider carefully CAT - the fact that you are ENTIRELY SATISFIED that we have NOTHING HERE. What if you're wrong? What if you and Poynty and TK and everyone who posts here is ACTUALLY WRONG? Effectively - IF there's an agenda to kill all interest in this device - IF Poynty is not supporting the evidence because he's got an agenda - or even in the unlikely event that Stefan has an agenda - or any of the detractors have an agenda? What then? I would definitely conclude that their agenda has worked.
Which means what? It means that I must MOST CERTAINLY, keep posting here. Because if I don't - and if this evidence is ignored - and if all of you actual enthusiasts are DUPED - then what does that do to advance the interests of clean green? So. I put it to you that there are MANY different purposes of posting here than your requirement to replicate. And from what I see, I'm not sure that you ever DO replicate. And while these long posts of mine irritate you - rest assured. I know - from feedback - that there are many who read here with a certain amount of relief. So. I"m not writing for you. I'm writing for the readers.
Regards,
Rosemary
Quote from: Rosemary Ainslie on June 23, 2011, 07:48:43 PM
IF Poynty is not supporting the evidence because he's got an agenda -
For the record, I don't support your evidence, simply because your evidence is erroneous.
Support of that assertion is before you in the analysis, which btw, was based on a circuit simulation that can produce similar results to your own. Evidence shown in that analysis indicated that these favorable-looking results are erroneous, and that with correct measurement, the true results are markedly different.
Clearly one can not rightly pick and choose which of the two results they wish to believe, and which they will not, when both were obtained from the very same circuit and test conditions. Only one measurement point differed between the two (i.e. a change in probe placement). Both results are correct wrt
where they were measured from, but only
one provides the correct answer for the true average INPUT power. And this is in reference to measurements taken via vi(t).
.99
Quote from: poynt99 on June 23, 2011, 09:00:50 PM
For the record, I don't support your evidence, simply because your evidence is erroneous.
Support of that assertion is before you in the analysis, which btw, was based on a circuit simulation that can produce similar results to your own. Evidence shown in that analysis indicated that these favorable-looking results are erroneous, and that with correct measurement, the true results are markedly different.
Clearly one can not rightly pick and choose which of the two results they wish to believe, and which they will not, when both were obtained from the very same circuit and test conditions. Only one measurement point differed between the two. Both results are correct wrt where they were measured from, but only one provides the correct answer for the true average INPUT power.
.99
Poynt - your need to average is the 'last bastion of your defense'. If you want to impress me that your numbers are RIGHT then stop averaging. You cannot do this and expect any credibility in your numbers. Let me remind you. The battery voltage climbs ABOVE it's rating. Then the battery voltage drops BELOW it's rating. EXPLAIN THAT. If it's irrelevant then EXPLAIN THAT TOO. Then at least we'll know whether or not you're dealing with the experimental evidence or some kind of approximation that you HOPE may be representative of the facts.
Rosemary
added. And while you're at it. Let us know the PATH for that positive voltage across the shunt and across the load - that it breaches Q2 OR Q1 + Q2. You can't even do this.
I realized after I posted that you would play that card, which is why I amended my post to add that last sentence. You replied faster than I could add to mine.
Here it is again for clarity:
Quote from: poynt99 on June 23, 2011, 09:00:50 PM
And this is in reference to measurements taken via vi(t).
.99
ANSWER THIS ONE POYNT. Or we'll all assume you DON'T KNOW THE ANSWER. Which means you're UTTERLY ill-qualified to comment on any of the tests. You're ONLY value is in your replications. And you can do what you LIKE there - it makes no DIFFERENCE. THE ONLY POINT AT ISSUE IS THE FACT THAT THERE ARE MARKED OSCILLATIONS OF THE BATTERY VOLTAGE. JUST THAT. We need NOTHING more than this to substantiate our claim. You don't see it yet. But you can hardly blame me for your inabilities.
Here it is again.
added. And while you're at it. Let us know the PATH for that positive voltage across the shunt and across the load - that it breaches Q2 OR Q1 + Q2. You can't even do this.
I used MEAN[vi(t)] for all the initial tests, just as you did with the LeCroy. ;) ;)
You saw the first results and even seemed to approve of them, and why not?, they were very similar to your own. :) :)
Then you saw the progression towards the true battery voltage, and that was it.
Sorry Rose, but the difference in those progressive results speak for themselves, and the actual measurements will back up most everything in that analysis.
;D
Regards,
.99
Quote from: poynt99 on June 23, 2011, 09:32:55 PM
I used MEAN[vi(t)] for all the initial tests, just as you did with the LeCroy. ;) ;)
You saw the first results and even seemed to approve of them, and why not?, they were very similar to your own. :) :)
Then you saw the progression towards the true battery voltage, and that was it.
Sorry Rose, but the difference in those progressive results speak for themselves, and the actual measurements will back up most everything in that analysis.
;D
Regards,
.99
More hand waving. Poynty - any analysis that you performed is based on the assumption that energy delivered by the battery is from the battery and any energy returned to the battery is from CEMF. How is it that the battery can be discharging any energy at all when there's NO PATH for its discharge? You don't even understand the question.
Rosemary
added. And DON'T give me that 'it's greater than zero - therefore it must be coming from the battery' - bit. Because that doesn't cut it. IF the battery was discharging in the usual way then it would MOST CERTAINLY NOT ramp up and down above and below it's rated capacities. WHAT is introducing SO MUCH ENERGY that the sum of the voltage across the battery first CLIMBS and then DROPS - HUGELY?
Quote from: poynt99 on June 23, 2011, 09:32:55 PM
I used MEAN[vi(t)] for all the initial tests, just as you did with the LeCroy. ;) ;)
We have never used MEAN vi EVER. And you absolutely CANNOT say MEAN[vi(t)] because that's INHERENTLY contradictory. Why don't you see this?
Quote from: poynt99 on June 23, 2011, 09:32:55 PMYou saw the first results and even seemed to approve of them, and why not?, they were very similar to your own. :) :)
ALSO WRONG. The numbers are interesting but they're subject to the gross approximations of PSpice. WHAT IS RELEVANT is that you duplicated that waveform across the shunt and across the batteries. THAT grabbed my attention. NOTHING ELSE.
Quote from: poynt99 on June 23, 2011, 09:32:55 PMThen you saw the progression towards the true battery voltage, and that was it.
WHAT PROGRESSION? That absurd exercise in fabrication where you contradicted your earlier measurements? I"m not interested in your measurements Poynty Point. Never was. Never will be. Your measurements can be SKEWED ANY WAY YOU WANT. We all know that. We're ONLY interested in that battery voltage AND the shunt voltage. That's the beginning and end of all the proof of COP INFINITY that we need.
Quote from: poynt99 on June 23, 2011, 09:32:55 PMSorry Rose, but the difference in those progressive results speak for themselves, and the actual measurements will back up most everything in that analysis.
And I'm sorry Poynty. I'm sorry that you're analysis remains so UTTERLY superficial. But I realise that you need to leave it there. Else you'll be proved wrong. God Forbid.
Rosie Posie.
;D
Quote from: Rosemary Ainslie on June 23, 2011, 09:59:21 PM
We have never used MEAN vi EVER.
You don't say?
Too numerous to post, here is but one example of your use of MEAN(CH1 x CH2), where CH1=VCSR and CH2=the erroneous "VBAT"
.99
From your blog "121 - simulations":
http://newlightondarkenergy.blogspot.com/2011/05/121-simulations.html
QuoteSurprisingly - this oscillation is allowed for in standard simulation software. This fact is hugely significant. It means that, in effect, one can explore and develop this technology as a primary tool and use apparatus to simply verify those results. This - indeed - is why that software was ever developed. The surprise is this. The software itself has no 'restrictions' to showing results that exceed Kirchhoff's rules. In effect there is an implicit requirement in the computation of power delivered and dissipated that relies on Faraday's Inductive Laws to the exclusion of any Thermodynamic restrictions at all. It is tailored, in effect, to show Over Unity - should this be a consequence of a circuit design.
That fact is EXTRAORDINARY. I have been ASSURED that if this proves correct - then one can move away from the experimental apparatus and simply explore the applications as designed on this software. Subsequent testing would be secondary. It frees up the potentials for design - exponentially. WHICH IS A VERY GOOD THING.
I am in receipt of some excellent work done by Tivon Rivers confined to the use of a 555 switching circuit. What he found is that the voltage and subsequent current flow - actually varies over time that the power on the circuit gradually increases. But his results do not, yet appear to show Over Unity. I am also aware of some other work that is being done here but have not yet been given those results. Meanwhile, however, here's Poynty's results as they relate to our own circuit.
Is this not somewhat of an endorsement of not only my sim results, but of sim results in general as it relates to your circuit?
Moreover, you posted the P(t) and MEAN(Pt) scope shots that went along with that simulation, showing the
-112W INPUT power figure. You certainly did not seem to have any objection to that negative power figure.
You gladly posted all that, now you say this:
QuoteThe numbers are interesting but they're subject to the gross approximations of PSpice
That certainly seems contradictory to your blog post. ::)
.99
Golly - such a clamour. I'm going to answer you Poynty and hope against hope that you'll actually take the time to digest these next two posts and that you also have the wherewithall to understand them. But if you don't - it's no matter. Because I suspect the the most of our readers here will.
Let's start with the Mean average as shown by the MATH TRACE. How exactly do you propose that we use that - 44.1 VV? when we calculate our volts x current x time? That number is the product of the battery voltage and the shunt voltage x time. So? How do you propose that we UNTANGLE that product to find out what belongs to the battery and what belongs to the shunt? Because UNLESS WE CAN DO THIS we also cannot MAKE ANY USE OF THAT NUMBER to calculate ANYTHING AT ALL. So? Poynty Point? What EXACTLY is your point? We have NEVER applied that mean average or a cycle mean average math trace VV's - or ANY kind of AVERAGE to any of our circuit analyses. EVER. What a thought!
What we have done is this. In the event that the math trace indicates a NEGATIVE product then it means that WHEN the LeCroy software multiplied the voltage of the battery with the voltage of the shunt - over time, then that PRODUCT was NEGATIVE. Which indicates - CONCLUSIVELY - that OVER TIME the value of either the battery voltage or the shunt was NEGATIVE. A NEGATIVE product implies a REVERSAL of the direction of current flow. And the ONLY way to get a negative product would be if there was also MORE NEGATIVE voltage than positive. Ergo - more energy returned to the battery than discharging the battery. Now. As we're only trying to work out whether or not the battery is discharging more energy then is being recharged in each cycle - then, technically, we need go no further. The proof is in that negative trace.
However. There's another way to find proof that more energy is being returned than delivered.We can ALSO take a sum of the voltage across the shunt. IF this is negative then TOO we can also conclude that more energy is being returned to the battery than delivered by the battery. BUT if we want to determine the actual voltage x amperage x time measure of each cycle then there's ONLY one way. Take a sample spread and do that spreadsheet analysis. That's the only way to determine the ACTUAL AMOUNT of all that surplus energy that is available to the circuit. We've more or less completed our paper. And NOWHERE DO WE GIVE THAT VALUE. YET WE CLAIM THAT THERE IS INFINITELY MORE ENERGY BEING RETURNED THAN DELIVERED. Can you work out why yet Poynty Point? Here's why. We're left with a negative WATTAGE value. And a negative wattage has absolutely NO relevance within classical paradigms. It's an UTTERLY meaningless number.
So. Again. Here's when we KNOW we've got a NEGATIVE WATTAGE value. If the cycle mean average across the shunt is negative - and/or if the math trace gives a negative product. Then we check that this is consistent with our spread sheet analysis. And if and when it IS - which is invariably the case - then we also know we've got another one of those wattage values that make absolutely NO SENSE within classical paradigms. It's an ANOMALY. That thing that you keep referencing as a negative value. Unlike you - we don't make ANY assumptions. We FIRST need to explain how this is possible.
Then. What you do - with 'FRIGHTENING' regularity - is to take the mean average of the battery voltage and then multiply by the current over time. Now what you've actually done is impose an ARTIFICIAL condition on that result. You've REDUCED the actual value of both the discharge and recharge part of each cycle and then you've PRESUMED to give that product any kind of representational value at all. It has NONE. You've mixed up your 'in time' and average time with a kind of gay abandon because you ARGUED that the battery voltage is neither climbing nor falling. "How can it?" you ask. And indeed. We're also asking the same thing. Because - you see - this is the whole point - Poynty point. It most certainly does climb and fall - exactly as your own simulated waveforms show. If you do a real time analysis of the actual measured voltage x the actual measured current - then REGARDLESS. No matter. Whether or not the sum of the voltage across the shunt is positive OR negative - MORE OFTEN THAN NOT the actual MEASURED WATTAGE is STILL NEGATIVE. And this will also be consistent with the product of voltage shown in that MATH TRACE. Go figger. Now I'll give you some time to digest this and then I'll get to the fallacies associated with your own calculations.
Regards,
Rosemary
You're still utterly confused about this circuit and the measurements Rose. That's crystal clear every time you post something about it. :(
A most unfortunate situation.
Regards,
.99
Quote from: Rosemary Ainslie on June 23, 2011, 07:48:43 PM
My dear Cat. I seem to recall you posting here that everyone must now leave this thread and follow RomeroUK's work. What happened? Why are you back? I hope no-one's putting pressure on you to read here. Here's some essential differences between those claims and ours.
Romero was NOT prepared to invite every academic he could reach to come and witness a demonstration. We DO. He was NOT prepared to invite the news media to witness that self-running device. We ARE. He was not even prepared to allow his 'neighbours' to come and look. We not only DO invite neighbours but now have a whole lot more members on the team - all of whom are REPLICATING. We INVITED Stefan to come and assess the evidence and GUARANTEED that if we could not replicate the results while he was here - or if we did not IN FACT have over unity - then we would REFUND him is ticket. Stefan declined our offer. BUT. Stefan offered to visit Romero to take a look at his device. For some reason Romero DECLINED that offer. That's just on the test evidence. I'm absolutely satisfied that no number of personal threats would persist in the light of a wide public demonstration as Romero is suggesting. In fact, if he can show a motor turning without ANY standard supply - then the ENTIRE WORLD would rally to protect him.
NOW. Let's look at your second beef. The main object of this forum is to advance 'replications'. REALLY? The lack of restraint and the general parade of ego that goes on here rather discourages those active replicators from ever posting. All the members on our little team - with the entire exception of me, are professionals. And not ONE of them would sully or risk their names to public exposure here - PRECISELY because of people like you, TK, Poynty, and on and on and on. They see how I have been treated. They know better.
NOW. Let's look at your 'self-runner' demands. We have never recharged those batteries - with one exception. Two caught fire and BOTH were fully recharged. We've had those batteries since January 2010. We've been running them since August 2010. I've now FINALLY checked their rated capacities. They're 40 ampere hours each. We've used 6 of them continually since that time. According to this rating they are each able, theoretically to dissipate 12 volts x 40 amps x 60 seconds x 60 minutes x 1 hour x 6 batteries. That gives a work potential - a total potential output of 10 368 000 JOULES.
According to what has been carefully established it takes 4.18 Joules to raise 1 gram of water by 1 degree centigrade. We've taken a little under 900 grams of water to 82 degrees centigrade. We ran that test for 90 minutes. Then we upped the frequency and took that water up a further 20 degrees to 104. We ran that part of the test for 10 minutes. Ambient was at 16. Joules = 1 watt per second. So. Do the math. 4.18 x 900 grams x (82 - 16) 66 degrees C = 248 292 joules per second x 90 minutes of the test period = 22 342 280 joules. Then ADD the last 10 minutes where the water was taken to boil and now you have 4.18 x 900 grams x (104 - 16) 88 degrees C = 331 156 joules per second x 10 minutes = 3 310 560 Joules. Then add those two values 22 342 280 + 3 310 560 = 25.6 Million Joules. All 5 batteries maximum potential output - available for work - is 10.3 Million Joules. In that test alone the battery outperformed its watt hour rating. And that was just one test. Now. Over the 10 month period that those batteries have been running at various outputs - which, when added to the output on just this one test - then I think its safe to say that the evidence is conclusive. Those batteries have outperformed. They are still at OVER 12 volts EACH. They are all of them still FULLY CHARGED.
That was the test that was intended as a public demonstration and that was the same demo where no experts attended. What we planned was to take the water to boil and then simply make a couple of cups of tea.
Now. Back to your demands. You want conclusive evidence. It's already there. But you also NOW want us to run those batteries to death. I've offered to give you comparative draw down tests against a control. But again. I'll only do this if there is absolute consensus that this constitutes absolute proof. Otherwise I will be involved in yet more unnecessary time wasting.
And consider carefully CAT - the fact that you are ENTIRELY SATISFIED that we have NOTHING HERE. What if you're wrong? What if you and Poynty and TK and everyone who posts here is ACTUALLY WRONG? Effectively - IF there's an agenda to kill all interest in this device - IF Poynty is not supporting the evidence because he's got an agenda - or even in the unlikely event that Stefan has an agenda - or any of the detractors have an agenda? What then? I would definitely conclude that their agenda has worked.
Which means what? It means that I must MOST CERTAINLY, keep posting here. Because if I don't - and if this evidence is ignored - and if all of you actual enthusiasts are DUPED - then what does that do to advance the interests of clean green? So. I put it to you that there are MANY different purposes of posting here than your requirement to replicate. And from what I see, I'm not sure that you ever DO replicate. And while these long posts of mine irritate you - rest assured. I know - from feedback - that there are many who read here with a certain amount of relief. So. I"m not writing for you. I'm writing for the readers.
Regards,
Rosemary
If I was new to this forum and reading your above post I would think great this person has found the solution to free energy, if you are one of those people befor you get too excited please read all the previous post and all the posts on the other thread, There is a serious doubt that Rosie has measured incorrectly, there for any measurements that she states might well be incorrect.
http://www.overunity.com/index.php?topic=7620.0
As for trying to convince people that there is a big conspiracy, it would appear that anyone that says your circut doesn't workor or indicate's measuring error, is then part of that conspiracy.
If there was a conspiracy no one would be to view your videos no one would see your blog no one would see posts of people supporting your work, the fact is, nothing is hidden
It would be wonderful if I could believe in your circuit enough to reproduce it,but with every single person on this forum (on this forum) who attempted this did not match your results, as most of them are much more capable than me and they all failed then I have no chance.
I personally think you should stay on this forum posting but you should do something new, and changed the deadlock that after two years nobody can reproduce your results (on this forum)
Here are few videos for members on the forum, they are other members that didn't make videos who also failed in their attempts.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XrwgEb5ac_w
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZM8BBa7_Zpc
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4x0wQJrc9To
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-GBS3sKcB8g
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=trip8gjoxMQ
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HpaP__5Kd38
As for RomeroUK's members attempting to replicate his work have only been at it for two months
and most of them have not give up, so maybe more time is required. Lol, Forum has given you over 2 years and still no on here can replicate your claim of excess energy.
Lol, over two years and you think there's a conspiracy :D
Mr Mag has made you a very good suggestion that might go a long way to help you. That's right help you. Most people on here like to help you, but you are so stubborn and insist on repeating your claims and argue about measurements over and over again. (please do something new to prove your case)
If the members fail in the next six months or so to replicate RomeroUK's Do you think in one year's time let alone two years time anyone would be interested in making that device, apart from doing it for research or fun. Mr Mag made reasonable request,instead of treating the forum like your blog why not try something different,you might get some support, and somebody might be able to match your claim.
Well Cat. I think if you want to follow RomeroUK there's nothing stopping you. I, personally, no longer have high hopes there. And if you're satisfied that we have nothing - then that's fine. No-one is holding a gun to your head. To me it seems that you're rather anxiously looking for a consensus opinion - on the efficacy of our system. I'm afraid that science is NOT determined by consensus. All one needs are the the measurements and some reasonable account of the apparatus that produces those measurements.
Poynty. I am not confused. You are. I have now asked more than one expert for some indication of the 'path' for the positive flow of current during each half of the oscillating cycle. You see - until this is explained - then there is absolutely NO way - within classical paradigms - that the battery voltage can oscillate as it does. I've even asked you to explain it. You can't. Let me put it simply. How does a positive half cycle get discharged from the battery supply when there's no path? And we're not looking at a little bit of energy being discharged. You'll have to explain some really hefty current flows.
Get your head around this first and let's see your answer. We need to acknowledge that PSpice replicates that EXACT waveform. Which means that there really IS an answer.
Regards
Rosemary
Anyway - to continue about Poynt's measurements - for those who are following this argument. He claims that IF you eliminate the inductance 'between' the batteries - then the numbers default that there's no 'gain'. In other words the sum of the voltage across the shunt becomes greater than zero - which indicates a net discharge or loss of energy to the battery. To do this he has to reduce the battery supply to just one battery. We concur. In fact, on our apparatus, we have actually NOT been able to get the circuit to oscillate at ALL with just an applied 12 volts.
So. Thus far I have no quarrel with his findings. Except that we can't duplicate the oscillation that he apparently manages - at 12 volts. So. From this point on - his circuit is no longer the same as ours. It's not therefore, a replication. So. Whatever he determines - then it has no relevance to our test or our apparatus.
Regards
Rosemary
Quote from: Rosemary Ainslie on June 24, 2011, 10:47:03 AM
Well Cat. I think if you want to follow RomeroUK there's nothing stopping you. I, personally, no longer have high hopes there. And if you're satisfied that we have nothing - then that's fine. No-one is holding a gun to your head. To me it seems that you're rather anxiously looking for a consensus opinion - on the efficacy of our system. I'm afraid that science is NOT determined by consensus. All one needs are the the measurements and some reasonable account of the apparatus that produces those measurements.
Regards
Rosemary
All one needs are the the measurements and some reasonable account of the apparatus that produces those measurements.
If that was the case why has no one in over two years reproduced your claim,when you make statements like that,I have to respond as you are being misleading.
Please do something different,this forum is not your personal blog.
Many members have made reasonable requests that you ignore including Stefan amongst others,
but you ignore them and carry on regurgitating your same old arguments.
If you're not going to interact with the members here to change the deadlock then there is no point in your thread, you already have a blog where no one can argue with what you're saying.
You are the one making the excess energy claims, no one here after two years can match those claims.
Please please please do something different or stop claiming OU on This OverUnity Forum
Quote from: Rosemary Ainslie on June 24, 2011, 10:59:19 AM
In other words the sum of the voltage across the shunt becomes greater than zero - which indicates a net discharge or loss of energy to the battery. To do this he has to reduce the battery supply to just one battery. We concur. In fact, on our apparatus, we have actually NOT been able to get the circuit to oscillate at ALL with just an applied 12 volts.
So. Thus far I have no quarrel with his findings. Except that we can't duplicate the oscillation that he apparently manages - at 12 volts. So. From this point on - his circuit is no longer the same as ours. It's not therefore, a replication. So. Whatever he determines - then it has no relevance to our test or our apparatus.
Regards
Rosemary
My later simulation results are based on a battery measurement across one of the six batteries, but all six batteries are still in the circuit, powering the circuit.
This was all painstakingly explained in the detailed analysis, which clearly you do not understand. Go read it please and kindly stop twisting the facts!
How can you say you are not confused? ::)
.99
From the detailed analysis 06 document:
QuoteIf each of the 6 twelve-volt batteries in the battery array have approximately the same state of
charge, terminal voltage, and internal resistance, it is reasonable to assume that each of the 6
batteries will receive or supply the same amount of power in the circuit. As such, it is valid to
measure and analyze the power in any one of the 6 batteries and apply a factor of 6x to obtain
the total power in the circuit.
Quote from: poynt99 on June 24, 2011, 12:05:35 PM
From the detailed analysis 06 document:
Where is this report? Was it hidden in that file that none of us can access? Golly. I think you'll need to post the whole report here so that we can all read it. Or are you trying to keep it hidden for some reason? I don't think you can expect me to comment on something that I don't know about. And don't give us a link Poynty. This is open source. Let's see that report. Possibly you've already answered that question. Maybe you've already told us how that positive voltage moves through those transistors.
Regards,
Rosemary
Quote from: poynt99 on June 24, 2011, 11:54:55 AM
My later simulation results are based on a battery measurement across one of the six batteries, but all six batteries are still in the circuit, powering the circuit.
Golly. I wonder why you had to do it this way Poynty? Did this ELIMINATE the oscillation? Or simply reduce it? We're left with a couple of questions here. If it eliminated the oscillation - WHY? And if it reduced the oscillation - WHY?
Quote from: poynt99 on June 24, 2011, 11:54:55 AMThis was all painstakingly explained in the detailed analysis, which clearly you do not understand. Go read it please and kindly stop twisting the facts!
I'd read it gladly if you could just take the trouble to post it here. NOT A LINK. The actual report. Otherwise we'll all be inclined to think that you've actually NOT written a report. Personally I can't open your link. I'm satisfied that many readers either can't or won't. SO. Let's
ALL see this report if it's that germane to the argument.
Thanks
Rosemary
rosy, rosy, you have an answer for everything don't you. I asked for a rundown test and you call me names.
Poynt has proven your circuit is under unity but now you say his circuit no longer counts. Why is it that you are the only person who has a problem opening his document?
Why are you so against this battery run down test or a closed loop test as Powercat has requested.
You keep getting caught in your own lies and just brush it off and try to put it on us.
I do have another question for you though. What were you trying to do when you discovered this circuit?
Quote from: powercat on June 24, 2011, 11:46:44 AM
If that was the case why has no one in over two years reproduced your claim,when you make statements like that,I have to respond as you are being misleading.
Actually Cat it's you who are misleading. Plenty of replications on our previous circuit. And even from members on this forum. But you're right that no-one has replicated this circuit - other than on Poynty's sims. But then you go on to say that we need to do something different? We most certainly have something different. This is an ENTIRELY different circuit - with ENTIRELY different results. if you're going to object then I wonder if you couldn't just check these kind of facts first. And like RomeroUK's circuit - ours has only been on this public forum for 3 months.
Quote from: poynt99 on June 24, 2011, 11:54:55 AMPlease do something different...
Indeed. Again. I'm happy to report that we have done something different. ENTIRELY different. And EVEN BETTER RESULTS.
Quote from: poynt99 on June 24, 2011, 11:54:55 AMMany members have made reasonable requests that you ignore including Stefan amongst others,
but you ignore them and carry on regurgitating your same old arguments.
To the best of my recollection we've answered every single concern related to every measurement - that has ever been put to us. Grounding issues - answered. Under sampling claims - answered. Probe positioning concerns - answered. Standard of measuring equipment - answered. Impedance concerns - answered. And since we've done this last WATER TO BOIL test - we've also answered any concerns related to out performance of battery capacity. Remember? We dissipate over 25 million Joules from a battery capacity that is AT THE MOST
can only account for 10 million Joules.
Regards,
Rosemary
added
Everything that's in that document was openly posted already. In fact, the document was compiled from all the posts, so you've already had ample opportunity to read the entire analysis.
I'm done for now, peace out.
.99
Quote from: poynt99 on June 24, 2011, 05:52:08 PM
Everything that's in that document was openly posted already. In fact, the document was compiled from all the posts, so you've already had ample opportunity to read the entire analysis.
I'm done for now, peace out.
.99
Poynty - if I didn't know better I'd guess that your report is that fragile that you dare not also make it easily accessible to our readers. Of course you're done for now. You have NO answers to the only questions that matter. It would take you no time at all to simply post that report here. I wonder why you don't?
Regards,
Rosemary
Quote from: Rosemary Ainslie on June 24, 2011, 05:51:56 PM
Actually Cat it's you who are misleading. Plenty of replications on our previous circuit. And even from members on this forum. But you're right that no-one has replicated this circuit - other than on Poynty's sims. But then you go on to say that we need to do something different? We most certainly have something different. This is an ENTIRELY different circuit - with ENTIRELY different results. if you're going to object then I wonder if you couldn't just check these kind of facts first. And like RomeroUK's circuit - ours has only been on this public forum for 3 months.
Indeed. Again. I'm happy to report that we have done something different. ENTIRELY different. And EVEN BETTER RESULTS.
To the best of my recollection we've answered every single concern related to every measurement - that has ever been put to us. Grounding issues - answered. Under sampling claims - answered. Probe positioning concerns - answered. Standard of measuring equipment - answered. Impedance concerns - answered. And since we've done this last WATER TO BOIL test - we've also answered any concerns related to out performance of battery capacity. Remember? We dissipate over 25 million Joules from a battery capacity that is AT THE MOST can only account for 10 million Joules.
Regards,
Rosemary
added
It would appear that yet again you are twisting everything said,and now you are ignoring Mr Mags,
I'm now beginning to understand what happened to fuzzyTomCat,I remember him way back before he got involved with you and turned it bitter and twisted, and then you go and make accusations about 99 that are clearly not true. Most of us can look back through 10 Pages or more and see the evidence that he posted for you, yet you accuse him of not Posting it :o
Here is my repost with small update in the hope that you might try and answer with out trying to twist everything.
Quote from Rosemary Ainslie on June 24, 2011, 04:47:03 PM
QuoteWell Cat. I think if you want to follow RomeroUK there's nothing stopping you. I, personally, no longer have high hopes there. And if you're satisfied that we have nothing - then that's fine. No-one is holding a gun to your head. To me it seems that you're rather anxiously looking for a consensus opinion - on the efficacy of our system. I'm afraid that science is NOT determined by consensus. All one needs are the the measurements and some reasonable account of the apparatus that produces those measurements.
Regards
Rosemary
Quote
All one needs are the the measurements and some reasonable account of the apparatus that produces those measurements.
If that was the case why has no one in over two years reproduced your claim of OU,when you make statements like that,I have to respond as you are being misleading.
That's absolutely no one whatsoever on this forum has reproduced your claim off excess energy with your circuit, absolutely nobody has been successful, not a single member.
Please do something different On this forum,this forum is not your personal blog.
Many members have made reasonable requests that you ignore including Stefan,Mr Mag amongst others,
but you ignore them and carry on regurgitating your same old arguments.
If you're not going to interact with the members here to change the deadlock then there is no point in your thread, you already have a blog where no one can argue with what you're saying.
You are the one making the excess energy claims, no one here after two years can match those claims.
Please please please do something different Here on This forum,and stop ignoring reasonable quests for tests. Or stop claiming OU on This OverUnity Forum
Quote from: powercat on June 24, 2011, 07:17:24 PM
If that was the case why has no one in over two years reproduced your claim of OU,when you make statements like that,I have to respond as you are being misleading.
If no-one has replicated as you claim then explain the existence of this paper?
http://www.scribd.com/doc/23455916/Open-Source-Evaluation-of-Power-Transients-Generated-to-Improve-Performance-Coefficient-of-Resistive-Heating-Systems
Which makes this statement ENTIRELY FALLACIOUS.
Quote from: powercat on June 24, 2011, 07:17:24 PM
That's absolutely no one whatsoever on this forum has reproduced your claim off excess energy with your circuit, absolutely nobody has been successful, not a single member.
And as for the rest of your questions and statements they've been answered. WE HAVE A NEW CIRCUIT. I HAVE ANSWERED ALL QUESTIONS RELATING TO THAT CIRCUIT. Here again is my post.
To the best of my recollection we've answered every single concern related to every measurement - that has ever been put to us. Grounding issues - answered. Under sampling claims - answered. Probe positioning concerns - answered. Standard of measuring equipment - answered. Impedance concerns - answered. And since we've done this last WATER TO BOIL test - we've also answered any concerns related to out performance of battery capacity. Remember? We dissipate over 25 million Joules from a battery capacity that AT THE MOST can only account for 10 million Joules.R.
NOW LET ME EMPHASISE THIS. WE HAVE A NEW CIRCUIT. WE DO NOT HAVE THE SAME CIRCUIT THAT WE USED BEFORE. IT IS NEW. SOMETHING DIFFERENT. IT HAS ONLY BEEN MADE PUBLIC FOR THREE MONTHS - LESS THAN THAT. IT IS NOT THE SAME AS THE PREVIOUS CIRCUIT. Not sure if there are many more ways to
say the same thing. But surely? You must be able to understand at least one of those sentences?
Again,
R
corrected
Quote from: Rosemary Ainslie on June 24, 2011, 07:35:26 PM
If no-one has replicated as you claim then explain the existence of this paper?
Yet again you fail to see what is in front of you so I will say it again, no one on this fourum has reproduced your claim of OU I know members here have attempted to replicate your work but none of them whatsoever achieve any energy gain at all, is this clear now
As for the new circuit which is pretty much based on the old circuit, I was very excited when I first saw this new thread, I even supported you through most of it, but yet again it has ended up like your last thread, no one on here can reproduce your results=OU
and despite repeated requests you just keep arguing the same measurement arguments.
I really could do with an excess energy circuit in my life,so could the rest of the world
but you seem unwilling to do anything different despite numerous requests.
Go on Rosie proof that 99 is wrong in his analysis and makes something that runs and run and put it on the Internet after all,
(Quote from Rosemary)
"All one needs are the the measurements and some reasonable account of the apparatus that produces those measurements".
Quote from: powercat on June 24, 2011, 08:13:14 PM
Yet again you fail to see what is in front of you so I will say it again, no one on this fourum has reproduced your claim of OU I know members here have attempted to replicate your work but none of them whatsoever achieve any energy gain at all, is this clear now
And yet again you fail to read the evidence. Here's that link again. If this does NOT constitute a replication then BY RIGHTS it needs must be withdrawn. As of NOW it is NOT withdrawn. This is published by Fuzzy on his own Scribd file. EXPLAIN THAT if you can. To the best of my knowledge Fuzzy is a forum member.
http://www.scribd.com/doc/23455916/Open-Source-Evaluation-of-Power-Transients-Generated-to-Improve-Performance-Coefficient-of-Resistive-Heating-Systems
Quote from: powercat on June 24, 2011, 08:13:14 PMAs for the new circuit which is pretty much based on the old circuit, I was very excited when I first saw this new thread, I even supported you through most of it, but yet again it has ended up like your last thread, no one on here can reproduce your results=OU
Now you're doing that dance of the 7 veils that Poynt's so good at. What you ACTUALLY said is that in 3 years NO-ONE has replicated our circuit. You're right. No-one has replicated this NEW circuit. It's only been PUBLIC for less than 3 months. Which possibly explains why it was not replicated earlier. You remember you explained that this is why no-one has replicated RomeroUK's circuit? That statement where you brushed aside certain parallels I drew? So? What exactly makes it understandable in Romero's case that does that not apply to ours? And may I add. It is as much like the previous circuit as drizzle is to a thunderstorm - or as a breeze is to a tornado - or as I've mentioned before - as a gentle ripple is to a tsunami. So DON'T give me - 'it's much the same as'... The only point where it corresponds is that it's still a switched circuit. And it's still powered by batteries.
Quote from: powercat on June 24, 2011, 08:13:14 PM...and despite repeated requests you just keep arguing the same measurement arguments.
And here's another example of your quintessentially reasonable requests. Effectively I must sit here with my hands folded and my eyes closed and my mouth shut? Is that it? While Poynty applies a sledgehammer to the subtleties of this circuit? Is that to what end? To make your life more bearable? I suppose that's fair. Why not? What the hell? Who cares? And why bother? Definitely a good argument. It's as reasonable as taking a stick of dynamite to Michelangelo's David to test it's durability. And then to argue that it's durability is a measure of it's value as a work of art. A really good litmus test.
Quote from: powercat on June 24, 2011, 08:13:14 PMI really could do with an excess energy circuit in my life, so could the rest of the world but you seem unwilling to do anything different despite numerous requests.
And as for this statement. It seems that I've not satisfied your precise requirement for excess energy so I must go away? You don't even have the wherewithal to determine whether or not there's excess energy. For this you depend on that consensus which, as I've pointed out has NOTHING to do with science. But I must oblige you and just go away because you're more inclined to go with Poynty's OPINION? And this because NO-ONE
who contributes to this forum has replicated our circuit? Despite the fact that no-one has ever tried? Like I say. It's fair comment.
Quote from: powercat on June 24, 2011, 08:13:14 PMGo on Rosie prove that 99 is wrong in his analysis and makes something that runs and run and put it on the Internet after all,
Gladly. Any time you want. Just make it worth my while. Either pay for that experiment - or get 4 academics to say that that will be proof positive. I've already got 1 who'd go on record. So. That's a convenient number - a handful.
Quote from: powercat on June 24, 2011, 08:13:14 PM(Quote from Rosemary)
"All one needs are the the measurements and some reasonable account of the apparatus that produces those measurements".
If you're going to quote me then put it in context. I seem to recall saying something about your reliance on consensus opinion to determine science. Let me say it again. All one needs are the measurements and some reasonable account of the apparatus that produces those measurements. Which by default means that consensus opinion is a really BAD way to try and determine the validity of science. One needs MEASUREMENTS. Not OPINION.
R
A much needed qualification to that statement as there have INDEED been replications. But the replicators WISELY do NOT POST HERE. They daren't. They're very aware of the agendas that they'd be up against. On OU.COM THEY ABOUND
So? CAT? What do you say now? And guys - here's the sad and sorry truth. You all claim that your interests are in exploring OU. To even entertain the possibility of OU one needs to confront a HUGE chapter in science that claims that it's an impossible reach. At it's least it needs a certain independence in the mind set. A kind of courage in the face of majority opinion. You are all so apparently 'brave' and so 'determined'. Pioneers of new age thinking. But scratch the surface and all we've actually got are a lot of mediocre minds that promote science by consensus. And your evidence is based on such a poor foundation of power analysis that you cannot recognise OU if it were to stand up and do a tap dance.
But there's NO WANT of courage. All you need to do is to drown out the voice of reason with as little justification as mainstream manage when they hound out the evidence that we've made available. I am of the opinion that the RomeroUK's evidence was intended as a 'distraction' from our own claim and that Romero was co-operating with that agenda. The sad truth is that it worked. But as ever - truth WILL OUT.
Now back to our evidence. Let me see if I can put this as clearly as is possible. We have taken water to boil with a measured output of about 25 million Joules. The battery's maximum capacity is about 10 million Joules. That's just on ONE test. Those same batteries have been used extensively and continually for over 10 months. THEY ARE STILL AT THE SAME LEVEL OF CHARGE AS WHEN WE FIRST RECEIVED THEM. THEN. We have applied CLASSICAL MEASUREMENT PROTOCOLS to some 50 or more tests - or to state this more precisely, we've applied some 50 variations to the settings. THEY INVARIABLY show an INFINITE COP - by which it seems that MORE energy is being returned to the battery than has been dissipated. That's using classical measurements analysis.
I can do NO MORE than report on this evidence. If you choose to ignore the evidence then - OBVIOUSLY - that is your right. But the downside is this. We're running out of time. My own suspicion is that our Mother Nature has had a belly full. I think she will snuff out this little experiment in humanity - without compunction. And why not? We're evidently nasty unprincipled characters who are cluttering her natural balances with an excess in population numbers and a critical indifference to her natural orders. And when she takes the trouble to show us all how to avoid those excesses then there are enough of those unprincipled self-serving characters to DETRACT from those solutions - that they'll never actually see the light of day. So. IF we're looking at some kind of Armageddon - but this time a battle beween us and Nature Herself - then we deserve it. And of the two - I'd put my money with Nature winning that battle. She's got the edge.
Rosemary
rose,
If this is an "Entirely different circuit with even better results", the battery test you keep referring must have been done on the old circuit. Can you do the circuit performance test that I (and others) requested on this new and improved circuit. It won't cost any money as you already have all that is needed. You do not need to monitor it continuously, just check it every so often to make sure it is still running. You don't need it to be hooked up to a scope or anything. Just take a battery measurement before you start and after a couple of months you can take another battery reading. It's really very simple to do.
Your argument that this has been done before is wrong. This test has never been done. You may have run different tests over time but not one continuous test and not with this new circuit.
Quote from: Rosemary Ainslie on June 24, 2011, 09:27:38 PM
And yet again you fail to read the evidence. Here's that link again. If this does NOT constitute a replication then BY RIGHTS it needs must be withdrawn. As of NOW it is NOT withdrawn. This is published by Fuzzy on his own Scribd file. EXPLAIN THAT if you can. To the best of my knowledge Fuzzy is a forum member.
http://www.scribd.com/doc/23455916/Open-Source-Evaluation-of-Power-Transients-Generated-
Rosie is never wrong about anything :D. For a start I can't decide which of Fuzzy's is Previous post to quote they all make the point that you got nothing,and you think he's got OU from your circuit ::)
I don't want you to leave the forum I want you to interact properly with the members here and do your very best to comply with their requests and prove you really have something, unfortunately all you are probably going to do is repeat the same old thing, argue with everyone, and say it's a conspiracy.
Quote from: fuzzytomcat on May 19, 2011, 07:11:18 PM
Rosemary any credibility you had left is "GONE" especially after your posting of the pure nonsense "REPORT".
NO ONE HERE AT OVER UNITY cares about your pathetic thesis .... This thread is called Rosemary Ainslie circuit demonstration on Saturday March 12th 2011 for a reason none of which you have ever understood titles of threads at http://www.energeticforum.com/ .... http://www.overunityresearch.com/ ..... http://www.thunderbolts.info/forum/ ..... http://www.thenakedscientists.com/ ( aka witsend , aetherevarising ) where you were banned for continued false and inaccurate statements and attacking members.
I invite and challenge everyone readers and guests to look at the 8,000 postings of Rosemary's spread out over several years at these forums and see for yourself.
This thread here at OU.com was to show evidence of a finding on a claim of "YOURS" on efficiency of a experimental device "YOU" claim to have a COP> INFINITY.
You have not shown in any "SCIENTIFIC METHOD" how to obtain this efficiency in any way shape or form a experimental device "YOU" claim to have a COP> INFINITY and have "FAILED" miserably only a grade or high school electronic class will be interested in your claim.
You ( Rosemary ) cannot supply one credible package of one experiment that includes a circuit diagram with oscilloscope screen shots done during the test not even one to verify your claim of a finding.
The REPORT failed .... nothing for a independent experimentalist to take and to make a device to your specifications for testing and evaluation in a scientific method to verify the claim on a finding of COP> INFINITY .... COP> INFINITY .... COP> INFINITY .... COP> INFINITY .... COP> INFINITY .... COP> INFINITY .... COP> INFINITY .... COP> INFINITY .... COP> INFINITY .... COP> INFINITY .... COP> INFINITY .... COP> INFINITY .... COP> INFINITY .... COP> INFINITY .... COP> INFINITY .... COP> INFINITY ....
There is nothing in this thread of value you are a terrible inventor and experimentalist and my credentials and expertise stand on there own and well documented unlike yours ..... this is what documentation looks like .... FYI
http://www.energeticforum.com/inductive-resistor/5359-mosfet-heating-circuits.html ( nine pages !!!! )
http://cid-6b7817c40bb20460.office.live.com/browse.aspx/.Public/Mosfet%20Heater
I won't be so nice to ask you a "TENTH" time here in this thread to do the testing in a scientific method required and do it correctly, not half ass or less as you have shown or are you incapable of the request.
Facts only Facts can you do that ? Are you capable Rosemary ? Do you need someone to hold your hand ? ???
Fuzzy
:P
@powercat:
Quote from: aaron murakami
The Ainslie circuits - I spent thousands of hours on countless experiments on all kinds of variations with that and Glen did even more. We were NOT given all the information in the beginning and that was a complete farce.
However the circuit does have merit. I got cop 2.0 as a fairly standard result - but of course the skeptics will blame it on the peukert effect or
something. But the peukert effect in the battery on a low draw does NOT explain the same heat for less measurable energy going in.
Glen got better I believe. But the most interesting to me is that while the timer circuit was dissipating energy (warming up), with my own mods, that I disclosed 100%, the mosfet and resistor side of the circuit cooled up to 2 degrees Celsius below the ambient temperature of the room, which is a different thing altogether and is serious reverse entropy.
Anyway, both Glen and I did replicate over 1.0 with a lot of data to back
it - we didn't come close to cop 17.0 like Ainslie claimed but over 1.0 is over 1.0.
(emphasis added by me)
quote taken from http://www.energeticforum.com/renewable-energy/8247-tom-bearden-oil-3.html#post142994
Quote"The gifted and skilled Open Source Researcher, Internet name Fuzzytomcat†(Glen Lettenmaier), one of the first to Replicate the Ainslie Circuit successfully in 2009, has built several configurations of the special inductors/resistors for test… And his fine work in building, tuning, measuring, documenting, and analyzing test results… Extremely well recorded and presented using the Tektronix Digital Phosper Oscilloscope stored data, still photos, and “You Tube†videos… Conclusivly prove using accepted industry-standard methods that this circuit has definite anamalous qualities in energy efficiency, and that the Rosemary Ainslie Circuit and effect deserves very close scrutiny from our scientific mainstream community."
(emphasis added by me)
quote taken from "the strange case of the rosemary ainslie circuit by steve windisch". full text can be found here: http://dandelionsalad.wordpress.com/2009/12/24/the-strange-case-of-the-rosemary-ainslie-circuit-by-steve-windisch/
Quote from: WilbyInebriated on June 25, 2011, 09:10:37 AM
@powercat:
(emphasis added by me)
quote taken from http://www.energeticforum.com/renewable-energy/8247-tom-bearden-oil-3.html#post142994
(emphasis added by me)
quote taken from "the strange case of the rosemary ainslie circuit by steve windisch". full text can be found here: http://dandelionsalad.wordpress.com/2009/12/24/the-strange-case-of-the-rosemary-ainslie-circuit-by-steve-windisch/
It is what is happening on this forum that interests me.
Your first link,
Having looked through the whole thread on that other forum, what a surprise an argument about how you are measuring things :D and a request for it to be made a self-sustaining ;D
As for the other two year old link you posted, Fuzzy as more than covered this subject in this thread and the other thread, maybe I should repost more of his quotes.
Again nobody on this forum has been able to match those claims of OU.
You appear to support Rosie's claims, but you do nothing to help solve the problem that no one here can match those results, and I have already pointed this out to you in my previous posts.
Have you and Rosie ever thought of a political career, your great at avoiding the reality of the situation in front of you, by diverging the argument and ignoring reasonable requests.
Wilby - thanks for trying to stem this rot. But it really isn't needed. Just let them rabbit on. It does no harm and hopefully it'll take the attention off this thread until we're ready to publish. And if we never do publish - then so what? It just means that we'll inevitably be looking at an escalating energy crisis that will put paid to our social comforts. And then perhaps the evidence will start speaking more loudly. Because right now these horrors are hell bent on denying it. And the joke is that neither of them can even manage elementary power analysis. So it's not as if we can have a decent discussion.
Just let it go. It really isn't worth the effort. They haven't got the wherewithal to know what they're doing. And I'm not sure that I can blame them for that. It just is what it is.
Regards,
Rosemary
Quote from: Rosemary Ainslie on June 25, 2011, 10:20:25 AM
Wilby - thanks for trying to stem this rot. But it really isn't needed. Just let them rabbit on. It does no harm and hopefully it'll take the attention off this thread until we're ready to publish. And if we never do publish - then so what? It just means that we'll inevitably be looking at an escalating energy crisis that will put paid to our social comforts. And then perhaps the evidence will start speaking more loudly. Because right now these horrors are hell bent on denying it. And the joke is that neither of them can even manage elementary power analysis. So it's not as if we can have a decent discussion.
Just let it go. It really isn't worth the effort. They haven't got the wherewithal to know what they're doing. And I'm not sure that I can blame them for that. It just is what it is.
Regards,
Rosemary
rosy, It's funny how you never questioned their ability to perform power analysis when their first observation of your circuit showed that it may have merit. Once they made the proper corrections to their readings and discovered that your circuit is of no value, all of a sudden they are incapable to do elementary power measurements.
Are the people who previously had the impression that your circuit showed signs of COP>1, still in agreement with your findings? What has changed to make them realize the truth about your circuit?
After 10 years, how many replicators are still in agreement with your findings?
If you find an "Expert", which has now been downgraded to an Academic, probably because you could not find and expert who was willing to entertain you, will he too be classified as being incapable of doing elementary power measurements when they reveal the truth about your circuit?
Now that you have a new circuit that has been around for only 2 months or so, will you be doing a continuous battery draw down test on it? I really hope you do not plan to use the same readings of your old circuit and try to apply them to the new circuit.
Aaron also quoted further down on the same thread;
Not to my satisfaction. Because as a heater, COP 17 would be
phenomenal but at only a couple, it isn't worth the time. This is because
a heat pump water heater is 3.0~5 cop and overseas I have seen claims
of 6-7 cop but don't know if those are true, they retrofit any water heater
and replace the resistive elements.
So at minimum, for 600 watts, they already produce as much heat as a
3000+ watt resistive element water heater so cop 2.0 can't even
compete - not by a long-shot.
The Ainslie circuit would have to beat COP 3~5+ just to be able to
compete with simple heat pump technology.
The other document about the strange rosmary case or something like that, was an article that was put together by one of her own team members. I especially like the comment ,"Rosemary graciously agreed to be interviewed for this article from her home in South Africa, and answer a few brief questions". Why wouldn't she. He is part of the team. It really doesn't give the document much credibility at all.
Quote from: MrMag on June 25, 2011, 12:46:42 PM
Aaron also quoted further down on the same thread;
Not to my satisfaction. Because as a heater, COP 17 would be
phenomenal but at only a couple, it isn't worth the time. This is because
a heat pump water heater is 3.0~5 cop and overseas I have seen claims
of 6-7 cop but don't know if those are true, they retrofit any water heater
and replace the resistive elements.
So at minimum, for 600 watts, they already produce as much heat as a
3000+ watt resistive element water heater so cop 2.0 can't even
compete - not by a long-shot.
The Ainslie circuit would have to beat COP 3~5+ just to be able to
compete with simple heat pump technology.
and this is saying what? that it has been investigated fully by aaron? i think the fact that aaron only achieved a cop of 2 and "efficiencies greater than “4″ have already been recorded in the recent 2009 replications" makes that line of argument moot. are you saying that improvements cannot be made? did the first internal combustion engines have the performance your current car does? etc. etc. ad infinitum, ad nauseam. look at what he (aaron) says about heat pumps, "3.0~5 cop and overseas I have seen claims of 6-7 cop". gee, they are making improvements to an old technology even now... see where i'm going with this? probably not. furthermore, the steve windisch article states glen got cop>4 which would put it dead smack in the middle of heat pump tech cop 3-5. how does that not compete as it stands with no improvement?
heck, in the same post he says he got cooling of over 2 degrees from ambient on certain components. "serious reverse entropy" he called it... but that's not worth investigating to you is it?
Quote from: MrMag on June 25, 2011, 12:46:42 PM
The other document about the strange rosmary case or something like that, was an article that was put together by one of her own team members. I especially like the comment ,"Rosemary graciously agreed to be interviewed for this article from her home in South Africa, and answer a few brief questions". Why wouldn't she. He is part of the team. It really doesn't give the document much credibility at all.
and in the same article steve interviews glen (fuzzytomcat)... so you are saying glen isn't credible now? for the record, the "team" was rosemary, aaron murakami, glen lettenmaier, harvey gramm, steve windisch, astweth. did i miss any rose?
Quote from: WilbyInebriated on June 25, 2011, 06:30:17 PM
and this is saying what? that it has been investigated fully by aaron? i think the fact that aaron only achieved a cop of 2 and "efficiencies greater than “4″ have already been recorded in the recent 2009 replications" makes that line of argument moot. are you saying that improvements cannot be made? did the first internal combustion engines have the performance your current car does? etc. etc. ad infinitum, ad nauseam. look at what he (aaron) says about heat pumps, "3.0~5 cop and overseas I have seen claims of 6-7 cop". gee, they are making improvements to an old technology even now... see where i'm going with this? probably not. furthermore, the steve windisch article states glen got cop>4 which would put it dead smack in the middle of heat pump tech cop 3-5. how does that not compete as it stands with no improvement?
heck, in the same post he says he got cooling of over 2 degrees from ambient on certain components. "serious reverse entropy" he called it... but that's not worth investigating to you is it?
and in the same article steve interviews glen (fuzzytomcat)... so you are saying glen isn't credible now? for the record, the "team" was rosemary, aaron murakami, glen lettenmaier, harvey gramm, steve windisch, astweth. did i miss any rose?
Well, she has been working on the circuit for 10 years. You would think that there would have been something done with the circuit to show it's usefulness. But then again, it is still questionable if the circuit is overunity. You would also think that she would run a continuous test to prove that the circuit doesn't drain the batteries down as people here requested. I'm not talking about the 17 hour run or the few hours here and there to add up to the watt-hour rating, I'm talking of an extended test period where it would run continuously. It doesn't need to be babysat. Just take the initial battery reading and take it again a couple of months later.
How many of those "team" members still back rose. I think she has alienated most of them. And come on, Steve Windisch, what kind of qualifications does he have, as far as I've seen he is nothing but mouth.
Quote from: MrMag on June 25, 2011, 08:02:35 PM
Well, she has been working on the circuit for 10 years. You would think that there would have been something done with the circuit to show it's usefulness. But then again, it is still questionable if the circuit is overunity. You would also think that she would run a continuous test to prove that the circuit doesn't drain the batteries down as people here requested. I'm not talking about the 17 hour run or the few hours here and there to add up to the watt-hour rating, I'm talking of an extended test period where it would run continuously. It doesn't need to be babysat. Just take the initial battery reading and take it again a couple of months later.
i noticed you didn't answer any of my questions...
Quote from: MrMag on June 25, 2011, 08:02:35 PM
How many of those "team" members still back rose. I think she has alienated most of them. And come on, Steve Windisch, what kind of qualifications does he have, as far as I've seen he is nothing but mouth.
how about you do a bit of your own due diligence mr. mags? is there something preventing you from reading the time stamp on the post by aaron @ energeticforum other than your love for speculation and assumption? for your lazy convenience, it was posted in early june of 2011... as far as steve's qualifications, you can do you own due diligence there as well... even though they are irrelevant. ::) if you recall, it was glen's 'replication' that steve was referring to when he said cop>4. do you think he just pulled that out of a hat? or do you think maybe that is what glen told him when steve interviewed him...
and as far as i've seen tinselkoala is nothing but mouth... does that now discredit him? or is it only your opinion of someone that is the final arbiter?
Quote from: WilbyInebriated on June 25, 2011, 09:05:53 PM
i noticed you didn't answer any of my questions...
how about you do a bit of your own due diligence mr. mags? is there something preventing you from reading the time stamp on the post by aaron @ energeticforum other than your love for speculation and assumption? for your lazy convenience, it was posted in early june of 2011... as far as steve's qualifications, you can do you own due diligence there as well... ::)
Yes, I did see the date but thanks for reposting it. Is it speculation and assumption or are they still part of the "team"? I really don't need to look into steve's qualifications. He is an irrelevant pawn in this "team".
Quote from: WilbyInebriated on June 25, 2011, 09:05:53 PM
and as far as i've seen tinselkoala is nothing but mouth... does that now discredit him? or is it only your opinion of someone that is the final arbiter?
I don't know enough about Tinselkoala to think either way about him. If that is your speculation and assumption, so be it. I am not completely sure of your last comment but it sounds to me that maybe steve is the last team member. Doesn't surprise me if this is the case.
The one thing I don't understand about this team is why are they interviewing each other. I would think that a third party or some independent person would have done the interviews.
ADDED:
FYI, I want to take back what I said against Steve. Although I still think he is being used as rosy's pawn, he has written some very informative documents.
mr.mag, why are you avoiding answering the simple questions i asked you?
Quote from: WilbyInebriated on June 25, 2011, 10:29:17 PM
mr.mag, why are you avoiding answering the simple questions i asked you?
Maybe i'm waiting for your friend rosey to answer mine first.
Dear Wilby,
It is my opinion that you're doing Mags a gross injustice by assuming he is capable of any kind of reasoning. He, like Cat and even Poynty - still think that I can power up my circuit and let it run for months without supervision. I've explained that this is not possible. For some reason the settings 'slip' and and within minutes the temperature on the resistor element reaches dangerous levels. This 'danger' can be lessened while that element is inserted in water. But over time, that water will evaporate and under conditions of heat it will evaporate 'at speed'. Within a brief 2 hours most of that water will have gone. Then? What does one do? Let the 'hot' part of the element melt the plastic container? And then everything around that element? But then - OBVIOUSLY - we can insert the element in that much water that it never reaches boiling point. Which also means that we could also never prove how much heat was being dissipated. The only way to run the test that Cat, and Poynty DEMAND is that we run it under close supervision. I'll do this gladly. Just pay me to make it worth my while. Because I KNOW that no-one who matters even asks for that test. And to DEMAND that I run it is PROFOUNDLY UNREASONABLE unless, obviously, there's some promise of recognition for those test results. And I CERTAINLY don't mean recognition by Mags or Cat.
Kindest regards Wilby. Clearly you're tireless. Me - I'm not so much any more. This is all getting more than I can manage.
Rosie
Quote from: Rosemary Ainslie on June 25, 2011, 11:03:46 PM
Dear Wilby,
It is my opinion that you're doing Mags a gross injustice by assuming he is capable of any kind of reasoning. He, like Cat and even Poynty - still think that I can power up my circuit and let it run for months without supervision. I've explained that this is not possible. For some reason the settings 'slip' and and within minutes the temperature on the resistor element reaches dangerous levels. This 'danger' can be lessened while that element is inserted in water. But over time, that water will evaporate and under conditions of heat it will evaporate 'at speed'. Within a brief 2 hours most of that water will have gone. Then? What does one do? Let the 'hot' part of the element melt the plastic container? And then everything around that element? But then - OBVIOUSLY - we can insert the element in that much water that it never reaches boiling point. Which also means that we could also never prove how much heat was being dissipated. The only way to run the test that Cat, and Poynty DEMAND is that we run it under close supervision. I'll do this gladly. Just pay me to make it worth my while. Because I KNOW that no-one who matters even asks for that test. And to DEMAND that I run it is PROFOUNDLY UNREASONABLE unless, obviously, there's some promise of recognition for those test results. And I CERTAINLY don't mean recognition by Mags or Cat.
Kindest regards Wilby. Clearly you're tireless. Me - I'm not so much any more. This is all getting more than I can manage.
Rosie
Can you state unequivocally at this point that there is no battery drain in the period of time required to boil water? If not, someone is going to have to do that test.
Quote from: happyfunball on June 25, 2011, 11:16:39 PM
Can you state unequivocally at this point that there is no battery drain in the period of time required to boil water? If not, someone is going to have to do that test.
Yes Happy. I can. Unequivocally. There is NO drop in battery voltage. And the math trace showed zero wattage from the battery - and the mean average showed a negative product and the heat at 80 degrees C was sustained for a period of not less than 80 MINUTES - and then it was taken to an even higher value of 104 degrees C over a period of another 8 or thereby minutes. And then I HAD to stop that test, because the last ten minutes indicated that it was now running at runaway wattage values. And, frankly, I was getting nervous. But AT NO STAGE WAS THERE ANY EVIDENCE OF ANY WATTAGE DEPLETED BY THE BATTERY. EVERYTHING STAYED AT NEGATIVE VALUES. Therefore UNEQUIVOCALLY NO ENERGY WAS EXPENDED FROM THE SOURCE.
Regards,
Rosemary
Quote from: Rosemary Ainslie on June 25, 2011, 11:03:46 PM
Dear Wilby,
It is my opinion that you're doing Mags a gross injustice by assuming he is capable of any kind of reasoning. He, like Cat and even Poynty - still think that I can power up my circuit and let it run for months without supervision. I've explained that this is not possible. For some reason the settings 'slip' and and within minutes the temperature on the resistor element reaches dangerous levels. This 'danger' can be lessened while that element is inserted in water. But over time, that water will evaporate and under conditions of heat it will evaporate 'at speed'. Within a brief 2 hours most of that water will have gone. Then? What does one do? Let the 'hot' part of the element melt the plastic container? And then everything around that element? But then - OBVIOUSLY - we can insert the element in that much water that it never reaches boiling point. Which also means that we could also never prove how much heat was being dissipated. The only way to run the test that Cat, and Poynty DEMAND is that we run it under close supervision. I'll do this gladly. Just pay me to make it worth my while. Because I KNOW that no-one who matters even asks for that test. And to DEMAND that I run it is PROFOUNDLY UNREASONABLE unless, obviously, there's some promise of recognition for those test results. And I CERTAINLY don't mean recognition by Mags or Cat.
Kindest regards Wilby. Clearly you're tireless. Me - I'm not so much any more. This is all getting more than I can manage.
Rosie
Wilby,
Please explain to rosey that she could possibly use the circuit that (I think it was) Poynt showed. Then she would not have to use the external signal generator. Also, she could possibly use oil or glycol instead of water. Please assure her that there are ways that this test could be performed unsupervised. All she would have to do is try to listen to others instead of trying to come off as the all knowing authority.
You can also tell her that possibly the reason "no-one that matters" has asked for this test is that they don't believe in her circuit at all. At least I am, and possibly others are willing to accept her claim if she can prove it through this test. I have never DEMANDED that she do the test, all I have done numerous time is request that she do the test.
Quote from: Rosemary Ainslie on June 25, 2011, 11:28:30 PM
Yes Happy. I can. Unequivocally. There is NO drop in battery voltage. And the math trace showed zero wattage from the battery - and the mean average showed a negative product and the heat at 80 degrees C was sustained for a period of not less than 80 MINUTES - and then it was taken to an even higher value of 104 degrees C over a period of another 8 or thereby minutes. And then I HAD to stop that test, because the last ten minutes indicated that it was now running at runaway wattage values. And, frankly, I was getting nervous. But AT NO STAGE WAS THERE ANY EVIDENCE OF ANY WATTAGE DEPLETED BY THE BATTERY. EVERYTHING STAYED AT NEGATIVE VALUES. Therefore UNEQUIVOCALLY NO ENERGY WAS EXPENDED FROM THE SOURCE.
Regards,
Rosemary
I think this is questionable.
Quote from: MrMag on June 25, 2011, 11:50:32 PM
I think this is questionable.
Since you clearly do not have what's needed to 'think with' then your 'thoughts' on this and anything at all - are ENTIRELY irrelevant.
R
Quote from: Rosemary Ainslie on June 25, 2011, 11:03:46 PM
Dear Wilby,
It is my opinion that you're doing Mags a gross injustice by assuming he is capable of any kind of reasoning.
you are absolutely correct... evidenced by his reply #1612
Quote from: MrMag on June 25, 2011, 10:54:54 PM
Maybe i'm waiting for your friend rosey to answer mine first.
which is absolutely pathetic. and his third time avoiding my simple, direct questions. i thought from previous conversations he was reasonable. my mistake mr.mag, my mistake...
Quote from: Rosemary Ainslie on June 26, 2011, 12:31:40 AM
Since you clearly do not have what's needed to 'think with' then your 'thoughts' on this and anything at all - are ENTIRELY irrelevant.
R
Golly rosy, you have such a way with words. You are such a kind and caring person. Just as long as nobody asks you questions or asks you to perform a test that would prove that your little circuit is a fake just like you. After 10 years you have not built a single device that uses your circuit. You have lost almost all of your team. Way to go. No "Expert" wants anything to do with you. All you are worried about is writing your paper to try to sell your circuit as a working device. You need more then a paper to prove that. You need verification that it works, and believe it or not, you don't have the qualifications to verify your own circuit. I know that I only have a little over 35 years of electronic experience so I realize that your years as a waitress and real estate agent overwhelms my credentials. I imagine that being told over and over again for the last 10 years that your circuit is nothing special would make you the sour prude that you are today. The only thing that you can do is try to belittle someone who catches you with your lies. I really think it is you that has the agenda. Your deception has lasted 10 years now and is probably a record among frauds.
The sad thing that I am sure that you don't understand, among a lot of other things, is that any professional, expert or academic will probably do some research on you before they commit to anything. When they show up on this site and read some of the comments you have written to and about people, they will stay away from you. You even cut up people on your own blog. Not to mention the blog that is dedicated to your mentality and morality. You are your worst enemy. It's really to bad that you have not had any formal training. Maybe you would be a little more professional and ethical. Your just a mean old lady that will never truly understand. I feel sorry for you.
Quote from: WilbyInebriated on June 26, 2011, 01:10:45 AM
you are absolutely correct... evidenced by his reply #1612which is absolutely pathetic. and his third time avoiding my simple, direct questions. i thought from previous conversations he was reasonable. my mistake mr.mag, my mistake...
I don't know Wilby, I ask rose a question and she doesn't have to answer which is no big deal to you. Yet you DEMAND an answer from me. And you are not her little pawn, right.
You two deserve each other.
Quote from: MrMag on June 26, 2011, 01:31:38 AM
I don't know Wilby, I ask rose a question and she doesn't have to answer which is no big deal to you. Yet you DEMAND an answer from me. And you are not her little pawn, right.
You two deserve each other.
more logical fallacy... non sequitur. ::)
how am i involved in the questions you posed to rose? look, mags, i asked YOU a couple of simple questions, which you have continued to avoid answering for several posts now. and because you feel rose has not answered your questions (which she actually has) that is justification to not answer mine? dude, are you mental? ::)
yup, my mistake mr.mag, my mistake indeed.
edit: i give up on you mr.mag. one cannot use reason to reason someone out of a position they have not used reason to get themselves into...
you are a waste of my time. i'm going fishing.
Guys I'm deleting this post and putting it after MaMag's posts. Otherwise it may be lost in all that sad little obsession he has with himself about himself.
regards,
Rosemary
I'm not sure if this is what you are DEMANDING me to answer but I will. Then you won't be able to whine about "why should she answer you when you don't answer me".
Quote from: WilbyInebriated on June 25, 2011, 06:30:17 PM
and this is saying what? that it has been investigated fully by aaron? i think the fact that aaron only achieved a cop of 2 and "efficiencies greater than “4″ have already been recorded in the recent 2009 replications" makes that line of argument moot. are you saying that improvements cannot be made? did the first internal combustion engines have the performance your current car does? etc. etc. ad infinitum, ad nauseam. look at what he (aaron) says about heat pumps, "3.0~5 cop and overseas I have seen claims of 6-7 cop". gee, they are making improvements to an old technology even now... see where i'm going with this? probably not. furthermore, the steve windisch article states glen got cop>4 which would put it dead smack in the middle of heat pump tech cop 3-5. how does that not compete as it stands with no improvement?
heck, in the same post he says he got cooling of over 2 degrees from ambient on certain components. "serious reverse entropy" he called it... but that's not worth investigating to you is it?
The reason I posted this is because Aaron is/was at one time, part of the team, correct?
His comment was, "it isn't worth the time". So, I guess HE thinks the circuit isn't worth pursuing.
I never mentioned my thoughts either way so I don't know where you got the idea that I don't think it's worth investigating. Gee, I think this calls for one of your classic red herring or logical fallacy lines but I'm not sure which to use.
Quote from: WilbyInebriated on June 25, 2011, 06:30:17 PM
and in the same article steve interviews glen (fuzzytomcat)... so you are saying glen isn't credible now? for the record, the "team" was rosemary, aaron murakami, glen lettenmaier, harvey gramm, steve windisch, astweth. did i miss any rose?
The only people who are not credible are rosy and possibly Steve. I'm still undecided with him. He has written some interesting articles but I think he is still backing rosy which makes him a little questionable. As for the rest of them, Yes they are credible. They were just being misled at the time so I don't hold them responsible for any of it.
The "strange rosemary" document not the people is what I'm referring to. When the team members interview each other and post the comment, "Rosemary graciously agreed to be interviewed for this article from her home in South Africa, and answer a few brief questions". it sounds a little fishy to me. We know exactly how this "interview" went. It makes me question the whole document. She was misleading and deceiving people by making it look as if it was an independent interview. That statement would be made from someone outside of the club suggesting they were lucky to get the interview. It would NOT be made from someone on the same team. It just goes to show what kind of a deceitful person she is.
Quote from: WilbyInebriated on June 26, 2011, 01:55:40 AM
more logical fallacy... non sequitur. ::)
how am i involved in the questions you posed to rose? look, mags, i asked YOU a couple of simple questions, which you have continued to avoid answering for several posts now. and because you feel rose has not answered your questions (which she actually has) that is justification to not answer mine? dude, are you mental? ::)
yup, my mistake mr.mag, my mistake indeed.
edit: i give up on you mr.mag. one cannot use reason to reason someone out of a position they have not used reason to get themselves into...
you are a waste of my time. i'm going fishing.
I don't understand the reason why you can't use reason to reason with me when I was reasonable.
Your always fishing :D
you weren't reasonable. engaging in logical fallacies is not reasonable... ::) TU STULTUS ES!
Quote from: MrMag on June 26, 2011, 02:09:48 AM
I'm not sure if this is what you are DEMANDING me to answer but I will. Then you won't be able to whine about "why should she answer you when you don't answer me".
The reason I posted this is because Aaron is/was at one time, part of the team, correct?
His comment was, "it isn't worth the time". So, I guess HE thinks the circuit isn't worth pursuing.
I never mentioned my thoughts either way so I don't know where you got the idea that I don't think it's worth investigating. Gee, I think this calls for one of your classic red herring or logical fallacy lines but I'm not sure which to use.
read the quote again mr.mag, take note of the highlighted part
Quote from: aaron murakamiThe Ainslie circuits - I spent thousands of hours on countless experiments
on all kinds of variations with that and Glen did even more. We were NOT
given all the information in the beginning and that was a complete farce.
However the circuit does have merit. I got cop 2.0 as a fairly standard
result - but of course the skeptics will blame it on the peukert effect or
something. But the peukert effect in the battery on a low draw does NOT
explain the same heat for less measurable energy going in.
Glen got better I believe. But the most interesting to me
is that while the timer circuit was dissipating energy (warming up),
with my own mods, that I disclosed 100%, the mosfet and resistor side
of the circuit cooled up to 2 degrees Celsius below the ambient temperature
of the room, which is a different thing altogether and is serious reverse
entropy.
Anyway, both Glen and I did replicate over 1.0 with a lot of data to back
it - we didn't come close to cop 17.0 like Ainslie claimed but over 1.0
is over 1.0.
so the circuit has merit, but isn't worth pursuing... ::)
of course you are not sure which one to use, that would require an understanding of what a cogent argument is and knowledge of the various logical fallacies...
Quote from: MrMag on June 26, 2011, 02:09:48 AM
The only people who are not credible are rosy and possibly Steve. I'm still undecided with him. He has written some interesting articles but I think he is still backing rosy which makes him a little questionable. As for the rest of them, Yes they are credible. They were just being misled at the time so I don't hold them responsible for any of it.
The "strange rosemary" document not the people is what I'm referring to. When the team members interview each other and post the comment, "Rosemary graciously agreed to be interviewed for this article from her home in South Africa, and answer a few brief questions". it sounds a little fishy to me. We know exactly how this "interview" went. It makes me question the whole document. She was misleading and deceiving people by making it look as if it was an independent interview. That statement would be made from someone outside of the club suggesting they were lucky to get the interview. It would NOT be made from someone on the same team. It just goes to show what kind of a deceitful person she is.
and yourself, since you have 35 years of electronic experience (is that selling vcr's at best buy? cause that doesn't really count you know... ;) ) but think that a single lemon can light a large filament bulb... and i seem to recall you telling omnibus that it was voltage in and out that mattered and that was the only thing that mattered. here it is:
Quote from: MrMag on March 19, 2011, 02:10:59 PM
I'm sorry but I disagree with you on that. Who cares what science says. If I can run my house off the grid with new technology, why would I care what science has to say about it. If I have to wait for the scientist to come up with something, I'll be waiting a very long time.
You give scientist to much credit. They live in a little bubble. If OU is discovered, it will probably come from some new type of energy conversion. It won't fit in their little formulas so it won't be accepted. They are the most closed minded people of all.
So, what is the gain of your circuit. How many volts in and how many out. I am asking for the actual real numbers not the simulated ones.
you are free to assume and speculate what you wish...
edit: my bad, it wasn't a lemon, it was a potato...
http://www.overunity.com/index.php?topic=8387.msg215247#msg215247
guys - here it is again.
I'm beginning to sound like a prophet of doom. But I'm also going to risk saying all this again. We have no more options. Our clocks are ticking. We have no ALTERNATE ENERGY SUPPLY SOURCES. Most of our Governments are already looking to ways to limiting their energy supplies to us - poor end users. We're being encouraged to limit our consumption. Either by punitive pricing on those resources - or by actively advancing the our use of solar or wind energies. Both are expensive to implement and not that efficient. Not much reward ratio - not much 'buck' for all that 'bang'. We have NOTHING ELSE GOING FOR US - UNLESS we find something new.
Well. Here's the thing. We HAVE found something new. Thanks to Zwicky - who one day I hope will be acknowledged as a scientific GREAT - we apparently have bags and bags of DARK ENERGY. This is a new force. Never before been known of. NOT even acknowledged by our BRILLIANT QED developers. Nor by our BRILLIANT classicists. The hell was to LOCATE IT. Still is. No-one can find the particle needed for this new force. And it's been a frantic search. The guys at MIT have been overseeing deep mine experiments for over 10 years. Still nothing. BUT. Nor have the ever found the graviton that is ASSUMED to be needed for gravity. And NOR has anyone actually even PROVED that the electron is the particle required for the electromagnetic interaction. SO? Why is this different? Why do they first NEED this particle when a 'particle' proof was never required before? Here's why. Because WITHOUT that particle the logic or the justifications for all that unity requirement thing - that Kirchhoff's Rule - thing - will simply unravel. And that logic has been the lode star that has taken us to the extraordinary heights (or depths) that we enjoy today. Clearly the fundamentals that are responsible for all our progress - HAS NOT BEEN FOR NAUGHT. It has worked. Really rather remarkably well. So? What are they meant to do with YET ANOTHER FORCE - which has NOT been factored in - and which seems to DEFY, at its least, Kirchhoff's unity requirements? Is it a particle? And if so WHERE IS IT? And WHAT IS IT?
This is where I modestly propose that we may have found an answer. And I don't need to go into what that answer is but I ASSURE YOU ALL that it is NOT a DISCOVERY. It's a line of reasoning that was FORGED and DEVELOPED in all its pristine elegance by FARADAY. Faraday worked with lines of force. IF those lines of force comprise particles then what he did not actually SAY but what is IMPLICIT is that there must thereby be some kind of magnetic 'coherence' in those fields to retain any line at all. And nothing 'coheres' better than two magnets aligned north to south. So. Taking that thought to it's logical conclusions - then one can actually describe the magnetic field with an exactitude that is breathtakingly consistent with what is evident. NOT ONLY THAT - but we only need a single magnetic dipole to prove that ALL particles are composites of this same thing. And not only that - but we can describe ALL THE KNOWN FORCES, including the DARK FORCE - as varying dimensions and fields of JUST THIS ONE PARTICLE.
And to prove all this - one only needs to apply FARADAY's Inductive Laws and then all this excess is immediately apparent. Not only THAT - but our simulation software SHOWS THE SAME THING. And here's what it shows. It shows that every time we induce COUNTER ELECTROMOTIVE FORCE or BACK ELECTROMOTIVE FORCE or CEMF or BEMF - then we, and that simulation software - is simply adding IN another cycle of energy. So. Why then is this all so different?
Here's why. KIRCHHOFF told us that counter electromotive energy was STORED energy. And the amount of energy that was stored was FIRST REDUCED by the amount of energy DISSIPATED on the circuit. In other words he ONLY paid heed to a SINGLE SUPPLY SOURCE. Which means we can NEVER get more out than in. FARADAY, on the other hand claimed this. The amount of energy or potential difference STORED = the amount of energy or potential RETURNED. Because changing electric fields induce magnetic fields and changing magnetic fields induce electric fields. NO QUALIFICATIONS TO THE VALUE. And HIS argument, ie FARADAY's argument, by comparison, requires an IMPLICIT equivalence in the amount IN to the amount OUT - or as Poynty refers to it Pin=Pout.
That's what our circuit proves. IT IS ABSOLUTELY NOT OUR DISCOVERY. IT ISN'T TECHNICALLY EVEN A DISCOVERY. IT IS A VALIDATION OF FARADAY'S INDUCTIVE LAWS and it has the dubious merit of also ENDORSING the findings that our DARK ENERGY DISCOVERERS have already PROVED.
And back to the point of this post. We can continue to ignore this evidence but we do so at our peril. And if the general reluctance to acknowledge all this is simply because there are posters here who do not like me, or that there are members who prefer to find COMPLETELY irrelevant reasons for all this - then so be it. It doesn't change the facts. Physics is NOT based on opinion. Nor is it based on popularity. And science - as we ALL KNOW is ONLY PROGRESSED BY REPEATABLE EXPERIMENTAL EVIDENCE. We've done that bit to death. It's yet to be seen how well our mainstream scientists evaluate all this. Right now they've still got the excuse that it's not published. I shall try and get this published or die trying. But that's as far as I can reasonably be expected to take it.
Regards,
Rosemary
Quote from: Rosemary Ainslie on June 26, 2011, 02:26:32 AM
guys - here it is again.
I'm beginning to sound like a prophet of doom. But I'm also going to risk saying all this again. We have no more options. Our clocks are ticking. We have no ALTERNATE ENERGY SUPPLY SOURCES. Most of our Governments are already looking to ways to limiting their energy supplies to us - poor end users. We're being encouraged to limit our consumption. Either by punitive pricing on those resources - or by actively advancing the our use of solar or wind energies. Both are expensive to implement and not that efficient. Not much reward ratio - not much 'buck' for all that 'bang'. We have NOTHING ELSE GOING FOR US - UNLESS we find something new.
Well. Here's the thing. We HAVE found something new. Thanks to Zwicky - who one day I hope will be acknowledged as a scientific GREAT - we apparently have bags and bags of DARK ENERGY. This is a new force. Never before been known of. NOT even acknowledged by our BRILLIANT QED developers. Nor by our BRILLIANT classicists. The hell was to LOCATE IT. Still is. No-one can find the particle needed for this new force. And it's been a frantic search. The guys at MIT have been overseeing deep mine experiments for over 10 years. Still nothing. BUT. Nor have the ever found the graviton that is ASSUMED to be needed for gravity. And NOR has anyone actually even PROVED that the electron is the particle required for the electromagnetic interaction. SO? Why is this different? Why do they first NEED this particle when a 'particle' proof was never required before? Here's why. Because WITHOUT that particle the logic or the justifications for all that unity requirement thing - that Kirchhoff's Rule - thing - will simply unravel. And that logic has been the lode star that has taken us to the extraordinary heights (or depths) that we enjoy today. Clearly the fundamentals that are responsible for all our progress - HAS NOT BEEN FOR NAUGHT. It has worked. Really rather remarkably well. So? What are they meant to do with YET ANOTHER FORCE - which has NOT been factored in - and which seems to DEFY, at its least, Kirchhoff's unity requirements? Is it a particle? And if so WHERE IS IT? And WHAT IS IT?
This is where I modestly propose that we may have found an answer. And I don't need to go into what that answer is but I ASSURE YOU ALL that it is NOT a DISCOVERY. It's a line of reasoning that was FORGED and DEVELOPED in all its pristine elegance by FARADAY. Faraday worked with lines of force. IF those lines of force comprise particles then what he did not actually SAY but what is IMPLICIT is that there must thereby be some kind of magnetic 'coherence' in those fields to retain any line at all. And nothing 'coheres' better than two magnets aligned north to south. So. Taking that thought to it's logical conclusions - then one can actually describe the magnetic field with an exactitude that is breathtakingly consistent with what is evident. NOT ONLY THAT - but we only need a single magnetic dipole to prove that ALL particles are composites of this same thing. And not only that - but we can describe ALL THE KNOWN FORCES, including the DARK FORCE - as varying dimensions and fields of JUST THIS ONE PARTICLE.
And to prove all this - one only needs to apply FARADAY's Inductive Laws and then all this excess is immediately apparent. Not only THAT - but our simulation software SHOWS THE SAME THING. And here's what it shows. It shows that every time we induce COUNTER ELECTROMOTIVE FORCE or BACK ELECTROMOTIVE FORCE or CEMF or BEMF - then we, and that simulation software - is simply adding IN another cycle of energy. So. Why then is this all so different?
Here's why. KIRCHHOFF told us that counter electromotive energy was STORED energy. And the amount of energy that was stored was FIRST REDUCED by the amount of energy DISSIPATED on the circuit. In other words he ONLY paid heed to a SINGLE SUPPLY SOURCE. Which means we can NEVER get more out than in. FARADAY, on the other hand claimed this. The amount of energy or potential difference STORED = the amount of energy or potential RETURNED. Because changing electric fields induce magnetic fields and changing magnetic fields induce electric fields. NO QUALIFICATIONS TO THE VALUE. And HIS argument, ie FARADAY's argument, by comparison, requires an IMPLICIT equivalence in the amount IN to the amount OUT - or as Poynty refers to it Pin=Pout.
That's what our circuit proves. IT IS ABSOLUTELY NOT OUR DISCOVERY. IT ISN'T TECHNICALLY EVEN A DISCOVERY. IT IS A VALIDATION OF FARADAY'S INDUCTIVE LAWS and it has the dubious merit of also ENDORSING the findings that our DARK ENERGY DISCOVERERS have already PROVED.
And back to the point of this post. We can continue to ignore this evidence but we do so at our peril. And if the general reluctance to acknowledge all this is simply because there are posters here who do not like me, or that there are members who prefer to find COMPLETELY irrelevant reasons for all this - then so be it. It doesn't change the facts. Physics is NOT based on opinion. Nor is it based on popularity. And science - as we ALL KNOW is ONLY PROGRESSED BY REPEATABLE EXPERIMENTAL EVIDENCE. We've done that bit to death. It's yet to be seen how well our mainstream scientists evaluate all this. Right now they've still got the excuse that it's not published. I shall try and get this published or die trying. But that's as far as I can reasonably be expected to take it.
Regards,
Rosemary
well said rose. i think you are wasting your breath on these two. i know i am... that's why they both just made my ignore list. neither of them have the knowledge to recognize the flaws at the most fundamental levels of 'popular science'. nor do they have the breadth of knowledge to see the paradoxes and contradictions between the various genres of popular science.
good luck. i'm gonna go catch some dinner and fill the icebox with fillets.
Quote from: WilbyInebriated on June 26, 2011, 02:23:16 AM
TU STULTUS ES!
Wow, you can use fancy words too! rosy must be paying you the big bucks.
Quote from: WilbyInebriated on June 26, 2011, 02:23:16 AM
read the quote again mr.mag, take note of the highlighted partso the circuit has merit, but isn't worth pursuing... ::)
of course you are not sure which one to use, that would require an understanding of what a cogent argument is and knowledge of the various logical fallacies...
I think you need to read my reply again. I thought it was straight forward but you may need further clarification. I just wanted to point out that Aaron said "it isn't worth the time". If he also mentioned that the circuit has merit, you will need to take it up with him. I'm not sure but isn't it a logical fallacy for you to argue with me about something that someone else said?
Quote from: WilbyInebriated on June 26, 2011, 02:23:16 AM
and yourself, since you have 35 years of electronic experience (is that selling vcr's at best buy? cause that doesn't really count you know... ;) ) but think that a single lemon can light a large filament bulb... and i seem to recall you telling omnibus that it was voltage in and out that mattered and that was the only thing that mattered.
you are free to assume and speculate what you wish...
No, thank God I never had to deal with the public. But now that you mention it, it would still give me more qualifications then rosys waiting on tables.
I never said anything about a lemon lighting a LARGE filament bulb. Like how large, are you talking the whole bulb or just a large filament? Yes, I did say that to Omni but didn't I correct myself and say wattage. Do you carry notes on everyone? You need to get a life. You should take up fishing or something
Quote from: WilbyInebriated on June 26, 2011, 02:43:10 AM
well said rose. i think you are wasting your breath on these two. i know i am... that's why they both just made my ignore list. neither of them have the knowledge to recognize the flaws at the most fundamental levels of 'popular science'. nor do they have the breadth of knowledge to see the paradoxes and contradictions between the various genres of popular science.
good luck. i'm gonna go catch some dinner and fill the icebox with fillets.
;D
And I'm going to do the family thing. It's Sunday. The good news is that the sun is shining - for once and that you're still around on these forums Captain.
Kindest as ever,
Rosie
;D ;D ;D
Quote from: Rosemary Ainslie on June 26, 2011, 02:26:32 AM
And science - as we ALL KNOW is ONLY PROGRESSED BY REPEATABLE EXPERIMENTAL EVIDENCE. We've done that bit to death.
Regards,
Rosemary
Oh no you have not, there have been numerous requests recently and in the past that you completely ignore or argue that it is not requiredand and that you have done more than enough.
Why is it then that all the people on this forum that have ever tried your circuit have failed to match your results.
As for the rest of your post, this forum is not your blog, please interact properly with members here making reasonable requests for new tests.
No one is doubting you can talk the talk but when it comes to walk the walk, we all fall flat on our faces, except you, it all works for you, but nobody else here, and you don't seem to want to do anything to change that, apart from regurgitate your same old arguments ::)
Expecting any members here to give you any money for doing new tests is ludicrous,
we have all seen the other members here fail, and most of us trust those members capabilities.
If you were to do some new tests like being suggested by Mr Mag amongst others you might change the deadlock situation, after all you're the one seeking recognition, would it help if everyone on this forum started reproducing your circuit so that it did match your results of OU ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ?
You are the one claiming over unity, yet you expect other people to accept that it works, by belief alone, when most people see the failed attempts they know it's a con or incorrect measuring, this forum has been around long enough to recognise that something is not right.
No doubt if you answer this you will pick on small detail and not address the main point, and you will also repeat what you said before ( this is not your blog) please interact with the reasonable requests made by members here for you to do new tests,
You are really beginning to remind me of Lawrence, he would go on and on and on, about how his technology worked, yet despite repeated requests, he just go's on and on and on, that it worked
Pulsed DC Transformer with Embedded Magnets
http://www.overunity.com/index.php?topic=8825.0
You come across as so sincere with that political way of writing and ducking and diving,that most people are prepared to give you the benefit of the doubt,
the fact still remains that no one here can reproduce your claims, and you are not willing to do anything to change that deadlock, part from use this forum as your soapbox and blog
Hello Everyone,
I have just done a partial read of the many many pages that have appeared since I was last involved in this thread. What a surprise to find it is still in the same place it was all that time ago. No progress :(
I also noticed that Rose is claiming that there are no ALTERNATE ENERGY SUPPLY SOURCES, this is false, there are:
http://www.overunity.com/index.php?topic=10708.0
Gasification Rose... Gasification. There is no longer any excuse for you to promote your unproven technology as the ONLY answer to our energy problems. It appears you have not been paying attention due to your self obsession with self publicity.
Gasification is not a new technology, it is an old technology. It requires no R&D and is a solution NOW. Tried, tested and proven to work.
It can run standard off the shelf Internal Combustion Engines and therefore provide either rotary moment drive or by hooking it to a generator unit, electricity. It is simple and cheap to make.
If your struggling to understand the implications of this then it not only solves the “energy crisis†but also the food, heating and water crisis's too. I covered all this here:
http://www.rumormillnews.com/cgi-bin/archive.cgi?read=186038
Ignore the HHO part and substitute in the Gasifier and ICE and you have the ability to use Growbox Technology to grow food, and hot exhaust gases to provide heat and drinking water, along with ample supplies of electricity to live completely off grid and self sufficient.
If you really care about the people struggling to survive in S.Africa and all over the world as you claim to do then you will use your amazing publicity skills to inform them of this stunning development and solution to their problems. It is going to be interesting to see what choice you make.
Best Wishes,
RM :)
Quote from: powercat on June 26, 2011, 08:15:57 AM
Oh no you have not, there have been numerous requests recently and in the past that you completely ignore or argue that it is not required and and that you have done more than enough.
Why is it then that all the people on this forum that have ever tried your circuit have failed to match your results.
Oh yes we have. We've replicated our own tests PUBLICLY. We've also got two team members who have independently replicated this as well as variations of that circuit. AND we've got a HOST of simulations. And WHO EXACTLY are you referring to when you say '
Why is it then that ALL the people of this forum that have ever tried your circuit have failed to match your results.'? I'm not sure that there were any. Ever. Certainly none that have posted here. What I DO know is that Neptune and a couple of others were going to try. But they moved over to try and replicate RomeroUK's work. With good reason. Remember? It was YOU who actively advised all to stop posting here and GO THERE. Do try and think back CAT! It wasn't THAT long ago. Golly.
Quote from: powercat on June 26, 2011, 08:15:57 AMAs for the rest of your post, this forum is not your blog, please interact properly with members here making reasonable requests for new tests.
When I get reasonable requests then I will certainly do whatever it is that is asked of me. Right now I've been ASKED nothing. I've had you and MaMags DEMAND that I do an entirely absurd test that will cost me in the region of R10 000.00 IF I do what you require. And that DEMAND was laced with a clumsy, rude and heavy handed challenge that we could ever get our supply batteries to outperform a control. Since we've ALREADY shown that it outperformed - then that challenge is void and meaningless. And I'm not inclined to DO YOUR BIDDING unfortunately CAT because I'm not inclined to co-operate under that menace of denial. Deny to your heart's content. It means nothing. Alternatively, do your own tests. There's nothing to stop you. I'm constantly AMAZED that you armchair enthusiasts can charge through these forums advocating one thing - denying another - always off the point - never with any ACTUAL knowledge, skill or authority - and DOING NOTHING YOURSELVES. It's extraordinary. And not only that but you then DEMAND that we do your BIDDING? What are we? Your slaves? Do you think that your personal endorsements means that much that you can dispense with politeness and just sit back and call for whatever shots you require. Do you really think that I care for your opinion? I don't. I assure you. There was a time when I would have cared - deeply. As it is I now know you SO MUCH better.
Quote from: powercat on June 26, 2011, 08:15:57 AMNo one is doubting you can talk the talk but when it comes to walk the walk, we all fall flat on our faces, except you, it all works for you, but nobody else here, and you don't seem to want to do anything to change that, apart from regurgitate your same old arguments ::)
WHO HAS FALLEN ON THEIR FACE? NOT YOU. You've replicated NOTHING. NOT ANY MEMBERS ON THIS FORUM? WHO?
Quote from: powercat on June 26, 2011, 08:15:57 AMExpecting any members here to give you any money for doing new tests is ludicrous, we have all seen the other members here fail, and most of us trust those members capabilities.
It is NO MORE LUDICROUS THAN TO DEMAND THAT I DO A TEST THAT WILL END UP COSTING ME R10 000.00. Is it right that I pick up that tab? When I KNOW that no-one will pay the slightest heed to any result that we show?
Quote from: powercat on June 26, 2011, 08:15:57 AMIf you were to do some new tests like being suggested by Mr Mag amongst others you might change the deadlock situation, after all you're the one seeking recognition, would it help if everyone on this forum started reproducing your circuit so that it did match your results of OU ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ?
You are the one claiming over unity, yet you expect other people to accept that it works, by belief alone, when most people see the failed attempts they know it's a con or incorrect measuring, this forum has been around long enough to recognise that something is not right.
Now we're getting closer to the truth. What your ACTUAL beef is that there are no replications. Therefore I must provide more evidence? Exactly HOW do you expect me to co-operate with that concern? Just go over your posts and tell me WHERE have you asked anything at all? I've looked. I see NOTHING. What I see is an immature tantrum from a lazy armchair enthusiast insulting me in every way he can - in the absurd hopes of thereby encouraging me to co-operate and show YET MORE EVIDENCE. All I can say is that I will NOT co-operate under any kind of coercion or duress. I will not be bullied. And I will not try and redeem your opinion EVER. You may think what you like.
Quote from: powercat on June 26, 2011, 08:15:57 AMNo doubt if you answer this you will pick on small detail and not address the main point, and you will also repeat what you said before ( this is not your blog) please interact with the reasonable requests made by members here for you to do new tests,
AGAIN. WHAT REASONABLE REQUESTS ARE YOU REFERRING TO?
Quote from: powercat on June 26, 2011, 08:15:57 AMYou are really beginning to remind me of Lawrence, he would go on and on and on, about how his technology worked, yet despite repeated requests, he just go's on and on and on, that it worked
Pulsed DC Transformer with Embedded Magnets
http://www.overunity.com/index.php?topic=8825.0
As I say. Your opinion related to FuzzyTomCat's work - RomeroUK's work - or anyone's work - is a matter of supreme indifference to me. I happen to know that you're an insulting bully and that you're incapable of the intellectual rigor required to assess the truth in anything at all.
Quote from: powercat on June 26, 2011, 08:15:57 AMYou come across as so sincere with that political way of writing and ducking and diving,that most people are prepared to give you the benefit of the doubt, the fact still remains that no one here can reproduce your claims, and you are not willing to do anything to change that deadlock, part from use this forum as your soapbox and blog
AGAIN. No member has even TRIED to replicate our circuit. When they do and then IF THEY FAIL - then this comment may then have some kind of historical merit.
R
Evolvingape - I have NEVER claimed a monopoly on the answers to our energy crisis. I hope I've only ever pointed at where that answer lies. The ways to access this are manifold. And I think the door is barely opened a fraction. But spare me the work of advancing anything other than what I know. I personally think that Lasersaber's work AND Pirate's work are both FAR MORE IMPORTANT than what we're uncovering. But that's because of what it shows. They both need to get it to higher wattage values to make it more practical. Meanwhile I also KNOW that we have a ready made solution to applying heat. And I also know that anyone at all who actually takes the trouble to replicate - whether successful or not - at whatever build they try - is doing UNTOLD GOOD to this general drive towards OU. All efforts add weight to the cause that eventually those credibility barriers will just collapse.
So. If there is another ready made solution. That's a really good thing. I'm not a chemist. And, as mentioned, my interests are only in the thesis. But I can only prove my thesis on this experiment. But it also has the very real benefit of answering our needs for clean green.
Regards
Rosemary
Quote from: Rosemary Ainslie on June 26, 2011, 10:31:54 AM
Oh yes we have. We've replicated our own tests PUBLICLY. We've also got two team members who have independently replicated this as well as variations of that circuit. AND we've got a HOST of simulations. And WHO EXACTLY are you referring to when you say 'Why is it then that ALL the people of this forum that have ever tried your circuit have failed to match your results.'? I'm not sure that there were any. Ever. Certainly none that have posted here. What I DO know is that Neptune and a couple of others were going to try. But they moved over to try and replicate RomeroUK's work. With good reason. Remember? It was YOU who actively advised all to stop posting here and GO THERE. Do try and think back CAT! It wasn't THAT long ago. Golly.
When I get reasonable requests then I will certainly do whatever it is that is asked of me. Right now I've been ASKED nothing. I've had you and MaMags DEMAND that I do an entirely absurd test that will cost me in the region of R10 000.00 IF I do what you require. And that DEMAND was laced with a clumsy, rude and heavy handed challenge that we could ever get our supply batteries to outperform a control. Since we've ALREADY shown that it outperformed - then that challenge is void and meaningless. And I'm not inclined to DO YOUR BIDDING unfortunately CAT because I'm not inclined to co-operate under that menace of denial. Deny to your heart's content. It means nothing. Alternatively, do your own tests. There's nothing to stop you. I'm constantly AMAZED that you armchair enthusiasts can charge through these forums advocating one thing - denying another - always off the point - never with any ACTUAL knowledge, skill or authority - and DOING NOTHING YOURSELVES. It's extraordinary. And not only that but you then DEMAND that we do your BIDDING? What are we? Your slaves? Do you think that your personal endorsements means that much that you can dispense with politeness and just sit back and call for whatever shots you require. Do you really think that I care for your opinion? I don't. I assure you. There was a time when I would have cared - deeply. As it is I now know you SO MUCH better.
WHO HAS FALLEN ON THEIR FACE? NOT YOU. You've replicated NOTHING. NOT ANY MEMBERS ON THIS FORUM? WHO?
It is NO MORE LUDICROUS THAN TO DEMAND THAT I DO A TEST THAT WILL END UP COSTING ME R10 000.00. Is it right that I pick up that tab? When I KNOW that no-one will pay the slightest heed to any result that we show?
Now we're getting closer to the truth. What your ACTUAL beef is that there are no replications. Therefore I must provide more evidence? Exactly HOW do you expect me to co-operate with that concern? Just go over your posts and tell me WHERE have you asked anything at all? I've looked. I see NOTHING. What I see is an immature tantrum from a lazy armchair enthusiast insulting me in every way he can - in the absurd hopes of thereby encouraging me to co-operate and show YET MORE EVIDENCE. All I can say is that I will NOT co-operate under any kind of coercion or duress. I will not be bullied. And I will not try and redeem your opinion EVER. You may think what you like.
AGAIN. WHAT REASONABLE REQUESTS ARE YOU REFERRING TO?
As I say. Your opinion related to FuzzyTomCat's work - RomeroUK's work - or anyone's work - is a matter of supreme indifference to me. I happen to know that you're an insulting bully and that you're incapable of the intellectual rigor required to assess the truth in anything at all.
AGAIN. No member has even TRIED to replicate our circuit. When they do and then IF THEY FAIL - then this comment may then have some kind of historical merit.
R
As you keep regurgitating the same old arguments, I will do the same as clearly you do not want to change the deadlock and you insist on treating this forum as your personal blog.
No doubt if you answer this you will pick on small detail and not address the main point, and you will also repeat what you said before ( this is not your blog) please interact with the reasonable requests made by members here for you to do new tests.
I personally think you should stay on this forum posting but you should do something new, and changed the deadlock that after two years nobody can reproduce your results (on this forum)
Here are few videos for members on the forum, they are other members that didn't make videos who also failed in their attempts to match your claim of OU
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XrwgEb5ac_w
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZM8BBa7_Zpc
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4x0wQJrc9To
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-GBS3sKcB8g
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=trip8gjoxMQ
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HpaP__5Kd38
Mr Mag has made you a very good suggestion that might go a long way to help you. That's right help you. Most people on here like to help you, but you are so stubborn and insist on repeating your claims and argue about measurements over and over again. (please do something new to prove your case)
Quote from: MrMag on June 20, 2011, 08:19:39 AM
I really don't know why you are bringing this up again. You said you weren't going to do it anyways. My point was that it could be done very easily and at a much lower cost then you mentioned. I was just pointing out a way that it could be done without anyone standing there watching it 24/7. You can say what you like, it doesn't bother me. You just have to agree that it could be done without someone sitting in front of it. And, you don't need a scope or anything hooked up to it. Just hook it up and let it run. If you will do the test, we could take a serious look at ways to enclose the device safely and try to minimize damage if a fire occurs.
Why are you so defensive and what's with all the name calling. You've called me more things in the last 4 days then I've been called in all the time I've been here. Please don't look at me as a threat, I only asked you to do a simple test and I still don't know if you understand what I am asking. TK seemed to explain it maybe a little better then I did, but I don't think I deserve all the things you've been saying. Please be a little more lady like.
End Quote
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
RomeroUK's work, You keep bringing this up, this is a classic diversionary action, RomeroUK's work and who is following it has nothing to do with this thread but you would say anything to divert the argument
The fact still remains that no one here can reproduce your claims, and you are not willing to do anything to change that deadlock, apart from use this forum as your soapbox and blog
The fact still remains that no one here can reproduce your claims, and you are not willing to do anything to change that deadlock, apart from use this forum as your soapbox and blog
What a lie. I've done with answering you CAT. Do your damnedest.
R
Quote from: Rosemary Ainslie on June 26, 2011, 01:08:03 PM
The fact still remains that no one here can reproduce your claims, and you are not willing to do anything to change that deadlock, apart from use this forum as your soapbox and blog
What a lie. I've done with answering you CAT. Do your damnedest.
R
If anyone is lying it must be you, you can't tell me of any member on this forum that has produced OU with your circuit, because nobody has, and before you say Fuzzy did it, here is his post again
The fact still remains that no one here can reproduce your claims of OU, and you are not willing to do anything to change that deadlock, part from use this forum as your soapbox and blog.
Quote from: fuzzytomcat on May 19, 2011, 07:11:18 PM
Rosemary any credibility you had left is "GONE" especially after your posting of the pure nonsense "REPORT".
NO ONE HERE AT OVER UNITY cares about your pathetic thesis .... This thread is called Rosemary Ainslie circuit demonstration on Saturday March 12th 2011 for a reason none of which you have ever understood titles of threads at http://www.energeticforum.com/ .... http://www.overunityresearch.com/ ..... http://www.thunderbolts.info/forum/ ..... http://www.thenakedscientists.com/ ( aka witsend , aetherevarising ) where you were banned for continued false and inaccurate statements and attacking members.
I invite and challenge everyone readers and guests to look at the 8,000 postings of Rosemary's spread out over several years at these forums and see for yourself.
This thread here at OU.com was to show evidence of a finding on a claim of "YOURS" on efficiency of a experimental device "YOU" claim to have a COP> INFINITY.
You have not shown in any "SCIENTIFIC METHOD" how to obtain this efficiency in any way shape or form a experimental device "YOU" claim to have a COP> INFINITY and have "FAILED" miserably only a grade or high school electronic class will be interested in your claim.
You ( Rosemary ) cannot supply one credible package of one experiment that includes a circuit diagram with oscilloscope screen shots done during the test not even one to verify your claim of a finding.
The REPORT failed .... nothing for a independent experimentalist to take and to make a device to your specifications for testing and evaluation in a scientific method to verify the claim on a finding of COP> INFINITY .... COP> INFINITY .... COP> INFINITY .... COP> INFINITY .... COP> INFINITY .... COP> INFINITY .... COP> INFINITY .... COP> INFINITY .... COP> INFINITY .... COP> INFINITY .... COP> INFINITY .... COP> INFINITY .... COP> INFINITY .... COP> INFINITY .... COP> INFINITY .... COP> INFINITY ....
There is nothing in this thread of value you are a terrible inventor and experimentalist and my credentials and expertise stand on there own and well documented unlike yours ..... this is what documentation looks like .... FYI
http://www.energeticforum.com/inductive-resistor/5359-mosfet-heating-circuits.html ( nine pages !!!! )
http://cid-6b7817c40bb20460.office.live.com/browse.aspx/.Public/Mosfet%20Heater
I won't be so nice to ask you a "TENTH" time here in this thread to do the testing in a scientific method required and do it correctly, not half ass or less as you have shown or are you incapable of the request.
Facts only Facts can you do that ? Are you capable Rosemary ? Do you need someone to hold your hand ? ???
Fuzzy
:P
Reply
Quote from: WilbyInebriated on June 26, 2011, 02:23:16 AM
edit: my bad, it wasn't a lemon, it was a potato...
http://www.overunity.com/index.php?topic=8387.msg215247#msg215247
Ahh, another one of those pickled herring statements. You should try to get your facts straight if you are going to try to use them against someone. But you never post the part where I admit I was wrong. Why is that?
Quote from: Rosemary Ainslie on June 26, 2011, 11:31:58 AM
But spare me the work of advancing anything other than what I know. I personally think that Lasersaber's work AND Pirate's work are both FAR MORE IMPORTANT than what we're uncovering.
I agree with this statement.
Quote from: Rosemary Ainslie on June 26, 2011, 11:31:58 AM
Meanwhile I also KNOW that we have a ready made solution to applying heat.
Are you talking about the batteries catching fire?
Quote from: Rosemary Ainslie on June 26, 2011, 11:31:58 AM
doing UNTOLD GOOD to this general drive towards OU. All efforts add weight to the cause that eventually those credibility barriers will just collapse.
That's why I politely asked, not demanded that you do the test. I'm just trying to get you some credibility.
Quote from: Rosemary Ainslie on June 26, 2011, 11:31:58 AM
And, as mentioned, my interests are only in the thesis
Yeah, we know, that's the whole problem. You have no credibility and your claims are based solely on your own test results. How serious do you expect professionals will take you with only your information to back up your claim. No replications to match your results and even your own team members have turned against you. There is definitely something wrong here. No wonder you are so ignorant and defensive to people here.
Quote from: Rosemary Ainslie on June 24, 2011, 05:51:56 PM
Actually Cat it's you who are misleading. Plenty of replications on our previous circuit. And even from members on this forum. But you're right that no-one has replicated this circuit - other than on Poynty's sims
Quote from: Rosemary Ainslie on June 26, 2011, 10:31:54 AM
Oh yes we have. We've replicated our own tests PUBLICLY. We've also got two team members who have independently replicated this as well as variations of that circuit. AND we've got a HOST of simulations. And WHO EXACTLY are you referring to when you say 'Why is it then that ALL the people of this forum that have ever tried your circuit have failed to match your results.'? I'm not sure that there were any. Ever.
No comment required ::)
Quote from: Rosemary Ainslie on June 23, 2011, 07:48:43 PM
... Joules = 1 watt per second....
No, 1 watt = 1 joule per second.
Quote from: Rosemary Ainslie on June 23, 2011, 07:48:43 PM
So. Do the math. 4.18 x 900 grams x (82 - 16) 66 degrees C = 248 292 joules per second x 90 minutes of the test period = 22 342 280 joules.
Regards,
Rosemary
Are you sure that you want to say 248,292 joules per second? 248,292 joules per second = 248,292 watts. That is almost a quarter million watts! That is ten times what my house electric service can muster at 240 volts X 100 amps = 24,000 watts. 248,292 watts is over 300 horsepower. Do you think that maybe you need to do the math again?
Hahaha, No wonder the voltage doesn't drop in the batteries those are DAMN big batteries!! Maybe rose needs to do that continuous test for 2 years instead of 2 month. Missed that one Bubba.
Quote from: Bubba1 on June 26, 2011, 09:26:27 PM
No, 1 watt = 1 joule per second.
Are you sure that you want to say 248,292 joules per second? 248,292 joules per second = 248,292 watts. That is almost a quarter million watts! That is ten times what my house electric service can muster at 240 volts X 100 amps = 24,000 watts. 248,292 watts is over 300 horsepower. Do you think that maybe you need to do the math again?
You're absolutely right Bubba. I've amended the post. Here it is again.
Romero was NOT prepared to invite every academic he could reach to come and witness a demonstration. We DO. He was NOT prepared to invite the news media to witness that self-running device. We ARE. He was not even prepared to allow his 'neighbours' to come and look. We not only DO invite neighbours but now have a whole lot more members on the team - all of whom are REPLICATING. We INVITED Stefan to come and assess the evidence and GUARANTEED that if we could not replicate the results while he was here - or if we did not IN FACT have over unity - then we would REFUND him is ticket. Stefan declined our offer. BUT. Stefan offered to visit Romero to take a look at his device. For some reason Romero DECLINED that offer. That's just on the test evidence. I'm absolutely satisfied that no number of personal threats would persist in the light of a wide public demonstration as Romero is suggesting. In fact, if he can show a motor turning without ANY standard supply - then the ENTIRE WORLD would rally to protect him.
NOW. Let's look at your second beef. The main object of this forum is to advance 'replications'. REALLY? The lack of restraint and the general parade of ego that goes on here rather discourages those active replicators from ever posting. All the members on our little team - with the entire exception of me, are professionals. And not ONE of them would sully or risk their names to public exposure here - PRECISELY because of people like you, TK, Poynty, and on and on and on. They see how I have been treated. They know better.
NOW. Let's look at your 'self-runner' demands. We have never recharged those batteries - with one exception. Two caught fire and BOTH were fully recharged. We've had those batteries since January 2010. We've been running them since August 2010. I've now FINALLY checked their rated capacities. They're 40 ampere hours each. We've used 6 of them continually since that time. According to this rating they are each able, theoretically to dissipate 12 volts x 40 amps x 60 seconds x 60 minutes x 1 hour x 6 batteries. That gives a work potential - a total potential output of 10 368 000 JOULES.
According to what has been carefully established it takes 4.18 Joules to raise 1 gram of water by 1 degree centigrade. We've taken a little under 900 grams of water to 82 degrees centigrade. We ran that test for 90 minutes. Then we upped the frequency and took that water up a further 20 degrees to 104. We ran that part of the test for 10 minutes. Ambient was at 16. Joules = 1 watt per second. So. Do the math. 4.18 x 900 grams x (82 - 16) 66 degrees C = 248 292 joules x 90 minutes of the test period = 22 342 280 joules. Then ADD the last 10 minutes where the water was taken to boil and now you have 4.18 x 900 grams x (104 - 16) 88 degrees C = 331 156 joules per second x 10 minutes = 3 310 560 Joules. Then add those two values 22 342 280 + 3 310 560 = 25.6 Million Joules. All 5 batteries maximum potential output - available for work - is 10.3 Million Joules. In that test alone the battery outperformed its watt hour rating. And that was just one test. Now. Over the 10 month period that those batteries have been running at various outputs - which, when added to the output on just this one test - then I think its safe to say that the evidence is conclusive. Those batteries have outperformed. They are still at OVER 12 volts EACH. They are all of them still FULLY CHARGED.
amended
I'm actually still not sure that I've not understated this by a factor of 60. But since 4.18 Joules also relates to watts and watts is a value represented by seconds then this caloric value could be 4.18 joules by 1 degree centigrade by 1 second. In which case time has been factored in. I just don't know. I've therefore erred on the side of caution and simply multiplied that total by the MINUTES that the test ran. Regarding your own household maximum watt output at 240 x 100 = 24 000 watts? Not sure that this is relevant. I think if you output that amount work over 90 minutes which is the test duration period then you'd actually output 240 x 100 x 60 seconds x 90 minutes = 129 million watts - which is rather more than the rated capacity of our batteries and considerably higher than the energy that we're referencing in our tests.
Regards,
Rosemary
Quote from: Rosemary Ainslie on June 26, 2011, 10:46:37 PM
Regarding your own household maximum watt output at 240 x 100 = 24 000 watts? Not sure that this is relevant. I think if you output that amount work over 90 minutes which is the test duration period then you'd actually output 240 x 100 x 60 seconds x 90 minutes = 129 million watts - which is rather more than the rated capacity of our batteries and considerably higher than the energy that we're referencing in our tests.
I think he was just trying to show you a comparison.
Golly rose, did you even try to comprehend that answer? 129 MILLION watts!!! And you have the nerve to call everyone here incompetent, unqualified, and ignorant. You also say that Poynt is useless at power measurement when you come up with this number?
Do you really think that you are qualified to say that anyone is incompetent when you come up with this number? You better try again.
Hint: Go on the internet and Google "watt-hour calculation"
No wonder you are under the impression that your circuit is OU.
Quote from: MrMag on June 26, 2011, 11:44:32 PM
I think he was just trying to show you a comparison.
Golly rose, did you even try to comprehend that answer? 129 MILLION watts!!! And you have the nerve to call everyone here incompetent, unqualified, and ignorant. You also say that Poynt is useless at power measurement when you come up with this number?
Do you really think that you are qualified to say that anyone is incompetent when you come up with this number? You better try again.
Hint: Go on the internet and Google "watt-hour calculation"
No wonder you are under the impression that your circuit is OU.
DEAR GOD HELP US ALL. This from a man who CLAIMS he's had 30 odd years of experience as a qualified electrical engineer?
R
Guys - since Cat is only able to quote Fuzzy - I think I need to put some facts on the table. Fuzzy claims that he never replicated out first test. Here's why. He could only find COP>4. We claimed COP>17. On the strength of that claim he therefore ALSO claims that his test is materially different to our own test. Therefore his test is more in the nature of his own personal discovery than a replication. Because he could not replicate the COP>17 result he claims that we lied about that result. He also goes on to claim that we are lying about these new tests. He does not - personally - believe that we have a COP>17 let alone an INFINITE COP. Nor does he believe in the basis of my thesis which, as you now understand, I hope, is NOT so much a thesis as a validation of Farrady's inductive laws. He also claims that I am not an experimentalist as I do not have the competence. He also claims that I am not a theoretician as I do not have the competence. He rifled my photobucket to find out which academy I was working with. When he established this he then wrote to CPUT to advise them that I have stolen his work and that I MAY NOT reference a paper that was written on this work as it is plagiarised. In other words, not only was the paper NOT written by me but that the work was nothing to do with a replication of our earlier work. That application was unsuccessful. Then he wrote to SCRIBD to tell them I'd plagiarised his work. That application WAS successful. Scribd withdrew the paper that I had published - the ONLY paper on record that was submitted to TIE. So anxious was Fuzzy to ensure that NO-ONE followed my work he then took the trouble to message most of the contributors to this thread to advise them that I was a liar - and incompetent - a thief - a fraud - and above all - do not ASSOCIATE with this work. He made public a private video that I had sent to him. He has started 3 threads dedicated to maligning my good name and has contributed generously to a blogspot dedicated to this same purpose. He has gone further. He has also run a series of tests that showed that he could NOT duplicate the COP>4 tests and therefore denies that there was ever any benefit. He has not yet retracted that paper that claims COP>4 which is curious. Hopefully he'll eventually put that record straight.
I think we all now know what Fuzzy thinks of me and of our work. It seems that CAT and MAMAGS think the same. No doubt TK and Poynty share those opinions - and no doubt there are yet many, many others of like mind. And no doubt there will be yet many more to come. That is the value of open source. It allows any person - regardless of their motives - to say anything they want and claim what they like. And in the face of all these claims and allegations and opinions it seems that our work is doomed. So be it.
So. It really is not such a hard thing to kill any new beneficial technology. It just needs persistence.
Rosemary
Quote from: Rosemary Ainslie on June 26, 2011, 11:47:43 PM
DEAR GOD HELP US ALL. This from a man who CLAIMS he's had 30 odd years of experience as a qualified electrical engineer?
R
Well, I worked it out to something like 36Kw hours. But I could be wrong, I have been before and at least I do admit it. Not like you rose.
What about the other post where I showed that you quoted that there have been people on this forum who have replicated your circuit and then later on you say that no one on this forum has replicated your circuit.
Don't forget, you are the one making the OU claims, not me. I think your reputation and credibility is a lot more at stake then mine. Remember, you already said that I was incompetent, unqualified, useless..... But you are right, we have enough engineers what we need are more waitresses.
And since I'm on a roll - let me give a synopsis of Poynty's argument. Here it is. The simulation shows an INFINITE COP ONLY if we factor in the connecting leads. Without those leads there is NO INFINITE COP.
And TK's argument - something on the lines of Fuzzy - HE could not achieve COP > ANYTHING AT ALL - therefore there is no COP>ANYTHING AT ALL.
And MileHihigh's argument - his personal BEST. How can we CLAIM results that are greater COP 1 when standard science does not ALLOW THIS. Therefore are we wrong.
And so it goes. All these thousands of posts and always that same argument. I personally think that these posts eventually reach a certain critical mass and then they JUST COLLAPSE. And I think we're well over that point.
I'm preparing a detailed account of the absurdities of all these arguments and will post in on my blogspot. Meanwhile I really need to say goodbye to you all. I'll post here again when we've finished that paper.
Rosemary
I omitted CAT's reasons. He thinks that Fuzzy is a good guy and that anything Fuzzy claims is just perfectly OK. And as for MaMags. He doesn't think. Ever. He just echoes everyone else - not unlike my little 2 year old granddaughter who echos her own big sister. It would be rather sweet if it weren't also so utterly destructive.
Anyway. Bye for now. I've got another paper to prepare before we submit the one that's now finished.
Quote from: Rosemary Ainslie on June 27, 2011, 12:37:45 AM
And since I'm on a roll - let me give a synopsis of Poynty's argument. Here it is. The simulation shows an INFINITE COP ONLY if we factor in the connecting leads. Without those leads there is NO INFINITE COP.
And TK's argument - something on the lines of Fuzzy - HE could not achieve COP > ANYTHING AT ALL - therefore there is no COP>ANYTHING AT ALL.
And MileHihigh's argument - his personal BEST. How can we CLAIM results that are greater COP 1 when standard science does not ALLOW THIS. Therefore are we wrong.
And so it goes. All these thousands of posts and always that same argument. I personally think that these posts eventually reach a certain critical mass and then they JUST COLLAPSE. And I think we're well over that point.
I'm preparing a detailed account of the absurdities of all these arguments and will post in on my blogspot. Meanwhile I really need to say goodbye to you all. I'll post here again when we've finished that paper.
Rosemary
I omitted CAT's reasons. He thinks that Fuzzy is a good guy and that anything Fuzzy claims is just perfectly OK. And as for MaMags. He doesn't think. Ever. He just echoes everyone else - not unlike my little 2 year old granddaughter who echos her own big sister. It would be rather sweet if it weren't also so utterly destructive.
Anyway. Bye for now. I've got another paper to prepare before we submit the one that's now finished.
You will pick on small detail and not address the main point, and you will also repeat what you said before ( this is not your blog) please interact with the reasonable requests made by members here for you to do new tests.
You can't tell me of any member on this forum that has produced OU with your circuit, because nobody has.
Here are few videos for members on the forum, they are other members that didn't make videos who also failed in their attempts to match your claim of OU
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XrwgEb5ac_w
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZM8BBa7_Zpc
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4x0wQJrc9To
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-GBS3sKcB8g
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=trip8gjoxMQ
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HpaP__5Kd38
Do something different Here on This forum,and stop ignoring reasonable requests for tests. or stop claiming OU on This OverUnity Forum.
A big conspiracy, it would appear that anyone that says your circut doesn't workor or indicate's measuring error, is then part of that conspiracy.
Many members have made reasonable requests that you ignore including Stefan,Mr Mag amongst others,but you ignore them and carry on regurgitating your same old arguments.
Go on Rosie proof that 99 is wrong in his analysis and makes something that runs and runs and put it on the Internet after all,
(Quote from Rosemary)
"All one needs are the the measurements and some reasonable account of the apparatus that produces those measurements".
The fact still remains that no one here can reproduce your claims of OU, and you are not willing to do anything to change that deadlock, apart from use this forum as your soapbox and blog.
Quote from: Rosemary Ainslie on June 26, 2011, 10:46:37 PM
Joules = 1 watt per second.
Still wrong
Quote from: Rosemary Ainslie on June 26, 2011, 10:46:37 PMSo. Do the math. 4.18 x 900 grams x (82 - 16) 66 degrees C = 248 292 joules
Agreed, but by multiplying by 90, you are saying that it took 1 minute to raise that 900 grams of water 66 degrees Celsius and kept providing that same amount of energy every minute for 90 minutes, which would equal 22,346,280 joules. Is that what you did? How long did it take the 900 grams of water to increase in temperature 66 degrees C? If we knew that, the power could be worked out. As it is, raising 900 grams of water 66 degrees C in one minute would be 248,292 joules / 60 seconds = 4138.2 watts, still a hefty figure. Again, this is important: how long did it take the 900 grams of water to increase in temperature 66 degrees C?
Quote from: Bubba1 on June 27, 2011, 08:08:30 AM
Still wrong
from the wiki...
One joule can also be defined as:
* The work required to move an electric charge of one coulomb through an electrical potential difference of one volt, or one '"coulomb volt" (C·V). This relationship can be used to define the volt.
* The work required to produce one watt of power for one second, or one "watt second" (W·s) (compare kilowatt hour). This relationship can be used to define the watt.
Quote from: WilbyInebriated on June 27, 2011, 02:38:57 PM
from the wiki...
One joule can also be defined as:
* The work required to move an electric charge of one coulomb through an electrical potential difference of one volt, or one '"coulomb volt" (C·V). This relationship can be used to define the volt.
* The work required to produce one watt of power for one second, or one "watt second" (W·s) (compare kilowatt hour). This relationship can be used to define the watt.
I can't tell if you agree with me or not. ???
Rosemary said Joules = 1 watt per second.
Wiki says Joules = Watt-seconds.
They are not the same thing.
Watts per second = watts divided by seconds.
Watt-seconds = watts times seconds
One way to make sense of the words "watts per second" is if at the beginning of a second you were consuming 1 watt. At the beginning of the next second, you were consuming 2 watts. That would be a change of 1 watt per second.
Quote from: Bubba1 on June 27, 2011, 10:11:10 PM
I can't tell if you agree with me or not. ???
This is Wilby attacking your logic here with logical fallacies, you can safely say if your disagreeing with Rose then he is not agreeing with you.
Shortly he will ask you how much energy EXACTLY is contained in a battery, when you cannot answer him (because nobody knows) he will not say anything but will have implied that because you cannot answer that simple question everything else you say has no merit.
I expect him to change tack soon as the "energy in the battery" routine is getting old and people are catching on... maybe something like "what happened before the big bang?" would be more appropiate, or perhaps, "what did God have for breakfast last Thursday?".
::)
RM :)
Quote from: Bubba1 on June 27, 2011, 10:11:10 PM
I can't tell if you agree with me or not. ???
Rosemary said Joules = 1 watt per second.
Wiki says Joules = Watt-seconds.
They are not the same thing.
Watts per second = watts divided by seconds.
Watt-seconds = watts times seconds
One way to make sense of the words "watts per second" is if at the beginning of a second you were consuming 1 watt. At the beginning of the next second, you were consuming 2 watts. That would be a change of 1 watt per second.
Bubba - watts per second is watts x seconds. The difference between Joules and Watts is that Joules quantify the work done and Watts quantify the power needed to get that work done. Therefore work is given in Joules - and power to perform that work is given in Watts. Where I'm on sticky ground is the caloric value of those Joules that I computed. This because there's an implicit relationship between 4.18 Joules required to heat 1 gram of water by one degree centigrade. Does that relate to the time? I just don't know.
So. Here's the question. I'd be glad if you could work it out for me. 10 minutes to take the water to a steady plus/minus 66 degrees above ambient. This temperature held for a further plus/minus 70 minutes. Then the settings changed - and the temperature taken to plus/minus 88 degrees above ambient over another plus/minus 10 minutes. Test period duration was 100 minutes or 1.6 hours. Then - I stopped the experiment because I suspected I was looking at a runaway wattage on that final setting. Bit too too nervous to let it continue higher. I'd be glad if you could give me that number in
Joules. Be much appreciated.
Rosemary
BTW - in case this is also needed for that calculation. It cooled down to ambient within something under 1.6 hours. Not sure if that's significant.
Quote from: evolvingape on June 27, 2011, 10:49:05 PM
This is Wilby attacking your logic here with logical fallacies, you can safely say if your disagreeing with Rose then he is not agreeing with you.
Shortly he will ask you how much energy EXACTLY is contained in a battery, when you cannot answer him (because nobody knows) he will not say anything but will have implied that because you cannot answer that simple question everything else you say has no merit.
I expect him to change tack soon as the "energy in the battery" routine is getting old and people are catching on... maybe something like "what happened before the big bang?" would be more appropiate, or perhaps, "what did God have for breakfast last Thursday?".
::)
RM :)
RM this is nonsense. I have just dipped in on this thread and just seen this. I can read NOTHING about anyone attacking anything in Bubba's or Wilby's posts. We're all asking questions and finding answers. Can you please try and keep your gratuitous and unsolicited and inappropriate comments off this thread. It would be appreciated.
Attack anyone that disagrees with you ::)
Ignore all reasonable requests to do new tests ::)
Keep claiming OU regardless of the fact that no one here can reproduce those results ::)
If they think your circuit doesn't work or you made a measurement error, they are in a conspiracy ::)
Ignore all the requests and keep using this forum as an advert for your work ::)
This is not going to go away, this forum is not your blog, stop ignoring reasonable requests from members here.
You will pick on small detail and not address the main point, and you will also repeat what you said before ( this is not your blog) please interact with the reasonable requests made by members here for you to do new tests.
You can't tell me of any member on this forum that has produced OU with your circuit, because nobody has.
Here are few videos for members on the forum, they are other members that didn't make videos who also failed in their attempts to match your claim of OU
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XrwgEb5ac_w
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZM8BBa7_Zpc
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4x0wQJrc9To
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-GBS3sKcB8g
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=trip8gjoxMQ
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HpaP__5Kd38
Do something different Here on This forum,and stop ignoring reasonable requests for tests. or stop claiming OU on This OverUnity Forum.
A big conspiracy, it would appear that anyone that says your circut doesn't workor or indicate's measuring error, is then part of that conspiracy.
Many members have made reasonable requests that you ignore including Stefan,Mr Mag amongst others,but you ignore them and carry on regurgitating your same old arguments.
Go on Rosie proof that 99 is wrong in his analysis and makes something that runs and runs and put it on the Internet after all,
(Quote from Rosemary)
"All one needs are the the measurements and some reasonable account of the apparatus that produces those measurements".
The fact still remains that no one here can reproduce your claims of OU, and you are not willing to do anything to change that deadlock, apart from use this forum as your soapbox and blog.
Hi Cat. I must thank you for the critical excesses in your posts. It generates a flood of emails and I am then reminded how supportive are the most of our readers here to our hard work.
You 'trolls' never learn. ::) It really is true. All publicity is good publicity. LOL.
;D
Kindest regards,
Rosie
added
Actually I'm beginning to realise that the KISS OF DEATH to this work of ours would be to get support from the likes of you. You guys hopelessly underestimate the intelligence of our readers. It's really rather insulting.
Quote from: Rosemary Ainslie on June 28, 2011, 08:51:15 AM
Hi Cat. I must thank you for the critical excesses in your posts. It generates a flood of emails and I am then reminded how supportive are the most of our readers here to our hard work.
You 'trolls' never learn. ::) It really is true. All publicity is good publicity. LOL.
;D
Kindest regards,
Rosie
added
Actually I'm beginning to realise that the KISS OF DEATH to this work of ours would be to get support from the likes of you. You guys hopelessly underestimate the intelligence of our readers. It's really rather insulting.
That's great to hear rose. We can keep on posting until we get enough people here that maybe you will actually do the simple test I requested.
Quote from: Bubba1 on June 27, 2011, 08:08:30 AM
Still wrong
Agreed, but by multiplying by 90, you are saying that it took 1 minute to raise that 900 grams of water 66 degrees Celsius and kept providing that same amount of energy every minute for 90 minutes, which would equal 22,346,280 joules. Is that what you did? How long did it take the 900 grams of water to increase in temperature 66 degrees C? If we knew that, the power could be worked out. As it is, raising 900 grams of water 66 degrees C in one minute would be 248,292 joules / 60 seconds = 4138.2 watts, still a hefty figure. Again, this is important: how long did it take the 900 grams of water to increase in temperature 66 degrees C?
Thanks Bubba. It took about 10 minutes for the element resistor to first heat up to above 250 degrees. It was getting too hot. So I ONLY THEN inserted it in water. Then it took about 10 minutes to take the water temp to a stable temp of 82 degrees or thereby. (ambient was at 16). Then I ran it at that heat for a little over an hour. Then I flipped to a higher frequency and it took the water temp to boil - in a little UNDER 10 minutes. Does that help?
All I can tell you is that about an hour after finishing that experiment I was about to throw away the water. I then remembered that I needed to establish how much water there was and I couldn't find anything to measure it in. It was late and dark so I left that for the morning. When I did measure the water it was only 0.7 liters. But that did NOT cover the element - which is where it was when I first inserted it in water. That level required precisely 0.87 liters. I therefore suppose that some of that water must have dissipated in steam - and or evaporation. But what I DO know is that when I was about to throw away that water I also noted that it was now back to ambient - cold to the touch. Unfortunately I DID NOT take the temperature.
Thanks again,
Rosemary
And Bubba - I am NOT interested in the 'power' as I KNOW that it cost the battery nothing. What I want to know is HOW MANY JOULES was dissipated as WORK? Because I also KNOW that the most that bank of batteries can deliver is 5 x 12 x 40 amps. Over time therefore it is 5 x 12 x 40 x 60 seconds for 60 minutes. I've got that from the battery suppliers. And I misquoted the amount of batteries. It should have read 5 NOT 6 as I erroneously referenced.
Bubba - a friend has just sent me this
What unit is equivalent to watts per second?
In: Home Electricity, Math [Edit categories]
Ads
ImproveAnswer:
"Watts per second" would be the same as "Joules per second per second".
You'd use that monstrosity to describe how fast the rate of energy consumption
or dissipation is growing or shrinking.
We really have to twist our arm behind our own back to come up with that, and
in our practice of Electrical Engineering for the past 37 years, we've never seen
that unit needed or used. It's probably safe to say that such a unit has no physical
significance or practical application.
Read more: http://wiki.answers.com/Q/What_unit_is_equivalent_to_watts_per_second#ixzz1QZtg9Oa0
Prefix or symbol for watt is: W
Prefix or symbol for joule per second is: J/sec
One watt converted to joule per second equals = 1.00 J/sec
1 W = 1.00 J/sec
Regards
Quote from: Rosemary Ainslie on June 28, 2011, 08:51:15 AM
Hi Cat. I must thank you for the critical excesses in your posts. It generates a flood of emails and I am then reminded how supportive are the most of our readers here to our hard work.
You 'trolls' never learn. ::) It really is true. All publicity is good publicity. LOL.
;D
Kindest regards,
Rosie
added
Actually I'm beginning to realise that the KISS OF DEATH to this work of ours would be to get support from the likes of you. You guys hopelessly underestimate the intelligence of our readers. It's really rather insulting.
You are so predictable in your response, again and again you fail to recognise the fact that the more you avoid the main issue the more it is clear that your circuit does not do what you claim.
You are insulting this forum with your attitude. This is not your personal blog please interact properly with members reasonable requests for new tests.
In your response you will pick on small detail and not address the main point, and you will also repeat what you said before ( this is not your blog) please interact with the reasonable requests made by members here for you to do new tests.
You can't tell me of any member on this forum that has produced OU with your circuit, because nobody has.
Here are few videos for members on the forum, they are other members that didn't make videos who also failed in their attempts to match your claim of OU
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XrwgEb5ac_w
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZM8BBa7_Zpc
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4x0wQJrc9To
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-GBS3sKcB8g
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=trip8gjoxMQ
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HpaP__5Kd38
Do something different Here on This forum,and stop ignoring reasonable requests for tests. or stop claiming OU on This OverUnity Forum.
A big conspiracy, it would appear that anyone that says your circut doesn't workor or indicate's measuring error, is then part of that conspiracy.
Many members have made reasonable requests that you ignore including Stefan,Mr Mag amongst others,but you ignore them and carry on regurgitating your same old arguments.
Go on Rosie proof that 99 is wrong in his analysis and makes something that runs and runs and put it on the Internet after all,
(Quote from Rosemary)
"All one needs are the the measurements and some reasonable account of the apparatus that produces those measurements".
The fact still remains that no one here can reproduce your claims of OU, and you are not willing to do anything to change that deadlock, apart from use this forum as your soapbox and blog.
FINALLY AN ANSWER.
Here it is. 1 x 40 ampere hour x 12 volt battery = 40 x 12 volt = 480 Watt Hour battery.
480 Watt Hour battery can, THEORETICALLY - deliver 480 watts per second, for a period of 1 hour.
So the math was right - in principle. 5 x 480 Watt Hour Batteries can deliver 480 watts x 60 seconds x 60 minutes x 1 hour. That comes to THEORETICAL CAPACITY RATING OF 8.640 Million Watts.
We dissipated in excess of 22 Million Joules - I think? Can you check this Bubba?
Regards,
Rosemary
Quote from: MrMag on June 28, 2011, 09:14:48 AM
That's great to hear rose. We can keep on posting until we get enough people here that maybe you will actually do the simple test I requested.
Hi Mr Mag
Yes
I hope she will do your simple test, the situation of her using this forum for advertising and grandstanding has gone on for too long.
We may as well allow anyone to come on this forum and open a thread and claim what they like,
those scammers on you Tube could have a field day.
How to run your house on free energy by Magniworks. ;D
On this forum you are expected to interact to prove your claim, if you are claiming OU,I think that is reasonable.
Hi Cat and Mags,
It seems you have realised now that rose is NEVER going to do that test. The simple reason is that the test would be conclusive. The system will either run for ever or it will show a battery drain eventually. No measurement arguments will be possible because all of the energy processes will be within the system and we will just have a single definitive result after a suitable length of time.
All manner of excuses have been put forward as to why the test will not be done, one of my favourites being that the scientific community will not accept it as valid. I say who gives a shit what they think ? If it sits there on the bench and runs forever while producing a heat output they can deny it all they want, but the evidence will be to the contrary.
I was one of the people asking for this test months and months ago until I gave up, waste of my time trying to help her. Since then I have managed to complete an entire project with the help of Mr Goose and his excellent knowledge base, just waiting on results from prototyping now.
Obviously Rose has grounds for her claim, there is a massive queue of people lining up to show the replications of her circuit and the massive OU they are achieving, likewise there is a massive inundation of support in her inbox although I am curious as to why none of them ever post here ?
See how much of peoples time this thread is wasting ?
It is a real shame really because the premise of the parasitic oscillation is quite exciting and it is this I believe that holds peoples attention. At least this thread provides a constant repetitive stream of amusement for everyone who needs a break from serious research and progress.
RM :)
Quote from: evolvingape on June 28, 2011, 11:59:30 AM
See how much of peoples time this thread is wasting ?
It is a real shame really because the premise of the parasitic oscillation is quite exciting and it is this I believe that holds peoples attention. At least this thread provides a constant repetitive stream of amusement for everyone who needs a break from serious research and progress.
RM :)
then why are you here wasting your time posting? hypocrite much?
regarding a repetitive stream of amusement... that it does. as long as you, mag, cat and the like continue to "waste your time" by continuing to post... ::) go pat yourself on the back for reinventing gasification...
Haha Wilby that's desperation for you! The answer was in what you quoted and what you subsequently said... amusement my man... pure and simple!
And who said I reinvented gasification ? I never made that claim, I just reworked it a bit to make it simpler for people to play with.
I got a question for you Wilby... How much energy EXACTLY is in a battery ?
RM :)
Quote from: evolvingape on June 28, 2011, 11:59:30 AM
Hi Cat and Mags,
It seems you have realised now that rose is NEVER going to do that test. The simple reason is that the test would be conclusive. The system will either run for ever or it will show a battery drain eventually. No measurement arguments will be possible because all of the energy processes will be within the system and we will just have a single definitive result after a suitable length of time.
All manner of excuses have been put forward as to why the test will not be done, one of my favourites being that the scientific community will not accept it as valid. I say who gives a shit what they think ? If it sits there on the bench and runs forever while producing a heat output they can deny it all they want, but the evidence will be to the contrary.
I was one of the people asking for this test months and months ago until I gave up, waste of my time trying to help her. Since then I have managed to complete an entire project with the help of Mr Goose and his excellent knowledge base, just waiting on results from prototyping now.
Obviously Rose has grounds for her claim, there is a massive queue of people lining up to show the replications of her circuit and the massive OU they are achieving, likewise there is a massive inundation of support in her inbox although I am curious as to why none of them ever post here ?
See how much of peoples time this thread is wasting ?
It is a real shame really because the premise of the parasitic oscillation is quite exciting and it is this I believe that holds peoples attention. At least this thread provides a constant repetitive stream of amusement for everyone who needs a break from serious research and progress.
RM :)
I agree 100%. If we wait for the scientific community to accept this, we would be crazy. They are too comfortable sitting behind their desks with all their little books of laws. They don't like people upsetting the norm. The ONLY way this will ever be accepted by the general population is to perform this test that seems like a lot of people are looking for. But then rose will never do the test because she doesn't care what we think. She just wants to publish a paper somewhere. Then she will be important.
And rose, do you actually think that Bubba can give you a number of joules that you can use in your report when you give him only approximate temperatures and approximate times and a guess at how much water was in the container. Great scientific test. Just do the one we are asking. Like Evolvingape says, if it keeps running without decreasing the batteries, that's good enough for me.
Wilby, why are you avoiding answering the simple questions i asked you?
Quote from: evolvingape on June 28, 2011, 06:31:01 PM
Haha Wilby that's desperation for you! The answer was in what you quoted and what you subsequently said... amusement my man... pure and simple!
indeed your hypocrisy is amusing...
Quote from: evolvingape on June 28, 2011, 06:31:01 PM
And who said I reinvented gasification ? I never made that claim, I just reworked it a bit to make it simpler for people to play with.
english... do you speak it?
re·in·vent (rn-vnt)
tr.v. re·in·vent·ed, re·in·vent·ing, re·in·vents
1. To make over completely: "She reinvented Indian cooking to fit a Western kitchen and a Western larder" (Irene Sax).
2. To bring back into existence or use: reinvented the concept of neighborliness.
Idiom:
reinvent the wheel
1. To do something again, from the beginning, especially in a needless or inefficient effort: "School districts need not reinvent the wheel every time they try to improve their schools" (Washington Post).
2. To recast something familiar or old into a different form: "Call it reinventing the wheel or recasting old ideas, but these contemporary versions have a spirit and style all their own" (New York Times).
number 2 would be the applicable one in this instance.
Quote from: evolvingape on June 28, 2011, 06:31:01 PM
I got a question for you Wilby... How much energy EXACTLY is in a battery ?
RM :)
which battery? ::)
Quote from: Rosemary Ainslie on June 28, 2011, 09:18:08 AM
And Bubba - I am NOT interested in the 'power' as I KNOW that it cost the battery nothing. What I want to know is HOW MANY JOULES was dissipated as WORK? Because I also KNOW that the most that bank of batteries can deliver is 5 x 12 x 40 amps. Over time therefore it is 5 x 12 x 40 x 60 seconds for 60 minutes. I've got that from the battery suppliers. And I misquoted the amount of batteries. It should have read 5 NOT 6 as I erroneously referenced.
For the last part with the higher frequency, heating 870 grams of water (100-82)degrees: 4.18 X 870 X 18 = 65,458.8 joules. Do that in 10 minutes and you average 65,458.8 joules/600 seconds = 109.098 watts.
As for the first part, there are too many unknowns. Raising the temperature of 870 grams of water 66 degrees Celsius in 10 minutes is impressive, but the heater was hotter than boiling water when you put it in the water. It had "momentum" so to speak. I am not any kind of expert, especially a thermodynamics expert. There are just too many unknowns at this time. The best that I can come up with now is that it took 65,459 joules to heat the water (maybe 870 grams, maybe less) 18 degrees celsius. Your circuit was putting out roughly 65,459 joules every ten minutes at the end.
Haha Wilby nice try ;D
As a scientific pursuit of the truth behind the claims of this circuit then this thread has most certainly been a total waste of time thus far. How can you possibly dispute this when no progress has been made ? As an amusement it serves the function well. So where is the hypocrisy ? Your attempt at labelling me a hypocrite when my original reply contained the answer to your misconception is laughable, you even quoted it!
As for reinventing gasification I see that your both correct and incorrect. The stratified downdraft gasifier can be classed as a reinvention of the original Imbert design, but as I have not changed any of the operating processes, principles or design of the stratified version I have certainly not reinvented the technology, and it was definitely not me that brought the technology back into use.
As for the changing of the form you are correct, the off the shelf components and miniaturisation can be classed as a reinvention. You should try being more specific in future to avoid multiple interpretations of your statements, unless that is of course your goal.
And as for the battery lets use the model in Rose's circuit. Please tell me EXACTLY how much energy is in each of the individual 5 battery's.
RM :)
Quote from: Bubba1 on June 28, 2011, 08:48:46 PM
For the last part with the higher frequency, heating 870 grams of water (100-82)degrees: 4.18 X 870 X 18 = 65,458.8 joules. Do that in 10 minutes and you average 65,458.8 joules/600 seconds = 109.098 watts.
As for the first part, there are too many unknowns. Raising the temperature of 870 grams of water 66 degrees Celsius in 10 minutes is impressive, but the heater was hotter than boiling water when you put it in the water. It had "momentum" so to speak. I am not any kind of expert, especially a thermodynamics expert. There are just too many unknowns at this time. The best that I can come up with now is that it took 65,459 joules to heat the water (maybe 870 grams, maybe less) 18 degrees celsius. Your circuit was putting out roughly 65,459 joules every ten minutes at the end.
Golly Bubba. That's some interesting math. ;D
And Evolvingape - I've told you the answer. 40 ampere hours from a 12 volt battery supply gives 480 watt hours. Therefore it theoretically can provide 480 watts for each second over the period of a single hour. And with 5 of those batteries we've got a potential of 2.4 KWH which is simply five times more. Apparently it's not correct because each battery has got different ratings. Some can discharge heavy currents and others can't. Therefore the watt hour rating is simply a guide to its potential work output. No wonder I wasn't allowed to include those battery draw down tests for our Quantum paper.
Regards,
Rosemary
Ignoring the issue won't make it go away, since you have attacked me and called me a liar in previous posts I now consider this my duty, so that no one new to this forum will be misled into believing that you have a circuit that produces OU, unless of course you, oh yeah you're not communicating, repost time then
You can't tell me of any member on this forum that has produced OU with your circuit, because nobody has.
Here are few videos for members on the forum, they are other members that didn't make videos who also failed in their attempts to match your claim of OU
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XrwgEb5ac_w
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZM8BBa7_Zpc
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4x0wQJrc9To
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-GBS3sKcB8g
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=trip8gjoxMQ
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HpaP__5Kd38
Do something different Here on This forum,and stop ignoring reasonable requests for tests. or stop claiming OU on This OverUnity Forum.
A big conspiracy, it would appear that anyone that says your circut doesn't workor or indicate's measuring error, is then part of that conspiracy.
Many members have made reasonable requests that you ignore including Stefan,Mr Mag amongst others,but you ignore them and carry on regurgitating your same old arguments.
Go on Rosie proof that 99 is wrong in his analysis and makes something that runs and runs and put it on the Internet after all,
(Quote from Rosemary)
"All one needs are the the measurements and some reasonable account of the apparatus that produces those measurements".
The fact still remains that no one here can reproduce your claims of OU, and you are not willing to do anything to change that deadlock, apart from use this forum as your soapbox and blog.
On this forum you are expected to interact to prove your claim, if you are claiming OU,I think that is reasonable.
Quote from: Rosemary Ainslie on June 29, 2011, 01:31:23 AM
Golly Bubba. That's some interesting math. ;D
And Evolvingape - I've told you the answer. 40 ampere hours from a 12 volt battery supply gives 480 watt hours. Therefore it theoretically can provide 480 watts for each second over the period of a single hour. And with 5 of those batteries we've got a potential of 2.4 KWH which is simply five times more. Apparently it's not correct because each battery has got different ratings. Some can discharge heavy currents and others can't. Therefore the watt hour rating is simply a guide to its potential work output. No wonder I wasn't allowed to include those battery draw down tests for our Quantum paper.
Regards,
Rosemary
That's we are politely asking you to do the continuous test. Just let the setup run. No need to take any continuous measurements, only the battery voltage to start and then at the end. It's very simple. This test doesn't care if all of your batteries are different. If your circuit is OU, the batteries will maintain their voltage. If not, they will die down.
Quote from: evolvingape on June 28, 2011, 09:51:10 PM
And as for the battery lets use the model in Rose's circuit. Please tell me EXACTLY how much energy is in each of the individual 5 battery's.
RM :)
Quote from: Rosemary Ainslie on June 29, 2011, 01:31:23 AM
And Evolvingape - I've told you the answer. 40 ampere hours from a 12 volt battery supply gives 480 watt hours. Therefore it theoretically can provide 480 watts for each second over the period of a single hour. And with 5 of those batteries we've got a potential of 2.4 KWH which is simply five times more. Apparently it's not correct because each battery has got different ratings. Some can discharge heavy currents and others can't. Therefore the watt hour rating is simply a guide to its potential work output. No wonder I wasn't allowed to include those battery draw down tests for our Quantum paper.
Regards,
Rosemary
Thankyou Rose, you have just demonstrated clearly and concisely that you do not have the slightest idea of what I am talking about. You have just earned yourself a double facepalm for an Epic Fail!
The question was for Wilby anyway, so Wilby, please tell me EXACTLY how much energy is in each of the individual 5 battery's in Rose's circuit ?
RM :)
Quote from: evolvingape on June 29, 2011, 04:23:18 PM
Thankyou Rose, you have just demonstrated clearly and concisely that you do not have the slightest idea of what I am talking about. You have just earned yourself a double facepalm for an Epic Fail!
The question was for Wilby anyway, so Wilby, please tell me EXACTLY how much energy is in each of the individual 5 battery's in Rose's circuit ?
RM :)
Like I said. God help us all. Guys I'll get back here when I've finished that paper. Meanwhile Wilby just let them rabbit on.
Regards,
Rosemary
Quote from: evolvingape on June 29, 2011, 04:23:18 PM
The question was for Wilby anyway, so Wilby, please tell me EXACTLY how much energy is in each of the individual 5 battery's in Rose's circuit ?
RM :)
Dude, I agree with Wilby on the battery thing. its a loaded question.
You could have 50 new fully charged batteries and they will all hold some differences. When loaded in series they will even out as close as possible to eachother except for the little differences I spoke of. With batteries in series its called balancing out. After a full charge, some may contain more energy than others. After the full charge if you put a maintaining charge to them, in series, balancing will occur and most all will be close to equal.
Big caps is the way to go. The energy involved is finite when you know the value of the cap and the voltage in that cap.
Mags
Quote from: Magluvin on June 29, 2011, 06:53:17 PM
Dude, I agree with Wilby on the battery thing. its a loaded question.
You could have 50 new fully charged batteries and they will all hold some differences. When loaded in series they will even out as close as possible to eachother except for the little differences I spoke of. With batteries in series its called balancing out. After a full charge, some may contain more energy than others. After the full charge if you put a maintaining charge to them, in series, balancing will occur and most all will be close to equal.
Big caps is the way to go. The energy involved is finite when you know the value of the cap and the voltage in that cap.
Mags
We'll be trying that caps test soon Magsy. Hopefully as soon as this weekend.
Rosie
That will be good Rose. If the cap(s) voltage, precharged, rise, shut it down and write the paper. ;] It will be all you need.
Not really. i know that the paper should contain many of the other details in explanation.
Good luck! ;)
Magsy
Quote from: Magluvin on June 29, 2011, 07:07:45 PM
That will be good Rose. If the cap(s) voltage, precharged, rise, shut it down and write the paper. ;] It will be all you need.
Not really. i know that the paper should contain many of the other details in explanation.
Good luck! ;)
Magsy
Thanks Mags. I'm struggling with that second paper I might tell you. Which is why I keep dipping in here. It's a much needed distraction. But I really shouldn't.
;D
Anyway. Take care of yourself.
Rosie
Quote from: Rosemary Ainslie on June 29, 2011, 06:56:57 PM
We'll be trying that caps test soon Magsy. Hopefully as soon as this weekend.
Rosie
Didn't you say this a couple of weeks ago. No wonder there hasn't been any advancements here in the last 10 years.
I imagine that you ARE struggling with that paper. :)
Quote from: WilbyInebriated on March 17, 2011, 11:10:57 AM
i have a question. why is that science, with all it's fancy fancy equations and formulas, cannot measure exactly how much energy is in a battery? and let's not be facetious and suggest that load testing and then averaging is exact... ;)
Quote from: WilbyInebriated on March 17, 2011, 08:15:18 PM
@evolvingapei wasn't suggesting you were being facetious. i was attempting to nip in the bud a foreseen point of contention. thanks for the reply but you didn't answer my question.
Quote from: evolvingape on March 17, 2011, 11:26:28 PM
My apologies Wilby, I thought it was a general question and not directed at me.
I do not know why science cannot measure exactly what energy is contained in a battery. It is obviously a flaw in the understanding. I am not disputing this.
RM :)
Quote from: WilbyInebriated on June 21, 2011, 03:04:53 PM
added: and once again, why is it that science, and all these 'educated' (read as indoctrinated) people like pussycat, the dancing bear and poynty, etc, etc, ad infintum, ad nauseam still CANNOT tell me exactly how much 'juice' is in a battery... ::) that to me speaks volumes about their 'science' and its level of understanding.
Quote from: Magluvin on June 29, 2011, 06:53:17 PM
Dude, I agree with Wilby on the battery thing. its a loaded question.
You could have 50 new fully charged batteries and they will all hold some differences. When loaded in series they will even out as close as possible to eachother except for the little differences I spoke of. With batteries in series its called balancing out. After a full charge, some may contain more energy than others. After the full charge if you put a maintaining charge to them, in series, balancing will occur and most all will be close to equal.
Big caps is the way to go. The energy involved is finite when you know the value of the cap and the voltage in that cap.
Mags
Well now Magluvin you have just made my day! A* Top of the Class!! No Double Facepalm for you!!! ;D
Your absolutely right...
IT IS A LOADED QUESTION!Now ask yourself why a staunch supporter of the Rosemary Ainslie circuit, despite never having provided a shred of credible evidence to support the claim, would be repeatedly asking LOADED QUESTIONS to honest researchers who disagree with the conclusions of said “experiment†and ask for simple concrete proof ? The very premise of the Rosemary Ainslie circuit conclusions demands that unequivocally this energy state can be definitively defined!
Your also absolutely right that two “identical†battery's will hold a different sum of total energy. What you fail to mention is that in a bank of such battery's, connected in series, if the amp hour ratings and C ratings are different then the battery's will not balance properly. The “weakest†battery will become damaged and will critically fail over a significant length of time.
These are just some of the reasons why this “experiment†and it's subsequent conclusions were fatally flawed from the outset.
Here you go Rose this link is for you:
http://www.actmeters.com/Batteries-C-Rating.php
You still think your statement of how much energy is in your battery's is correct ? Best check what your C ratings are ??
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Watt
The watt (pronounced /ˈwÉ't/ wot; symbol: W) is a derived unit of power in the International System of Units (SI), named after the Scottish engineer James Watt (1736â€"1819). The unit, defined as one joule per second, measures the rate of energy conversion.
A Watt is a measure of the rate of energy CONVERSION... it is NOT a measure of total energy available to the system. Seeing as you have no idea how much energy is in your battery's to start with and no idea how much energy remains at the end of the “test†how on Earth can you claim that no energy has been depleted ?? Especially when your very own Wilby is adamant that nobody can measure this... but you can!
RM :)
hey Evo
I really dont have time to write the book here. ;]
I have 3 electric bikes. 1 has 3 lead acid, one has 4, and the other 30 nimh d cells. I work a lot with this stuff.
But anyways, I dont believe I forgot to mention what I wanted to say. ;]
Mags
Quote from: evolvingape on June 29, 2011, 08:19:34 PM
You still think your statement of how much energy is in your battery's is correct ? Best check what your C ratings are ??
A Watt is a measure of the rate of energy CONVERSION... it is NOT a measure of total energy available to the system. Seeing as you have no idea how much energy is in your battery's to start with and no idea how much energy remains at the end of the “test†how on Earth can you claim that no energy has been depleted ??
Evolvingape. What are you trying to say? That when a battery rating is 40 AH's or 480 WH's - then that means NOTHING? It's some kind of fraudulent claim? And therefore when I reference that rating I am perpetrating that initial fraud? That's rich. I have ONLY referenced the standard measurements that are applied to all energy measurements. vi dt. Those measurements are specifically NOT related to the battery PERFORMANCE but to rate of current flow against the measured voltage of the battery. You are all asking me to ignore those measurements and ASSUME a loss - notwithstanding. That's an argument that no-one can win. It's a guaranteed FAIL. Alternatively you're asking me to run that battery continuously. I simply CANNOT. I'm too busy to monitor that test and I'm running out of time. I need that scope meter for tests related to our paper. I could, no doubt, run it but then I'd have no time to do what I NEED TO DO. I propose that you all stop telling me what to do - and what to think - and what to say and just leave me in peace. Do your own tests. There's nothing stopping you. Or get off this thread. I am absolutely NOT here to satisfy your arbitrary requirements. If you want to make those requirements relevant - then get the required authority to make it worth my while. Or offer to pay me to do your bidding. I AM NOT YOUR SLAVE.
Rosemary
Rose, c'mon now girl...
You want us to pay you to prove that your claims are true ?
Your offer of doing my bidding for cash is very generous but I already got a girl :D
RM :)
Quote from: Rosemary Ainslie on June 29, 2011, 08:38:24 PM
Evolvingape. What are you trying to say? That when a battery rating is 40 AH's or 480 WH's - then that means NOTHING? It's some kind of fraudulent claim? And therefore when I reference that rating I am perpetrating that initial fraud? That's rich. I have ONLY referenced the standard measurements that are applied to all energy measurements. vi dt. Those measurements are specifically NOT related to the battery PERFORMANCE but to rate of current flow against the measured voltage of the battery. You are all asking me to ignore those measurements and ASSUME a loss - notwithstanding. That's an argument that no-one can win. It's a guaranteed FAIL. Alternatively you're asking me to run that battery continuously. I simply CANNOT. I'm too busy to monitor that test and I'm running out of time. I need that scope meter for tests related to our paper. I could, no doubt, run it but then I'd have no time to do what I NEED TO DO. I propose that you all stop telling me what to do - and what to think - and what to say and just leave me in peace. Do your own tests. There's nothing stopping you. Or get off this thread. I am absolutely NOT here to satisfy your arbitrary requirements. If you want to make those requirements relevant - then get the required authority to make it worth my while. Or offer to pay me to do your bidding. I AM NOT YOUR SLAVE.
Rosemary
Finally you are beginning to wake up,a lot of what you said in this post has been answered aready,
( I can repost ) you know the kind of stuff, you can do the test for very little money, and you don't need a scope, but again you are attacking people who are making reasonable requests.
You are the one claiming OU on this forum, all the members here that tried to replicate your circuit failed, (it didn't work) (they had no OU) (you've didn't help them find the problem) You attack anybody that says your circuit doesn't work
If you want us to stop posting on this thread then stop claiming your circuit produces OU or do some new tests to prove your case and stop coming up with excuses.
We have a ready covered you asking people for money, because of all the failures of the members here to reproduce your claims it is very unlikely anyone would donate any money.
Guys - let me see if I can put this back into perspective. Cat is SO bored with this subject that he reads nothing and simply posts the same thing over and over again. To add to the general repetition we have MaNag echoing every feeble objection he can find. Then - to top it all - we've got evolvingape not only indulging in x rated fantasies - but presuming to tell all five of us to DROP THIS WORK and concentrate on his own best interests.
Do you really think that any of this merits any kind of attention? Just let this thread alone - JUST FOR A COUPLE MORE WEEKS. Then I'll be here - BOOTS AND ALL - and will argue everything to the death. Right now I need a break.
Rosemary
Quote from: Rosemary Ainslie on June 29, 2011, 08:38:24 PM
Evolvingape. What are you trying to say? That when a battery rating is 40 AH's or 480 WH's - then that means NOTHING? It's some kind of fraudulent claim? And therefore when I reference that rating I am perpetrating that initial fraud? That's rich. I have ONLY referenced the standard measurements that are applied to all energy measurements. vi dt. Those measurements are specifically NOT related to the battery PERFORMANCE but to rate of current flow against the measured voltage of the battery. You are all asking me to ignore those measurements and ASSUME a loss - notwithstanding. That's an argument that no-one can win. It's a guaranteed FAIL. Alternatively you're asking me to run that battery continuously. I simply CANNOT. I'm too busy to monitor that test and I'm running out of time. I need that scope meter for tests related to our paper. I could, no doubt, run it but then I'd have no time to do what I NEED TO DO. I propose that you all stop telling me what to do - and what to think - and what to say and just leave me in peace. Do your own tests. There's nothing stopping you. Or get off this thread. I am absolutely NOT here to satisfy your arbitrary requirements. If you want to make those requirements relevant - then get the required authority to make it worth my while. Or offer to pay me to do your bidding. I AM NOT YOUR SLAVE.
Rosemary
You still don't understand the request rose. I thought it was a very simple request but possibly it is still too complicated for you to comprehend. You don't need to sit in front of it and watch it. You don't need to hook up a scope or meter for that matter to monitor it. Just hook it up and let it run. It is a very simple request. I really don't understand why you won't do it. Are you that worried that you would use up all the power in the batteries during this test proving your circuit is not OU?
Quote from: powercat on June 29, 2011, 09:05:59 PM
You are the one claiming OU on this forum, ......
THAT unfortunately, is the sorry truth. But I guarantee you that by the time we've finished with our papers then MANY, MANY more experimentalists will be able to MORE CONFIDENTLY reference their own OVER UNITY RESULTS. People like Pirate - Lasersaber - and even, dare I say it, RomeroUK. They're just not seeing it for what it is. I intend to help out there or die trying.
Rosemary
Quote from: Rosemary Ainslie on June 29, 2011, 09:06:45 PM
Guys - let me see if I can put this back into perspective. Cat is SO bored with this subject that he reads nothing and simply posts the same thing over and over again. To add to the general repetition we have MaNag echoing every feeble objection he can find. Then - to top it all - we've got evolvingape not only indulging in x rated fantasies - but presuming to tell all five of us to DROP THIS WORK and concentrate on his own best interests.
Do you really think that any of this merits any kind of attention? Just let this thread alone - JUST FOR A COUPLE MORE WEEKS. Then I'll be here - BOOTS AND ALL - and will argue everything to the death. Right now I need a break.
Rosemary
There you go again, attack, attack, attack, try reading the words in my repost
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Ignoring the issue won't make it go away, since you have attacked me and called me a liar in previous posts I now consider this my duty, so that no one new to this forum will be misled into believing that you have a circuit that produces OU, unless of course you, oh yeah you're not communicating, repost time then
You can't tell me of any member on this forum that has produced OU with your circuit, because nobody has.
Here are few videos for members on the forum, they are other members that didn't make videos who also failed in their attempts to match your claim of OU
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XrwgEb5ac_w
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZM8BBa7_Zpc
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4x0wQJrc9To
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-GBS3sKcB8g
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=trip8gjoxMQ
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HpaP__5Kd38
Do something different Here on This forum,and stop ignoring reasonable requests for tests. or stop claiming OU on This OverUnity Forum.
A big conspiracy, it would appear that anyone that says your circut doesn't workor or indicate's measuring error, is then part of that conspiracy.
Many members have made reasonable requests that you ignore including Stefan,Mr Mag amongst others,but you ignore them and carry on regurgitating your same old arguments.
Go on Rosie proof that 99 is wrong in his analysis and makes something that runs and runs and put it on the Internet after all,
(Quote from Rosemary)
"All one needs are the the measurements and some reasonable account of the apparatus that produces those measurements".
You will pick on small detail and not address the main point, and you will also repeat what you said before ( this is not your blog) please interact with the reasonable requests made by members here for you to do new tests.
The fact still remains that no one here can reproduce your claims of OU, and you are not willing to do anything to change that deadlock, apart from use this forum as your soapbox and blog.
On this forum you are expected to interact to prove your claim, if you are claiming OU,I think that is reasonable.
Quote from: Rosemary Ainslie on June 29, 2011, 09:06:45 PM
Guys - let me see if I can put this back into perspective. Cat is SO bored with this subject that he reads nothing and simply posts the same thing over and over again. To add to the general repetition we have MaNag echoing every feeble objection he can find. Then - to top it all - we've got evolvingape not only indulging in x rated fantasies - but presuming to tell all five of us to DROP THIS WORK and concentrate on his own best interests.
Do you really think that any of this merits any kind of attention? Just let this thread alone - JUST FOR A COUPLE MORE WEEKS. Then I'll be here - BOOTS AND ALL - and will argue everything to the death. Right now I need a break.
Rosemary
Golly rosy, I thought that you would like to do the simple test. We just have concerns regarding your OU claim, that's all.
We don't want to argue with you either, we just want you to do a simple test. But don't worry, we've been wearing our boots here for quite some time already. With all the crap your trying to throw at us we have no choice.
Quote from: Rosemary Ainslie on June 29, 2011, 09:15:04 PM
THAT unfortunately, is the sorry truth. But I guarantee you that by the time we've finished with our papers then MANY, MANY more experimentalists will be able to MORE CONFIDENTLY reference their own OVER UNITY RESULTS. People like Pirate - Lasersaber - and even, dare I say it, RomeroUK. They're just not seeing it for what it is. I intend to help out there or die trying.
Rosemary
You said this kind of stuff so many times , no one is doubting you can talk the talk, and another paper on top of the other one and all that other stuff, and still not a single person can reproduce your results on this forum.
And you attack people and won't do a simple test ::)
Quote from: MrMag on June 29, 2011, 09:12:24 PM
You still don't understand the request rose. I thought it was a very simple request but possibly it is still too complicated for you to comprehend. You don't need to sit in front of it and watch it. You don't need to hook up a scope or meter for that matter to monitor it. Just hook it up and let it run. It is a very simple request. I really don't understand why you won't do it. Are you that worried that you would use up all the power in the batteries during this test proving your circuit is not OU?
MaNag. Let me see if I can get through to you. AGAIN. It is an ENTIRE waste of time to run the batteries at a LOW wattage. It would take YEARS to complete that test. It is POSSIBLY worthwhile to run it at HIGH wattage. Then we could run that test against a control. NOW TRY AND GET YOUR MIND AROUND THIS. We have 2 banks of batteries. They are BOTH running at the same temperature. The one is connected in series with batteries. The test is running with a switch. WHEN the CONTROL BATTERIES ARE DEAD - and IF OUR TEST BATTERIES ARE STILL FULLY CHARGED -
then the test is CONCLUSIVELY PROVEN. BUT. To run this test I firstly need another resistor element - carefully modified that it is running at an IDENTICAL temperature. Then I need to buy another 5 BATTERIES. THEN. BECAUSE WE'LL BE RUNNING THIS TEST AT A HIGHER WATTAGE LEVEL THEN TWO THINGS WILL HAPPEN. BOTH TESTS WILL BE BOILING THAT WATER SO THEY WILL BOTH NEED TO BE CONTINUALLY TOPPED UP.
THEN. Much more to the point. NOTA BENE MaNag, THERE IS SO MUCH ENERGY ON OUR CIRCUIT THAT, NOTWITHSTANDING THE STRENGTH OF AN APPLIED SIGNAL AT THE GATE - THIS INCREASES. WHEN IT INCREASES IT REQUIRES AN ADJUSTMENT. TO KNOW THAT IT INCREASES WE NEED A PROBE ACROSS THAT SHUNT RESISTOR AND WE NEED AN OSCILLOSCOPE ATTACHED TO THAT PROBE. AND WE NEED A HIGH BANDWIDTH OSCILLOSCOPE OR WE WILL NOT BE ABLE TO READ THE APPROPRIATE VOLTAGE ACROSS THE SHUNT RESISTOR. THEREFORE. IF WE DO NOT MONITOR THE TEST CONDITIONS CONTINUOUSLY THEN EVERYTHING MAY JUST GO UP IN SMOKE. THEN WE WILL HAVE NO OSCILLOSCOPE - NO PROBES - NO TEST RESULTS - NOTHING AT ALL FOR ALL OUR EFFORTS.
IT NEEDS MONITORING.
R
Guys - let me see if I can put this back into perspective. Cat is SO bored with this subject that he reads nothing and simply posts the same thing over and over again. To add to the general repetition we have MaNag echoing every feeble objection he can find. Then - to top it all - we've got evolvingape not only indulging in x rated fantasies - but presuming to tell all five of us to DROP THIS WORK and concentrate on his own best interests.
Do you really think that any of this merits any kind of attention? Just let this thread alone - JUST FOR A COUPLE MORE WEEKS. Then I'll be here - BOOTS AND ALL - and will argue everything to the death. Right now I need a break.
Rosemary
Quote from: Rosemary Ainslie on June 29, 2011, 09:29:47 PM
Do you really think that any of this merits any kind of attention?
Yes, I guess we do. It's just really sad that you don't think it does.
Quote from: Rosemary Ainslie on June 29, 2011, 09:15:04 PM
THAT unfortunately, is the sorry truth. But I guarantee you that by the time we've finished with our papers then MANY, MANY more experimentalists will be able to MORE CONFIDENTLY reference their own OVER UNITY RESULTS. People like Pirate - Lasersaber - and even, dare I say it, RomeroUK. They're just not seeing it for what it is. I intend to help out there or die trying.
Rosemary
Quote from: powercat on June 29, 2011, 09:26:13 PM
You said this kind of stuff so many times , no one is doubting you can talk the talk, and another paper on top of the other one and all that other stuff, and still not a single person can reproduce your results on this forum.
And you attack people and won't do a simple test ::)
WHAT PART OF WHAT WAS WRITTEN ABOVE REPRESENTS AN ATTACK? If you must keep repeating yourself make it appropriate.
Rosemary
Quote from: Rosemary Ainslie on June 29, 2011, 09:29:47 PM
Guys - let me see if I can put this back into perspective. Cat is SO bored with this subject that he reads nothing and simply posts the same thing over and over again. To add to the general repetition we have MaNag echoing every feeble objection he can find. Then - to top it all - we've got evolvingape not only indulging in x rated fantasies - but presuming to tell all five of us to DROP THIS WORK and concentrate on his own best interests.
Do you really think that any of this merits any kind of attention? Just let this thread alone - JUST FOR A COUPLE MORE WEEKS. Then I'll be here - BOOTS AND ALL - and will argue everything to the death. Right now I need a break.
Rosemary
Golly rose, you have a worse memory then me. Do these comments look like compliments?
Quote from: MrMag on June 29, 2011, 09:37:51 PM
Golly rose, you have a worse memory then me. Do these comments look like compliments?
I'm not sure Nag. I seem to remember that the post referenced experimentalists. Are you a closet experimentalist and simply not showing us your cards? Lasersaber - Pirate - RomeroUK experiment all over the place. I see NOTHING from you.
Rosemary
Quote from: Rosemary Ainslie on June 29, 2011, 09:28:19 PM
WHEN the CONTROL BATTERIES ARE DEAD - and IF OUR TEST BATTERIES ARE STILL FULLY CHARGED - then the test is CONCLUSIVELY PROVEN.
After 10 years and countless input from skilled and knowledgeable people you still have absolutely no idea how the battery technology that you are using works... do you ?
The battery can be almost totally dead, and hold practically NO CHARGE, but still show 12V or thereabouts.
You refuse to do a before and after load test which is the only method available to gain an approximate idea of the charge held within the battery. It will certainly show a significant change in CHARGE... NOT VOLTAGE!
Are you deliberately not learning anything... ?
RM :)
Quote from: evolvingape on June 29, 2011, 09:43:32 PM
The battery can be almost totally dead, and hold practically NO CHARGE, but still show 12V or thereabouts.
AT LAST - I've been able to laugh. I want those batteries - BADLY. I'd be able to make a FORTUNE. Golly. ;D
Quote from: evolvingape on June 29, 2011, 09:43:32 PM
Are you deliberately not learning anything... ?
;D Golly again. I certainly HOPE that I AM learning. I've just learned, for instance, that a battery voltage reading is meaningless. WHAT in GOD's name - have we all be thinking? Through all these years? So much learned by so many and EVERYONE WRONG. Thankfully evolvingape is around to disabuse us of all that learning.
Rosemary
;D
Quote from: Rosemary Ainslie on June 29, 2011, 09:51:30 PM
AT LAST - I've been able to laugh. I want those batteries - BADLY. I'd be able to make a FORTUNE. Golly. ;D
;D Golly again. I certainly HOPE that I AM learning. I've just learned, for instance, that a battery voltage reading is meaningless. WHAT in GOD's name - have we all be thinking? Through all these years? So much learned by so many and EVERYONE WRONG. Thankfully evolvingape is around to disabuse us of all that learning.
Rosemary
;D
Rosemary,
In all seriousness, are you prepared to state officially for the record that you believe that what you stated in reply #1701 in this thread is a true and accurate statement of your beliefs regarding the battery technology you are using in your circuit ?
Please confirm... PLEASE!
RM :)
And just in case this post was missed. Here it is again.
MaNag. Let me see if I can get through to you. AGAIN. It is an ENTIRE waste of time to run the batteries at a LOW wattage. It would take YEARS to complete that test. It is POSSIBLY worthwhile to run it at HIGH wattage. Then we could run that test against a control. NOW TRY AND GET YOUR MIND AROUND THIS. We have 2 banks of batteries. They are BOTH running at the same temperature. The one is connected in series with batteries. The test is running with a switch. WHEN the CONTROL BATTERIES ARE DEAD - and IF OUR TEST BATTERIES ARE STILL FULLY CHARGED - then the test is CONCLUSIVELY PROVEN.
BUT. To run this test I firstly need another resistor element - carefully modified that it is running at an IDENTICAL temperature. Then I need to buy another 5 BATTERIES. THEN. BECAUSE WE'LL BE RUNNING THIS TEST AT A HIGHER WATTAGE LEVEL THEN TWO THINGS WILL HAPPEN. BOTH TESTS WILL BE BOILING THAT WATER SO THEY WILL BOTH NEED TO BE CONTINUALLY TOPPED UP.
THEN. Much more to the point. NOTA BENE MaNag, THERE IS SO MUCH ENERGY ON OUR CIRCUIT THAT, NOTWITHSTANDING THE STRENGTH OF AN APPLIED SIGNAL AT THE GATE - THIS INCREASES. WHEN IT INCREASES IT REQUIRES AN ADJUSTMENT. TO KNOW THAT IT INCREASES WE NEED A PROBE ACROSS THAT SHUNT RESISTOR AND WE NEED AN OSCILLOSCOPE ATTACHED TO THAT PROBE. AND WE NEED A HIGH BANDWIDTH OSCILLOSCOPE OR WE WILL NOT BE ABLE TO READ THE APPROPRIATE VOLTAGE ACROSS THE SHUNT RESISTOR. THEREFORE. IF WE DO NOT MONITOR THE TEST CONDITIONS CONTINUOUSLY THEN EVERYTHING MAY JUST GO UP IN SMOKE. THEN WE WILL HAVE NO OSCILLOSCOPE - NO PROBES - NO TEST RESULTS - NOTHING AT ALL FOR ALL OUR EFFORTS.
IT NEEDS MONITORING.
Rosemary
Quote from: Rosemary Ainslie on June 29, 2011, 09:41:33 PM
I'm not sure Nag. I seem to remember that the post referenced experimentalists. Are you a closet experimentalist and simply not showing us your cards? Lasersaber - Pirate - RomeroUK experiment all over the place. I see NOTHING from you.
Rosemary
I really think that you need to go back and read what was posted again. You want to come across as a competent person yet you reply to my post with an irrelevant comment. Nowhere in my post am I referencing experimentalists and the work in question is yours. What I have done is irrelevant.
Also, EV is right. I am surprised you didn't know this. Could this be why you have only run your tests for 7 to 17 hours and no longer then that. Why do you think we are asking for you to do the extended test.
Quote from: evolvingape on June 29, 2011, 10:08:59 PM
Rosemary,
In all seriousness, are you prepared to state officially for the record that you believe that what you stated in reply #1701 in this thread is a true and accurate statement of your beliefs regarding the battery technology you are using in your circuit ?
Please confirm... PLEASE!
You've already referenced 1701. Not sure of your point. Are you asking me if the measured voltage across a battery is INDICATIVE OF IT'S CHARGE? I certainly HOPE SO. Or why do we EVER bother to measure battery voltage. I think it can all rest happy on the evidence of the average calibrated volt meter?
Rosemary
Quote from: Rosemary Ainslie on June 29, 2011, 10:11:29 PM
And just in case this post was missed. Here it is again.
MaNag. Let me see if I can get through to you. AGAIN. It is an ENTIRE waste of time to run the batteries at a LOW wattage. It would take YEARS to complete that test. It is POSSIBLY worthwhile to run it at HIGH wattage. Then we could run that test against a control. NOW TRY AND GET YOUR MIND AROUND THIS. We have 2 banks of batteries. They are BOTH running at the same temperature. The one is connected in series with batteries. The test is running with a switch. WHEN the CONTROL BATTERIES ARE DEAD - and IF OUR TEST BATTERIES ARE STILL FULLY CHARGED - then the test is CONCLUSIVELY PROVEN.
BUT. To run this test I firstly need another resistor element - carefully modified that it is running at an IDENTICAL temperature. Then I need to buy another 5 BATTERIES. THEN. BECAUSE WE'LL BE RUNNING THIS TEST AT A HIGHER WATTAGE LEVEL THEN TWO THINGS WILL HAPPEN. BOTH TESTS WILL BE BOILING THAT WATER SO THEY WILL BOTH NEED TO BE CONTINUALLY TOPPED UP.
THEN. Much more to the point. NOTA BENE MaNag, THERE IS SO MUCH ENERGY ON OUR CIRCUIT THAT, NOTWITHSTANDING THE STRENGTH OF AN APPLIED SIGNAL AT THE GATE - THIS INCREASES. WHEN IT INCREASES IT REQUIRES AN ADJUSTMENT. TO KNOW THAT IT INCREASES WE NEED A PROBE ACROSS THAT SHUNT RESISTOR AND WE NEED AN OSCILLOSCOPE ATTACHED TO THAT PROBE. AND WE NEED A HIGH BANDWIDTH OSCILLOSCOPE OR WE WILL NOT BE ABLE TO READ THE APPROPRIATE VOLTAGE ACROSS THE SHUNT RESISTOR. THEREFORE. IF WE DO NOT MONITOR THE TEST CONDITIONS CONTINUOUSLY THEN EVERYTHING MAY JUST GO UP IN SMOKE. THEN WE WILL HAVE NO OSCILLOSCOPE - NO PROBES - NO TEST RESULTS - NOTHING AT ALL FOR ALL OUR EFFORTS.
IT NEEDS MONITORING.
Rosemary
I see now that you have the same problem as Cat. You simply can't read. Here it is again. Address those points ONLY because you keep on keeping on about tests that you require. This is the ONLY test that will answer the question. NOW. UNTIL YOU CAN MANAGE SOME WAY AROUND THE 'MONITORING' - THEN MY OBJECTIONS HOLD.
Rosemary
Quote from: evolvingape on June 29, 2011, 10:08:59 PM
Rosemary,
In all seriousness, are you prepared to state officially for the record that you believe that what you stated in reply #1701 in this thread is a true and accurate statement of your beliefs regarding the battery technology you are using in your circuit ?
Please confirm... PLEASE!
RM :)
After 30 secs googling, knowing what I was looking for, I found this:
http://www.facebook.com/topic.php?uid=130930223624230&topic=195
1. If the battery has just been charged or if the vehicle has been driven recently, it is necessary to remove the surface charge from the battery before testing. A surface charge is a charge of higher-than-normal voltage that is just on the surface of the battery plates. The surface charge is quickly removed when the battery is loaded and therefore does not accurately represent the true state of charge of the battery."
You have an un-regulated charging circuit with high frequency, high amplitude current spikes running while you are taking your voltage readings...
CORRECT ?RM :)
Quote from: Rosemary Ainslie on June 29, 2011, 10:11:29 PM
And just in case this post was missed. Here it is again.
MaNag. Let me see if I can get through to you. AGAIN. It is an ENTIRE waste of time to run the batteries at a LOW wattage. It would take YEARS to complete that test.
How can you claim that you are charging the batteries if you don't perform this test.
Quote from: Rosemary Ainslie on June 29, 2011, 10:11:29 PM
It is POSSIBLY worthwhile to run it at HIGH wattage. Then we could run that test against a control. NOW TRY AND GET YOUR MIND AROUND THIS. We have 2 banks of batteries. They are BOTH running at the same temperature. The one is connected in series with batteries. The test is running with a switch. WHEN the CONTROL BATTERIES ARE DEAD - and IF OUR TEST BATTERIES ARE STILL FULLY CHARGED - then the test is CONCLUSIVELY PROVEN.
First of all, you cannot change the test parameters that you used previously as when the batteries run down, you will have all kinds of reasons for it. Secondly, "We have 2 banks of batteries. They are BOTH running at the same temperature. The one is connected in series with batteries." Huh??? If you really want me to understand, i think you need to do better then this.
Quote from: Rosemary Ainslie on June 29, 2011, 10:11:29 PM
BUT. To run this test I firstly need another resistor element - carefully modified that it is running at an IDENTICAL temperature. Then I need to buy another 5 BATTERIES. THEN. BECAUSE WE'LL BE RUNNING THIS TEST AT A HIGHER WATTAGE LEVEL THEN TWO THINGS WILL HAPPEN. BOTH TESTS WILL BE BOILING THAT WATER SO THEY WILL BOTH NEED TO BE CONTINUALLY TOPPED UP.
You are trying to make this more complicated then necessary. Do you really need to boil water or could you use something like glycol or oil? I am not sure of the boiling point or either but I would expect that either one would be acceptable.
Quote from: Rosemary Ainslie on June 29, 2011, 10:11:29 PM
THEN. Much more to the point. NOTA BENE MaNag, THERE IS SO MUCH ENERGY ON OUR CIRCUIT THAT, NOTWITHSTANDING THE STRENGTH OF AN APPLIED SIGNAL AT THE GATE - THIS INCREASES.
Your first paragraph says that you are running at low wattage. Now there is so much energy in the circuit???
Quote from: Rosemary Ainslie on June 29, 2011, 10:11:29 PM
TO KNOW THAT IT INCREASES WE NEED A PROBE ACROSS THAT SHUNT RESISTOR AND WE NEED AN OSCILLOSCOPE ATTACHED TO THAT PROBE. AND WE NEED A HIGH BANDWIDTH OSCILLOSCOPE OR WE WILL NOT BE ABLE TO READ THE APPROPRIATE VOLTAGE ACROSS THE SHUNT RESISTOR. THEREFORE. IF WE DO NOT MONITOR THE TEST CONDITIONS CONTINUOUSLY THEN EVERYTHING MAY JUST GO UP IN SMOKE. THEN WE WILL HAVE NO OSCILLOSCOPE - NO PROBES - NO TEST RESULTS - NOTHING AT ALL FOR ALL OUR EFFORTS.
IT NEEDS MONITORING.[/b]
Rosemary
I really don't understand why in the last 10 years that you couldn't of made modifications to the circuit so that it could run without burning up. Sounds to me like your to busy trying to make a name for yourself then to develop a workable circuit.
Quote from: Rosemary Ainslie on June 29, 2011, 10:20:55 PM
I see now that you have the same problem as Cat. You simply can't read.
Rosemary
NO rose, you have the same problem as Wilby. You want to pick and chose which post is under discussion. I have attached the post in which my comments were in reference to.
"Guys - let me see if I can put this back into perspective. Cat is SO bored with this subject that he reads nothing and simply posts the same thing over and over again. To add to the general repetition we have MaNag echoing every feeble objection he can find. Then - to top it all - we've got evolvingape not only indulging in x rated fantasies - but presuming to tell all five of us to DROP THIS WORK and concentrate on his own best interests.
Do you really think that any of this merits any kind of attention? Just let this thread alone - JUST FOR A COUPLE MORE WEEKS. Then I'll be here - BOOTS AND ALL - and will argue everything to the death. Right now I need a break.
Rosemary"
Quote from: Rosemary Ainslie on June 29, 2011, 10:17:06 PM
You've already referenced 1701. Not sure of your point. Are you asking me if the measured voltage across a battery is INDICATIVE OF IT'S CHARGE? I certainly HOPE SO. Or why do we EVER bother to measure battery voltage. I think it can all rest happy on the evidence of the average calibrated volt meter?
Rosemary
Oh my, thanks for the laugh, that's a good one.
Quote from: evolvingape on June 29, 2011, 10:28:23 PM
After 30 secs googling, knowing what I was looking for, I found this:
http://www.facebook.com/topic.php?uid=130930223624230&topic=195
1. If the battery has just been charged or if the vehicle has been driven recently, it is necessary to remove the surface charge from the battery before testing. A surface charge is a charge of higher-than-normal voltage that is just on the surface of the battery plates. The surface charge is quickly removed when the battery is loaded and therefore does not accurately represent the true state of charge of the battery."
You have an un-regulated charging circuit with high frequency, high amplitude current spikes running while you are taking your voltage readings... CORRECT ?
RM :)
RM. We do NOT have an unregulated charging circuit. But we do have high frequencies and high amplitude current spikes. So high that the voltage across the battery exceeds its rating to more than double. That's on the recharge cycle. Then it drops to below its rated voltage to about 1 volt - AND, at times, even to a negative voltage. Here's the APPROPRIATE question. HOW CAN IT FLUCTUATE THAT WIDELY? BECAUSE - and this is the WHOLE OF THE POINT - the battery as claimed by POYNTY - STILL STAYS THE SAME. And let me see if you can possibly get this - because NO-ONE WHO CONTRIBUTES TO THIS THREAD HAS EVEN GOT CLOSE. The battery voltages - DISCONNECTED - are still the same as they were when we first got them.
This means, effectively, that some current was applied to those batteries that evidently DID NOT COME FROM THOSE BATTERIES. Neither in the recharge cycle nor in the discharge cycle. THAT was the point of those tests. And THAT is the topic of the papers. And all you guys go ON AND ON AND ON ABOUT is the state of charge of those batteries. THEY ARE PRECISELY THE SAME AS THEY WERE WHEN WE GOT THEM. THERE IS NO MEASURABLE DIFFERENCE. DISCONNECTED OR CONNECTED. WITH OUR WITHOUT RESIDUAL CHARGE.
If you even addressed the actual questions that are raised by all that test evidence it would help. I feel that I'm walking through treacle when I address your posts. You are SO far OFF the point.
Rosemary
And then just to continue on WHAT ARE THE APPROPRIATE QUESTIONS ? Here's another. The current flow through those batteries are reversing - as shown by a nearly pure sinusoidal waveform crossing zero. The battery and the shunt voltages are at 180 degrees in anti phase. Every time that the battery discharges the current flow is shown to be moving a clockwise direction - and every time it recharges the current is shown to be moving in an anticlockwise direction. This is STANDARD. BUT. When it moves in a clockwise direction it simply bypasses TWO OPPOSING BODY DIODES AND THE NEGATIVE CHARGE APPLIED AT THE GATE of those transistors. YET. NOTA BENE AGAIN. The two opposing body diodes and the negative charge applied at the gate OPPOSES A CLOCKWISE FLOW OF CURRENT. SO? What is there in the properties of this current flow that enables this flow. BECAUSE - it is UNQUESTIONABLY crossing zero and reversing its previous recharge cycle.
I hope you guys get this. It's such an INTERESTING point. And it's FAR MORE SIGNIFICANT than this obsession with the state of battery charge.
Rosemary
Rose,
What do you think an UNREGULATED CHARGING CIRCUIT is ? You obviously have no idea. Do you know the difference between a steady state and a pulsed charging circuit and how both operate ? I think not. If you do NOT have an unregulated charging circuit please show where in your circuit diagram the charge regulator is... I cannot find it on the schematic!
Do you know that you have both a LOAD and an OSCILLATING RECHARGING PULSE in operation at the same time due to the parasitic oscillation ? I am beginning to wonder.
Do you know that a charging cycle creates a FALSE SURFACE CHARGE on the surface of the plates which is what your “calibrated multimeter†is reading ?
Do you know that a Voltage reading is a VERY POOR indicator of the state of charge and measure of the amount of ENERGY in a battery ?
Do you know that a battery can sit idle for long lengths of time while being charge depleted and still show 12V or thereabouts ?
You are walking through treacle Rose, and it's Rosemary Ainslie brand.
I am beginning to wonder if you know anything at all!
RM :)
Quote from: MrMag on June 29, 2011, 10:39:38 PM
How can you claim that you are charging the batteries if you don't perform this test.
First of all, you cannot change the test parameters that you used previously as when the batteries run down, you will have all kinds of reasons for it. Secondly, "We have 2 banks of batteries. They are BOTH running at the same temperature. The one is connected in series with batteries." Huh??? If you really want me to understand, i think you need to do better then this.
lol Really Nag - you are something else. When a load is connected in series it means that they are simply hooked up in the standard way. No switching circuitry. lol. Does that help?
Quote from: MrMag on June 29, 2011, 10:39:38 PMYou are trying to make this more complicated then necessary. Do you really need to boil water or could you use something like glycol or oil? I am not sure of the boiling point or either but I would expect that either one would be acceptable.
It doesn't matter what you use. The fact is that it will need monitoring. The good point about using water is that it has an immediate application relevance. But whether we used anything else - makes no difference. The signal is BRITTLE. It needs monitoring. The waveform analysis is CRUCIAL. It's required for the effect. It needs monitoring. There is no way around this. But it's fine. I'll MONITOR. I'll do that test. BUT CERTAINLY NOT UNLESS IT'S ESSENTIAL FOR THIS PROOF. And - so far - I've NOT got ANY academics who will put their reputations on the line that THIS IS ALL THAT IS NEEDED.
Quote from: MrMag on June 29, 2011, 10:39:38 PMYour first paragraph says that you are running at low wattage. Now there is so much energy in the circuit???
And as for this. We have run in the region of 50 tests. ALL OF THEM ARE DESIGNED TO DELIVER MORE OR LESS WATTAGE. WE ARE WELL ABLE TO DETERMINE THE WATTAGE OUTPUT REQUIRED. Good Heavens.
Quote from: MrMag on June 29, 2011, 10:39:38 PMI really don't understand why in the last 10 years that you couldn't of made modifications to the circuit so that it could run without burning up.
I can understand this. You're not an experimentalist. If you were you would NOT be asking this question.
Quote from: MrMag on June 29, 2011, 10:39:38 PMSounds to me like your to busy trying to make a name for yourself then to develop a workable circuit.
lol. And you think that by writing in this thread that I'm 'making a name for myself'? ;D I suppose I am. But it's not the kind of name that one typically strives for. Golly. ;D In fact I think I'm doing myself an intense disservice IF that was my motive. FAR BETTER to just keep my nose clean and my name pristine - by NEVER posting here at all. Golly.
There is one thing I know. Cat doesn't care - one way or another. He just wants me off this thread and to hell with the harm or help to OU. Evolvingape has his own agenda but he probably has enough acumen to actually understand the issues. You, on the other hand HAVE NO CLUE. It's a shame. Because your posts could otherwise be constructive.
Rosemary
Evolvingape - You're ducking and diving. Answer the QUESTIONS that I took the trouble to outline. You're ignoring the issues because you can't answer them. Let's see how you manage that explanation? Here it is again.
RM. We do NOT have an unregulated charging circuit. But we do have high frequencies and high amplitude current spikes. So high that the voltage across the battery exceeds its rating to more than double. That's on the recharge cycle. Then it drops to below its rated voltage to about 1 volt - AND, at times, even to a negative voltage. Here's the APPROPRIATE question. HOW CAN IT FLUCTUATE THAT WIDELY? BECAUSE - and this is the WHOLE OF THE POINT - the battery as claimed by POYNTY - STILL STAYS THE SAME. And let me see if you can possibly get this - because NO-ONE WHO CONTRIBUTES TO THIS THREAD HAS EVEN GOT CLOSE. The battery voltages - DISCONNECTED - are still the same as they were when we first got them.
This means, effectively, that some current was applied to those batteries that evidently DID NOT COME FROM THOSE BATTERIES. Neither in the recharge cycle nor in the discharge cycle. THAT was the point of those tests. And THAT is the topic of the papers. And all you guys go ON AND ON AND ON ABOUT is the state of charge of those batteries. THEY ARE PRECISELY THE SAME AS THEY WERE WHEN WE GOT THEM. THERE IS NO MEASURABLE DIFFERENCE. DISCONNECTED OR CONNECTED. WITH OUR WITHOUT RESIDUAL CHARGE.
If you even addressed the actual questions that are raised by all that test evidence it would help. I feel that I'm walking through treacle when I address your posts. You are SO far OFF the point.
And then just to continue on WHAT ARE THE APPROPRIATE QUESTIONS ? Here's another. The current flow through those batteries are reversing - as shown by a nearly pure sinusoidal waveform crossing zero. The battery and the shunt voltages are at 180 degrees in anti phase. Every time that the battery discharges the current flow is shown to be moving a clockwise direction - and every time it recharges the current is shown to be moving in an anticlockwise direction. This is STANDARD. BUT. When it moves in a clockwise direction it simply bypasses TWO OPPOSING BODY DIODES AND THE NEGATIVE CHARGE APPLIED AT THE GATE of those transistors. YET. NOTA BENE AGAIN. The two opposing body diodes and the negative charge applied at the gate OPPOSES A CLOCKWISE FLOW OF CURRENT. SO? What is there in the properties of this current flow that enables this flow. BECAUSE - it is UNQUESTIONABLY crossing zero and reversing its previous recharge cycle.
I hope you guys get this. It's such an INTERESTING point. And it's FAR MORE SIGNIFICANT than this obsession with the state of battery charge.
Rosemary.
Quote from: Rosemary Ainslie on June 29, 2011, 11:29:59 PM
lol Really Nag - you are something else. When a load is connected in series it means that they are simply hooked up in the standard way. No switching circuitry. lol. Does that help?
Golly hag, Where do you say that a load is connected in series? All I can do is read your post, not your mind. you said in your post,"
We have 2 banks of batteries. They are BOTH running at the same temperature. The one is connected in series with batteries."
Quote from: Rosemary Ainslie on June 29, 2011, 11:29:59 PM
It doesn't matter what you use. The fact is that it will need monitoring. The good point about using water is that it has an immediate application relevance.
That's not a good point. You are using a heater to heat up a liquid. That is what is relevant, using oil or glycol just makes more sense.
Quote from: Rosemary Ainslie on June 29, 2011, 11:29:59 PM
But whether we used anything else - makes no difference. The signal is BRITTLE. It needs monitoring. The waveform analysis is CRUCIAL. It's required for the effect. It needs monitoring. There is no way around this. But it's fine. I'll MONITOR. I'll do that test. BUT CERTAINLY NOT UNLESS IT'S ESSENTIAL FOR THIS PROOF. And - so far - I've NOT got ANY academics who will put their reputations on the line that THIS IS ALL THAT IS NEEDED.
You know that you will never get any academic to put their reputation on the line for any test you do. You know this and it is a moot point.
Quote from: Rosemary Ainslie on June 29, 2011, 11:29:59 PM
And as for this. We have run in the region of 50 tests. ALL OF THEM ARE DESIGNED TO DELIVER MORE OR LESS WATTAGE. WE ARE WELL ABLE TO DETERMINE THE WATTAGE OUTPUT REQUIRED. Good Heavens.
I can understand this. You're not an experimentalist. If you were you would NOT be asking this question.
According to Evolvingape, Poynt, and others, this IS the questionable part of your circuit and you don't even understand batteries.
Yes, I am an experimentalist, maybe not much lately, but hopefully I will be able to do it again real soon.
Quote from: Rosemary Ainslie on June 29, 2011, 11:29:59 PM
lol. And you think that by writing in this thread that I'm 'making a name for myself'? ;D I suppose I am. But it's not the kind of name that one typically strives for. Golly. ;D In fact I think I'm doing myself an intense disservice IF that was my motive. FAR BETTER to just keep my nose clean and my name pristine - by NEVER posting here at all. Golly.
But we have seen your type before. There was a guy on here that went by the name of IST. He always thought that he discovered new things, but he too was wrong. He thought he was the know all do all and we were all idiots for not understanding him. You sort of remind me of him.
Quote from: Rosemary Ainslie on June 29, 2011, 11:29:59 PM
There is one thing I know. Cat doesn't care - one way or another. He just wants me off this thread and to hell with the harm or help to OU. Evolvingape has his own agenda but he probably has enough acumen to actually understand the issues. You, on the other hand HAVE NO CLUE. It's a shame. Because your posts could otherwise be constructive.
This is where you are definitely wrong. These professionals are really trying to help you. You are just too stubborn and thick headed to listen to them. Are you really that scared to actually learn from these guys. Poynt is another one. Do you realize how many hours he put into this just to try to explain to you what you are doing wrong. No. Since they don't agree with you, they must all be in a big conspiracy to shut you down. Come on rosy, try to be a little realistic here.
And as far as me having no clue, It's all relative. Maybe compared to these three guys, you may be right. But when it comes to rosy the waitress, I don't think so. I've already forgotten more then you will ever know.
You really need to take a good long look at yourself. Most of your team members not only left you, but are against you. In 10 years, you have done nothing to enhance your circuit to make it usable. When anyone asks you to do a simple test, you start name calling like a 10 year old. When someone tries to show you the errors of your "thesis", they are incompetent and don't know what they are talking about. There is no agenda or conspiracy against you. Everyone initially tried to help you. You got all defensive and started with the name calling. What did you expect their response to be?
I am really looking forward to your test using the capacitor. I have a feeling that it will never be done or we will never see the results. If you have any ethics at all, you will show the results. But even then, I'm sure you will think of some excuse why it doesn't work with a capacitor.
I guess you can tell that my name is MrMag and not Nag. I too get a little defense when idiots that don't know me or what my background is try to degrade me. I can think of a lot of fancy nicks for you too. But let's try to at least keep this part professional since you do brag a bit about being so refined.
Quote from: MrMag on June 30, 2011, 01:44:26 AM
You know that you will never get any academic to put their reputation on the line for any test you do. You know this and it is a moot point.
Well. Then DON'T impose on us to run your tests. There's no advantage to taking the trouble to convince you.
Quote from: MrMag on June 30, 2011, 01:44:26 AMBut we have seen your type before. There was a guy on here that went by the name of IST. He always thought that he discovered new things, but he too was wrong. He thought he was the know all do all and we were all idiots for not understanding him. You sort of remind me of him.
Well since I did not know him I simply can't comment. But what I do know is that NONE OF US HAVE CLAIMED THAT WE'VE DISCOVERED ANYTHING NEW. On the contrary. It would be nice if we had. Then our experiment would be WAY more acceptable. As it is we've DISCOVERED nothing. And I absolutely DO NOT claim to know everything. If ONLY. I'm a self-confessed amateur.
Quote from: MrMag on June 30, 2011, 01:44:26 AMThis is where you are definitely wrong. These professionals are really trying to help you. You are just too stubborn and thick headed to listen to them. Are you really that scared to actually learn from these guys. Poynt is another one. Do you realize how many hours he put into this just to try to explain to you what you are doing wrong. No. Since they don't agree with you, they must all be in a big conspiracy to shut you down. Come on rosy, try to be a little realistic here.
And as for this nonsense. If evolvingape and Cat and Poynt are PROFESSIONALS then they would NOT be hiding behind an assumed internet identity. And exactly HOW can Poynt or Cat or evolvingape teach me? We need answers to some questions which NONE OF THEM is able to answer. Yet they must teach me? They don't even understand the questions. Golly.
Quote from: MrMag on June 30, 2011, 01:44:26 AMAnd as far as me having no clue, It's all relative. Maybe compared to these three guys, you may be right. But when it comes to rosy the waitress, I don't think so. I've already forgotten more then you will ever know.
lol. Very possibly MaNag. And MOST CERTAINLY if you're talking waiting at tables. Here I seem to have forgotten absolutely EVERYTHING. I can't even remember doing this. But I'll tell you what. I would be proud to be that capable. I suspect that I'd be sacked for want of competence. Eyes not that good. Co-ordination not that good. Interactive skills - not that good. Interest - decidedly lacking. When I wasn't bumping into tables I'd be spilling the soup. And if I wasn't spilling soup I'd be dropping plates. I'd certainly be slopping the wine as pouring this into glasses would entirely defeat my eyesight. Not the best waitress either. You're quite right.
Quote from: MrMag on June 30, 2011, 01:44:26 AMYou really need to take a good long look at yourself. Most of your team members not only left you, but are against you.
I hope NOT. That would be a tragedy in the making.
Quote from: MrMag on June 30, 2011, 01:44:26 AMIn 10 years, you have done nothing to enhance your circuit to make it usable.
On the contrary. We can now boil water. That eluded us before.
Quote from: MrMag on June 30, 2011, 01:44:26 AMWhen anyone asks you to do a simple test, you start name calling like a 10 year old.
lol. What simple test and what names? Be specific.
Quote from: MrMag on June 30, 2011, 01:44:26 AMWhen someone tries to show you the errors of your "thesis", they are incompetent and don't know what they are talking about.
To the best of my knowledge no-one has EVER shown me the errors in my thesis. It is never mentioned. Unless I've overlooked something? But I doubt it. I'm reasonably satisfied that I'd have noticed.
Quote from: MrMag on June 30, 2011, 01:44:26 AMThere is no agenda or conspiracy against you.
What a comfort. I had the distinct impression that one replicator and one troll went out of their way to try and kill this technology. I must have been dreaming.
Quote from: MrMag on June 30, 2011, 01:44:26 AMEveryone initially tried to help you.
You've got this wrong. They did not so much try to 'help me' as help themselves.
Quote from: MrMag on June 30, 2011, 01:44:26 AMYou got all defensive and started with the name calling. What did you expect their response to be?
You need to brush up on that history. I believe the 'name calling' was THEIR particular specialty. Please cite some examples. I'd be interested.
Quote from: MrMag on June 30, 2011, 01:44:26 AMI am really looking forward to your test using the capacitor. I have a feeling that it will never be done or we will never see the results.
Then I think perhaps I should not post those results here because I'd be very sorry to disappoint your expectations.
Quote from: MrMag on June 30, 2011, 01:44:26 AMIf you have any ethics at all, you will show the results. But even then, I'm sure you will think of some excuse why it doesn't work with a capacitor.
Not sure of your point here. Why? Why should I think up some excuse? I just don't get it.
Quote from: MrMag on June 30, 2011, 01:44:26 AM
I guess you can tell that my name is MrMag and not Nag. I too get a little defense when idiots that don't know me or what my background is try to degrade me.
How unusual. Can't think why you should object to the opinion of idiots? I don't. I only care what clever people think.
Quote from: MrMag on June 30, 2011, 01:44:26 AMI can think of a lot of fancy nicks for you too. But let's try to at least keep this part professional since you do brag a bit about being so refined.
LOL. WHAT? WHAT REFINEMENT? And WHAT in Heaven's name is there to BRAG about in refinement. Quite frankly I think that - AT BEST - 'refinement' a tedious pretension. I hope to GOD I am NOT refined. I'd be very sorry if that's how I come across. Do you really think I could hang around and answer these disgusting posts if I was REFINED?
;D
Rosemary
You attack anyone who disagrees with you, you refuse to do any long-term tests that might prove your circuit works as you claim.
Your understanding of how you should conduct yourself on this forum is ridiculous, and you wonder why the scientific community won't recognise your work as valid.
attack, attack, attack,
Ignoring the issue won't make it go away, since you have attacked me and called me a liar in previous posts I now consider this my duty, so that no one new to this forum will be misled into believing that you have a circuit that produces OU.
You can't tell me of any member on this forum that has produced OU with your circuit, because nobody has,they all failed.
Do something different Here on This forum,and stop ignoring reasonable requests for tests. or stop claiming OU on This OverUnity Forum.
A big conspiracy, it would appear that anyone that says your circut doesn't workor or indicate's measuring error, is then part of that conspiracy.
Many members have made reasonable requests that you ignore including Stefan,Mr Mag amongst others,but you ignore them and carry on regurgitating your same old arguments.
Go on Rosie proof that 99 is wrong in his analysis and makes something that runs and runs and put it on the Internet after all,
(Quote from Rosemary)
"All one needs are the the measurements and some reasonable account of the apparatus that produces those measurements".
You will pick on small detail and not address the main point, and you will also repeat what you said before ( this is not your blog) please interact with the reasonable requests made by members here for you to do new tests.
The fact still remains that no one here can reproduce your claims of OU, and you are not willing to do anything to change that deadlock, apart from use this forum as your soapbox and blog.
On this forum you are expected to interact to prove your claim, if you are claiming OU,I think that is reasonable.
Mag, dude. What is your problem?
Rose owes you not 1 thing. You probably treat your mother this way also. I can imagine that.
You act like she took something from you and you are trying to get it back. Unreal
What have you done on this forum that is in any way productive? Nota thing. You just come here each day, and you put on the gloves and have at it. Its like your daily amusement.
Do you think everyone is cheering you on? It is you who have no credibility. It is you that has nothing. It is your daily plan to come here to beat up on this woman. It seems to be your profile.
Get a life dude.
Hi Rose. ;]
Mags
And that goes for the monkey and the worm ridden feline.
Mags
Quote from: Magluvin on June 30, 2011, 07:23:08 PM
Mag, dude. What is your problem?
Rose owes you not 1 thing. You probably treat your mother this way also. I can imagine that.
You act like she took something from you and you are trying to get it back. Unreal
What have you done on this forum that is in any way productive? Nota thing. You just come here each day, and you put on the gloves and have at it. Its like your daily amusement.
Do you think everyone is cheering you on? It is you who have no credibility. It is you that has nothing. It is your daily plan to come here to beat up on this woman. It seems to be your profile.
Get a life dude.
Hi Rose. ;]
Mags
MrMag has been very helpful to me on this forum in sharing his knowledge. He was especially helpful in my obtaining an O'scope from ebay a while back. I have been supportive of Rose as well. I calls them likes I sees them.
Bill
Quote from: Pirate88179 on June 30, 2011, 08:31:04 PM
MrMag has been very helpful to me on this forum in sharing his knowledge. He was especially helpful in my obtaining an O'scope from ebay a while back. I have been supportive of Rose as well. I calls them likes I sees them.
Bill
Hey Bill
Dont you think its enough already?
Its just every day again and again and again.
I find it abusive.
If they dont believe in Roses stuff, then why not move on?
But as Clint Eastwood once said, Nag nag nag.
What is the goal in the daily beat down? Thats all it is.
They dont want her to try and publish papers? is that what its all about? Let her do it. If it succeeds or fails there, is that not enough? Noooo, its the beatings will now begin, every day, non stop.
But maybe you enjoy it also. Just fun and games right?
On the other hand, why dont these guys build it and SHOW, not just tell? Too expensive to be worth it? What, dont have the connections to use a Lecroy? Dont have the time? Looks like they all have the time, thats for certain. Every day for how long now? lots of time.
They all think she is wrong and lieing? Well why even bother? Walk away. But they dont. Its lets get ready to rummble! Every day.
Oh well, maybe you and I should just join in. Join the club. Do you have a club? It might feel better.
Yet you defend them, and say you say you are supportive of Rose. Hmmm. ok right then. Ive said my piece.
Mags
they're bored mags... 'american gladiator' is no longer aired on the networks. ;)
Quote from: WilbyInebriated on June 30, 2011, 09:06:34 PM
they're bored mags... 'american gladiator' is no longer aired on the networks. ;)
Ahh, didnt know, never watched it. ;]
Actually, I had a sentence that said, Judgement day will come. But I knew it might draw your attn adversely. ;]
Anyways, They are all using someones sim replication against her. Heck, Stefan had told me once that he was not interested in any sims from me or anyone, only the real thing. And I understand and am ok with that.
But here, sim is law. sobeit.
Mags
I've dealt - ad nausea - with most of this 'repeat' post but this is a new one.
Quote from: powercat on June 30, 2011, 03:14:49 PM
Ignoring the issue won't make it go away, since you have attacked me and called me a liar in previous posts I now consider this my duty, so that no one new to this forum will be misled into believing that you have a circuit that produces OU.
Rich. Here's a synopsis of the argument. Cat - 'Rose's claims are false. Here are the video links that prove it. I will NOT reference anything that hints at a successful replication. I simply deny it. And I'll add insult to injury and advise you all that she is deliberately misleading you all.' Me... 'That's not true'. Cat...'What - are you calling me a liar? WELL THEN...'since you have attacked me and called me a liar...I now consider this my duty...' LOL.
Quote from: powercat on June 30, 2011, 03:14:49 PMYou can't tell me of any member on this forum that has produced OU with your circuit, because nobody has,they all failed.
Another HALF TRUTH. Indeed. No-one on this forum has produced OU with our circuit. TO THE BEST OF MY KNOWLEDGE NO-ONE ON THIS FORUM HAS TRIED TO REPLICATE OUR CIRCUIT.
Quote from: powercat on June 30, 2011, 03:14:49 PMDo something different Here on This forum,and stop ignoring reasonable requests for tests. or stop claiming OU on This OverUnity Forum.
I AM NOT CLAIMING AN OVER UNITY RESULT. What we're CLAIMING is INFINITE COP. And I have most CERTAINLY NOT refused to do any REASONABLE requests for tests.
Quote from: powercat on June 30, 2011, 03:14:49 PMA big conspiracy, it would appear that anyone that says your circut doesn't work or or indicate's measuring error, is then part of that conspiracy.
INDEED. Saying anything at all DOES NOT MAKE IT SO. What's required is replication or some substantial argument. OPINION has no part in science.
Quote from: powercat on June 30, 2011, 03:14:49 PMMany members have made reasonable requests that you ignore including Stefan,Mr Mag amongst others,but you ignore them and carry on regurgitating your same old arguments.
We have ASNWERED EVERY REASONABLE REQUEST MADE BY EVERY FORUM MEMBER.
Quote from: powercat on June 30, 2011, 03:14:49 PMGo on Rosie proof that 99 is wrong in his analysis and makes something that runs and runs and put it on the Internet after all,
BY ALL MEANS CAT. Just make that arduous exercise worth my while. Write to those academics you know. Find out which of them will go on record that the test you DEMAND will unequivocally constitute PROOF and then I will do those tests. Between you and NAG you should know enough experts - SURELY? I only need 4 more and I'll do that test.
Quote from: powercat on June 30, 2011, 03:14:49 PM"All one needs are the the measurements and some reasonable account of the apparatus that produces those measurements".
QUITE.
Quote from: powercat on June 30, 2011, 03:14:49 PMYou will pick on small detail and not address the main point, and you will also repeat what you said before ( this is not your blog) please interact with the reasonable requests made by members here for you to do new tests.
IT IS ALREADY NEW TESTS. And BY ALL MEANS I'LL DO THOSE TESTS. But I will NOT do them to satisfy your idle curiosity.
Quote from: powercat on June 30, 2011, 03:14:49 PMThe fact still remains that no one here can reproduce your claims of OU,...
Also confusing and AT BEST only HALF TRUE. On the old circuit some have replicated - and some haven't. ON THE NEW CIRCUIT NO-ONE HAS TRIED.
Quote from: powercat on June 30, 2011, 03:14:49 PMand you are not willing to do anything to change that deadlock, apart from use this forum as your soapbox and blog.
ALSO NOT TRUE. I AM VERY HAPPY TO BREAK THE DEADLOCK AND DO THOSE TESTS. AGAIN. Make it worth our while. Either PAY for those tests - OR, WHICH IS A FAR CHEAPER OPTION, just write to some academics and ASK THEM TO TESTIFY THAT THAT WOULD CONSTITUTE UNEQUIVOCAL PROOF.
Quote from: powercat on June 30, 2011, 03:14:49 PMOn this forum you are expected to interact to prove your claim, if you are claiming OU,I think that is reasonable.
So do I. So?
Rosemary
Quote from: Pirate88179 on June 30, 2011, 08:31:04 PM
MrMag has been very helpful to me on this forum in sharing his knowledge. He was especially helpful in my obtaining an O'scope from ebay a while back. I have been supportive of Rose as well. I calls them likes I sees them.
Bill
It seems that you do Bill. But I now have a real problem with the way you're seeing this.
Rosemary
Dear Magsy,
You have got to be the most generous spirited, bravest, kindest man on this forum. Your posts are a delight. They are entirely void of conceit. If I had to nominate an exemplary contributor Magsy - it's you. And if we had more people like you then this forum would be an ABSOLUTE pleasure. I am reasonably satisfied that I don't deserve this intervention of yours. But it is, nonetheless, gratefully accepted.
Magsy - there is a very real advantage to the caliber of posts that Cat and MaNag make. It polarises opinion. And that's so much better than hunkering down with like minds. Not that supportive threads aren't a pleasure. Of course they are. And where there's support one can also progress to new insights and new knowledge. But meanwhile there are members and readers here who SIMPLY DO NOT BELIEVE. When they see that they share that opinion with the likes of Cat and MaNag - then they're not quite as cozy with that association. And I have NO reputation to win or lose. I ONLY have a mission to advance OU. The plus side to their posts is that they're SO unreasonable, SO rude, SO self-serving - SO ridiculous - that the thinking members who read here SEE THIS. That, surprisingly, swings opinion favour of OU. And I'm ABSOLUTELY NOT out to win a popularity contest. LOL. It's like waitressing. I'd be hopelessly under qualified. And that there is no evident support - is not a problem. I am a lot of things. But I am NOT afraid to fight my corner. And while I may well be a lot of things I'm certainly NOT a coward.
But thank you Magsy. Very much indeed. It's nice to know that there are still some real MEN on this forum. A lot of the problem is that most guys have NO respect for a female in the science world. That's why so few post here. Me? I'm happy to rub their noses in their own nonsense.
Rosie
No Problem Rose. =]
I realize that the critic side can be of value. But most of it is not cordial in the least.
I tell ya Rose, the big difference between you and them is you have it on the table, with vids and lots of data. They have scratch, sim data and a lot of bullying. Case closed.
I had a next door neighbor that was beating up his girl one night. It was bad. I busted that door and got the guy in a choke hold(he was on top of her at the time, and dragged him out of the house. It may have been too late for police. I didnt hurt him, but I believe I saved her. ;]
There is a right way and wrong ways to go about this all.
And there is much unnecessary wrong here. yep
Night Rose ;]
Mags
Golly. There's definitely something about the 'knight in shining armour' with you Mags. That's an amazing rescue. But there's also that analogy between your interventions there and here. LOL. But these confrontations are an abuse of justice - intellect - emotion - popular opinion .. and on and on. As you say. Abuse is abuse.
Count me among your many fans. It's also a very real pleasure to read that you're widely appreciated.
Good night Magsy. And sweet dreams.
Rosie
And guys, the reason that Harti REFUSES to monitor this thread appropriately is simply because he's hoping that I'll just give up and die. I will give up. But ONLY when I die. Or when he bans me. But IF he bans me then it will be obvious that he's NOT advancing OU. And then he'll need to change the name of this forum - at least.
It is an ASTONISHING TRUTH that the facts of INFINITE COP and the data for it's proof - and the witnesses for accuracy of that data are all available. EVERYTHING GIVEN AS IT SHOULD BE. Poynty has tried to present some fictions related to a simulated replication but has over looked the MOST OBVIOUS PROOF OF ALL. The battery voltage swings in perfect synchronicity with a current charge and recharge. THIS SHOULD NOT BE POSSIBLE. There is NOTHING in the circuit that can permit this FREE FLOW OF CURRENT IN EITHER DIRECTION. That's it. And when he can explain that then INDEED start quibbling about those measurements. Because then he'll - at least - be making some appropriate comments.
Golly.
Rosemary
ADDED
Just for good measure - here's that PROOF.
Quote from: Magluvin on June 30, 2011, 07:23:08 PM
Mag, dude. What is your problem?
Rose owes you not 1 thing. You probably treat your mother this way also. I can imagine that.
You act like she took something from you and you are trying to get it back. Unreal
What have you done on this forum that is in any way productive? Nota thing. You just come here each day, and you put on the gloves and have at it. Its like your daily amusement.
Do you think everyone is cheering you on? It is you who have no credibility. It is you that has nothing. It is your daily plan to come here to beat up on this woman. It seems to be your profile.
Get a life dude.
Hi Rose. ;]
Mags
Hey Mags,
Why don't you start back at my first post on this thread. I simply asked for her to do a simple test. She then attacks me with with stupid remarks. When I agreed with Poynt then all her crap started. She will not listen to anyone she just likes to put people down. It's like some kind of complex. Just tell her that you don't think that her circuit is OU and stand back. She is an ignorant old lady and anybody with any academic background at all will just laugh at her.
Don't you think that if she wants to come across as a credible person that maybe she should be a little more professional with her answers. She started with the name calling. She admits that she is an amateur yet when someone as capable as Poynt and some of the others here try to explain something to her she just calls them names. She doesn't know dick. She wouldn't know it if it slapped her on the face.
Quote from: Pirate88179 on June 30, 2011, 08:31:04 PM
MrMag has been very helpful to me on this forum in sharing his knowledge. He was especially helpful in my obtaining an O'scope from ebay a while back. I have been supportive of Rose as well. I calls them likes I sees them.
Bill
Thanx Bill, I appreciate it. I usually don't go down to the same level that some of these ignorant testers do. But this old hag just keeps making rude remarks. She is a lost cause, she will never accept the truth so I guess I should just leave her alone.
Quote from: Rosemary Ainslie on July 01, 2011, 12:20:11 AM
Dear Magsy,
You have got to be the most generous spirited, bravest, kindest man on this forum. Your posts are a delight. They are entirely void of conceit. If I had to nominate an exemplary contributor Magsy - it's you. And if we had more people like you then this forum would be an ABSOLUTE pleasure. I am reasonably satisfied that I don't deserve this intervention of yours. But it is, nonetheless, gratefully accepted.
Magsy - there is a very real advantage to the caliber of posts that Cat and MaNag make. It polarises opinion. And that's so much better than hunkering down with like minds. Not that supportive threads aren't a pleasure. Of course they are. And where there's support one can also progress to new insights and new knowledge. But meanwhile there are members and readers here who SIMPLY DO NOT BELIEVE. When they see that they share that opinion with the likes of Cat and MaNag - then they're not quite as cozy with that association. And I have NO reputation to win or lose. I ONLY have a mission to advance OU. The plus side to their posts is that they're SO unreasonable, SO rude, SO self-serving - SO ridiculous - that the thinking members who read here SEE THIS. That, surprisingly, swings opinion favour of OU. And I'm ABSOLUTELY NOT out to win a popularity contest. LOL. It's like waitressing. I'd be hopelessly under qualified. And that there is no evident support - is not a problem. I am a lot of things. But I am NOT afraid to fight my corner. And while I may well be a lot of things I'm certainly NOT a coward.
But thank you Magsy. Very much indeed. It's nice to know that there are still some real MEN on this forum. A lot of the problem is that most guys have NO respect for a female in the science world. That's why so few post here. Me? I'm happy to rub their noses in their own nonsense.
Rosie
Thank-you rose, I accept your apology.
Quote from: Magluvin on June 30, 2011, 07:23:08 PM
Mag, dude. What is your problem?
Rose owes you not 1 thing. You probably treat your mother this way also. I can imagine that.
Did I say that she owes me anything? Treat my Mother this way, yeah right. My Mother is open minded and not delusional.
Quote from: Magluvin on June 30, 2011, 07:23:08 PM
You act like she took something from you and you are trying to get it back. Unreal
I just asked her to do a simple test. I don't know what you mean by she took something from me.
Quote from: Magluvin on June 30, 2011, 07:23:08 PM
What have you done on this forum that is in any way productive? Nota thing. You just come here each day, and you put on the gloves and have at it. Its like your daily amusement.
Well, first off, I asked her to do a simple test to prove her circuit. She is the one who is unproductive. Ask her what she has done in the last 10 years to improve her circuit so that it could be used. Yes, you are right. It is very amusing. She thinks she knows more then a lot of people here that have tried to set her straight.
Quote from: Magluvin on June 30, 2011, 07:23:08 PM
Do you think everyone is cheering you on? It is you who have no credibility. It is you that has nothing. It is your daily plan to come here to beat up on this woman. It seems to be your profile.
Get a life dude.
Golly, I hope nobody is cheering me on. I have no credibility when it comes to what? I never claimed to have anything. She is the one who is making the claims that has nothing. No, I come here to see if she has finally come to her senses.
Get a clue dude.
You argue my case very well MaNag. I've known parrots with a wider repertoire. And your identity confusions are now getting catastrophic. Magsy is Magluvin's nick name. He's the best example of our forum members. I don't think any of us would mind you trying to borrow his identity. But then try and act like him. That would help us all.
And MaNag - I'm OLD. I'm not UGLY. I am not a HAG. Not yet anyway. I'm still well able to turn the occasional head. LOL.
Rosemary
ADDED
Btw I took the trouble to revisit that first post of yours. If that's an example of fair minded reasonableness - then clearly we are reading different posts.
R
Quote from: Rosemary Ainslie on July 01, 2011, 03:18:33 AM
You argue my case very well MaNag. I've known parrots with a wider repertoire. And your identity confusions are now getting catastrophic. Magsy is Magluvin's nick name. He's the best example of our forum members. I don't think any of us would mind you trying to borrow his identity. But then try and act like him. That would help us all.
And MaNag - I'm OLD. I'm not UGLY. I am not a HAG. Not yet anyway. I'm still well able to turn the occasional head. LOL.
Rosemary
Golly rosy,
You call me so many different things that I was sure that you were talking to me. But that's ok, I'll take it as an apology from you anyways.
Quote from: MrMag on July 01, 2011, 03:25:08 AM
Golly rosy,
You call me so many different things that I was sure that you were talking to me. But that's ok, I'll take it as an apology from you anyways.
You're welcome Nag. The more so if it'll encourage you to simply go away.
Rosie
Quote from: Rosemary Ainslie on June 30, 2011, 11:52:07 PM
Another HALF TRUTH. Indeed. No-one on this forum has produced OU with our circuit. TO THE BEST OF MY KNOWLEDGE NO-ONE ON THIS FORUM HAS TRIED TO REPLICATE OUR CIRCUIT.
I AM NOT CLAIMING AN OVER UNITY RESULT. What we're CLAIMING is INFINITE COP.
Rosemary
Here are few videos for members on the forum, they are other members that didn't make videos who also failed in their attempts to match your claim of OU
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XrwgEb5ac_w
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZM8BBa7_Zpc
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4x0wQJrc9To
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-GBS3sKcB8g
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=trip8gjoxMQ
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HpaP__5Kd38
If you don't want to call it OU that's fine we will call it excess energy, hopefully that will stop another pointless argument argument, however you want to dress it up and twist everything the fact remains that despite many people trying to reproduce your circuit none of them can match your results, and you do nothing to help them, and if they question why it is not working you generally attacked them, you keep coming up with arguments that have already been covered in previous posts, there is not one person on this forum who believes your circuit will produce any excess energy, and that is why your supporters can't make the circuit.
you have a good political way of getting your message across, but when most people look at the reality of the history of your circuit on this forum and you're refusal to do any new test.
it is clear to most of them that you are just using this forum for grandstanding and publicity.
Quote from: Pirate88179 on June 30, 2011, 08:31:04 PM
MrMag has been very helpful to me on this forum in sharing his knowledge. He was especially helpful in my obtaining an O'scope from ebay a while back. I have been supportive of Rose as well. I calls them likes I sees them.
Bill
Hi Bill
The main problem here is that Rosie keeps insisting that her circuit produces excess energy, many members on this forum replicated that circuit failed to get any excess energy, if they complain about the circuit not working properly Rosie generally attacks them.
If you are going to claim excess energy on this forum you are expected to interact with reasonable requests for new tests, I think that it's only reasonable when making such claims.
there are plenty of people out there claiming they have got a free energy circuit if we invited them all on here, and told them that they didn't have to interact with anyone who made requests for them to prove their case, this forum would lose all credibility.
Yes Rosie's work is very interesting and can be considered good research material,are but her attitude to members here that make reasonable requests or suggest that her circuit might not work,is appalling.
Quote from: powercat on July 01, 2011, 03:32:56 AM
... however you want to dress it up and twist everything the fact remains that despite many people trying to reproduce your circuit none of them can match your results,
WHO EXACTLY? Where do you find anyone trying to reproduce our circuit? THERE IS NO-ONE. There has been NO-ONE. For NO-ONE read NONE. Zilch. Nada. NOTHING. SO? Who exactly are you saying has TRIED TO MATCH OUR RESULTS?
Quote from: powercat on July 01, 2011, 03:32:56 AMand you do nothing to help them,
WHO? WHO HAVE I REFUSED TO HELP? WHERE ARE THEY? WHO ARE YOU REFERRING TO? BE SPECIFIC. There has been NO-ONE. For NO-ONE read NONE. Zilch. Nada. NOTHING. SO. Who exactly are you saying that I refused to help?
Quote from: powercat on July 01, 2011, 03:32:56 AMand if they question why it is not working you generally attacked them,
WHO HAS QUESTIONED why it is not working? BE SPECIFIC. There has been NO-ONE. For NO-ONE read NONE. Zilch. Nada. NOTHING. Who exactly are you saying is questioning why this circuit is not working?
Quote from: powercat on July 01, 2011, 03:32:56 AMyou keep coming up with arguments that have already been covered in previous posts...
Because you keep coming up with the same counter argument.
Quote from: powercat on July 01, 2011, 03:32:56 AMthere is not one person on this forum who believes your circuit will produce any excess energy,
THIS IS ALSO NOT TRUE. There are two members of this forum who are collaborators on that paper. They NOT ONLY believe the circuit results but are RESPONSIBLE FOR PRODUCING THEM.
Quote from: powercat on July 01, 2011, 03:32:56 AMand that is why your supporters can't make the circuit.
WHAT supporters can't make this circuit? Would there not first be the requirement to TRY? To the best of my knowledge there have been no attempts. NONE. Zilch. Nada. NOTHING. SO. Who exactly are you saying can't make this circuit? Again. BE SPECIFIC.
Quote from: powercat on July 01, 2011, 03:32:56 AMyou have a good political way of getting your message across, but when most people look at the reality of the history of your circuit on this forum and you're refusal to do any new test.
it is clear to most of them that you are just using this forum for grandstanding and publicity.
Well. If I have a good political way of getting my message across it seems to be ELUDING you. Therefore exactly how good can it be? THE REALITY OF THE HISTORY OF MY CIRCUIT ON THIS FORUM IS THAT IT WORKS. I have NEVER refused to do any new test. AND IF THIS IS GRANDSTANDING - then God help us all. I would have said it's an effort to keep the EXPERIMENTAL EVIDENCE ALIVE AND WELL IN THE FACE OF AN UNDESERVED AND UNQUALIFIED ATTACK. And I'm reasonably certain that IF this generates any kind of publicity then it is ENTIRELY the wrong kind.
Rosemary
I ENTIRELY MISSED THIS PIECE OF NONSENSE.
Quote from: powercat on July 01, 2011, 04:12:26 AM
Hi Bill
The main problem here is that Rosie keeps insisting that her circuit produces excess energy, many members on this forum replicated that circuit failed to get any excess energy, if they complain about the circuit not working properly Rosie generally attacks them.
If you are going to claim excess energy on this forum you are expected to interact with reasonable requests for new tests, I think that it's only reasonable when making such claims.
there are plenty of people out there claiming they have got a free energy circuit if we invited them all on here, and told them that they didn't have to interact with anyone who made requests for them to prove their case, this forum would lose all credibility.
Yes Rosie's work is very interesting and can be considered good research material,are but her attitude to members here that make reasonable requests or suggest that her circuit might not work,is appalling
I think you know Luke's work (gotoluc) very well like by most of us, he is such a polite person he generally does not look to argue with anybody, and yes he failed to make Rosie's circuit produce any excess energy
LUKE HAS NOT TRIED TO REPLICATE THIS CIRCUIT. NO FORUM MEMBER THAT I KNOW OF HAS TRIED TO REPLICATE THIS CIRCUIT OTHER THAN THE TWO WHO ARE ALSO MEMBERS OF OUR TEAM. NOTA BENE CAT. THEY NEITHER OF THEM POST HERE. CAN YOU GUESS WHY? SO. AGAIN. WHEN EXACTLY DID LUKE TRY AND TEST THIS CIRCUIT? CAN YOU EVEN GET HALF WAY TO THE TRUTH? JUST NOW AND AGAIN?
Rosemary
Quote from: Rosemary Ainslie on July 01, 2011, 05:16:25 AM
I ENTIRELY MISSED THIS PIECE OF NONSENSE.
LUKE HAS NOT TRIED TO REPLICATE THIS CIRCUIT. NO FORUM MEMBER THAT I KNOW OF HAS TRIED TO REPLICATE THIS CIRCUIT OTHER THAN THE TWO WHO ARE ALSO MEMBERS OF OUR TEAM. NOTA BENE CAT. THEY NEITHER OF THEM POST HERE. CAN YOU GUESS WHY? SO. AGAIN. WHEN EXACTLY DID LUKE TRY AND TEST THIS CIRCUIT? CAN YOU EVEN GET HALF WAY TO THE TRUTH? JUST NOW AND AGAIN?
Rosemary
CAN YOU EVEN GET HALF WAY TO THE TRUTH? JUST NOW AND AGAIN?
This is the first time I have mentioned Luke and like all the other times, you have suggested I might be wrong, I go back and check, and you are correct Luke has not reproduced your circuit, his name came up in a YouTube search of all the people that have experimented with your circuit, that is where I made my mistake,
so I apologise in if I have misled anybody it was a genuine mistake, and I withdraw the statement.
I do not lie about people like Rosie would have you all believe, I do occasionally make mistakes and when I do,I make all efforts to put things right as soon as possible.
Quote from: Rosemary Ainslie on June 25, 2011, 03:27:38 AM
And yet again you fail to read the evidence. Here's that link again. If this does NOT constitute a replication then BY RIGHTS it needs must be withdrawn. As of NOW it is NOT withdrawn. This is published by Fuzzy on his own Scribd file. EXPLAIN THAT if you can. To the best of my knowledge Fuzzy is a forum member.
http://www.scribd.com/doc/23455916/Open-Source-Evaluation-of-Power-Transients-Generated-.
Quote from: powercat on July 01, 2011, 09:44:45 AM
CAN YOU EVEN GET HALF WAY TO THE TRUTH? JUST NOW AND AGAIN?
This is the first time I have mentioned Luke and like all the other times, you have suggested I might be wrong, I go back and check, and you are correct Luke has not reproduced your circuit, his name came up in a YouTube search of all the people that have experimented with your circuit, that is where I made my mistake, so I apologise in if I have misled anybody it was a genuine mistake, and I withdraw the statement.
I do not lie about people like Rosie would have you all believe, I do occasionally make mistakes and when I do,I make all efforts to put things right as soon as possible.
YOU ARE STILL WRONG. I DO NOT KNOW IF IT'S A GENUINE MISTAKE OR BECAUSE YOU NEVER READ MY POSTS. AGAIN. NO-ONE HAS REPLICATED THIS CIRCUIT. FUZZY TOM CAT DID NOT REPLICATE THIS CIRCUIT. NO-ONE HAS REPLICATED THIS CIRCUIT. CERTAINLY NOT ANYONE WHO HAS POSTED ON THIS FORUM. HOW MANY MORE WAYS MUST I SAY THIS. YOU ARE LYING EVERY SINGLE TIME YOU SAY THAT SOMEONE HAS REPLICATED THIS CIRCUIT. JUST AS YOU LIE EVERY TIME YOU SAY I REFUSE TO DO THOSE TESTS THAT YOU DEMAND. JUST LIKE YOU LIE EVERY TIME YOU SAY THAT I DO NOT HELP PEOPLE WHO TRY TO REPLICATE THIS CIRCUIT. EVERY SINGLE PRESENTATION THAT YOU MAKE IS A LIE. SO. DON'T SAY YOU DON'T LIE. THAT'S ALL YOU DO.
THERE HAVE ONLY BEEN REPLICATIONS OF OUR PREVIOUS CIRCUIT.
GOD. WHAT IS WRONG WITH YOU?Rosemary
Quote from: Rosemary Ainslie on July 01, 2011, 10:38:38 AM
THERE HAVE BEEN REPLICATIONS OF OUR PREVIOUS CIRCUIT.
Rosemary
:o :o :o :o :o :o Now we're getting somewhere, and they all failed to achieve your results of excess energy.
Are you finally admitting that your PREVIOUS CIRCUIT didn't work as you claim, you had no excess energy at all.
? ? ? ?
Quote from: powercat on July 01, 2011, 10:44:43 AM
:o :o :o :o :o :o Now we're getting somewhere, and they all failed to achieve your results of excess energy
WRONG AGAIN. THERE HAVE BEEN MANY REPLICATIONS. THE MOST SIGNIFICANT IS THE ONE THAT FUZZY TOM CAT MANAGED. BUT HE CLAIMED that it was ACTUALLY HIS DISCOVERY :o NOT A REPLICATION AT ALL.
None of us EVEN CONSIDER THAT ANY VARIATION OF THIS CIRCUIT CONSTITUTES A DISCOVERY. THEN WHEN HIS PUBLIC LOST ALL THEIR CREDIBILITY HE THEN TRIED SOMETHING NEW. HE THEN RAN A WHOLE LOT OF TESTS THAT WERE DESIGNED TO FAIL. THEN HE WITHDREW THE RESULTS THAT SHOWED THAT IT WORKED. BUT. HE HAS STILL LEFT OUR PAPER SHOWING A FULL REPLICATION ON HIS SCRIBD FILE. SO. WE NONE OF US KNOW WHAT THE HELL HE IS CLAIMING. NOR DO I CARE. THAT CIRCUIT IS NOW SO OLD HAT THAT IT'S ALREADY OBSOLETE. THIS NEW CIRCUIT IS WAY, WAY MORE EFFECTIVE.
Rosemary
Quote from: powercat on July 01, 2011, 10:44:43 AM
Are you finally admitting that your PREVIOUS CIRCUIT didn't work as you claim, you had no excess energy at all.
? ? ? ?
And as for this little editorial nightmare. Are you entirely bereft of good sense or is it just that you lack any kind of MORALITY. WHERE - have I EVER said that the PREVIOUS CIRCUIT DID NOT WORK AS WE CLAIMED? WHERE have I even HINTED at this. IS THIS ANOTHER ONE OF YOUR ELABORATE FABRICATIONS? HOW STRANGE. :o Especially coming from someone who claims he does not LIE. Where's that ability of yours to PUT THE RECORD STRAIGHT. HAS IT FAILED YOU CAT? I'd say so. In fact I'd say it's a CATASTROPHIC FAILURE.
Rosemary
Well? We're all waiting CAT. ADVISE US PLEASE. LET'S GET SOME ACTUAL TRUTHS OUT IN THIS TJHREAD - JUST FOR ONCE. LET'S SEE IF YOU'RE ACTUALLY EQUAL TO THE RETRACTION THAT YOU CLAIM COMES TO YOU SO EASILY - BECAUSE YOU'RE SUCH AN UPRIGHT FELLOW.
You have been indulging in certain rather elaborate CLAIMS. We're all waiting to see you SUBSTANTIATE THOSE CLAIMS. I hope you realise that it actually matters. Otherwise our members may be left with the ERRONEOUS impression that our claims are FALSE. AND THAT WOULD BE SAD. Especially since of all things - there is NOTHING more challenging that promoting THIS NEW SCIENCE. IT NEEDS NURTURING. IT CAN DO WITHOUT THIS ASSASSINATION THAT YOU'VE BEEN ORCHESTRATING.
Rosemary
Quote from: MrMag on July 01, 2011, 03:12:53 AM
Did I say that she owes me anything? Treat my Mother this way, yeah right. My Mother is open minded and not delusional.
I just asked her to do a simple test. I don't know what you mean by she took something from me.
Well, first off, I asked her to do a simple test to prove her circuit. She is the one who is unproductive. Ask her what she has done in the last 10 years to improve her circuit so that it could be used. Yes, you are right. It is very amusing. She thinks she knows more then a lot of people here that have tried to set her straight.
Golly, I hope nobody is cheering me on. I have no credibility when it comes to what? I never claimed to have anything. She is the one who is making the claims that has nothing. No, I come here to see if she has finally come to her senses.
Get a clue dude.
Oooo get a clue. I got one. You need to get a few transistors and a FEW other parts and a heater and test it yourself.. What? No time for that, due to all this ranting? Yeah I got it.
Yeah I have a clue. Hope you guys are getting paid well for all this. Thats what its really all about. Theres your clue.
As for me, I work on this stuff. I have over 80 vids on YT and that no. would increase exponentially if I had recorded every thing.
Im not really going to waste any more time on your lazyness and crying cuz momma wont give you the candy. Lazy. Build it if not. What? Its a waste of YOUR time?
Yeh, right. Oh I almost forgot, your probably not going to get paid to build it.
So go have some Whaa burgers and some Frenchcries, and you can wash it down with a Whinekin. :-*
Hey Rose. ;]
Just ignore them. They will go away. You have more important things to do. ;]
Mags
Hi Magsy. You're right. I need to get back to that paper. But it's a difficult one. Truth is I'm rather too glad to get distracted. But. NO MORE. BACK TO THE GRINDSTONE.
I think we've sort of called CAT's bluff. I don't think MaNag's paid to distract. It's a natural talent. Cat's another story. Just not sure there.
Cat said 'Enough is enough
I've decided to get really tough
On a dame with a name
For an outrageous claim'.
But the tough was all blunder and bluff.
LOL.
Rosie
Quote from: Magluvin on July 01, 2011, 12:32:54 PM
Oooo get a clue. I got one. You need to get a few transistors and a FEW other parts and a heater and test it yourself.. What? No time for that, due to all this ranting? Yeah I got it.
Yeah I have a clue. Hope you guys are getting paid well for all this. Thats what its really all about. Theres your clue.
As for me, I work on this stuff. I have over 80 vids on YT and that no. would increase exponentially if I had recorded every thing.
You mean MOSFET's? I don't have the expensive scope and probes required to see this alleged gigantic COP>infinity and OU. I wish I got paid to bring frauds out into the public. Really, 80 vids. So does IST, and this means what? You just don't understand. I've been playing with electronics for many years. What you may think is a interesting result that should be posted on youtube, I don't think it's that big of a deal. Most people that do not have a background or experience in electronics get pretty excited over menial things.
Quote from: Magluvin on July 01, 2011, 12:32:54 PM
Im not really going to waste any more time on your lazyness and crying cuz momma wont give you the candy. Lazy. Build it if not. What? Its a waste of YOUR time?
Yeh, right. Oh I almost forgot, your probably not going to get paid to build it.
So go have some Whaa burgers and some Frenchcries, and you can wash it down with a Whinekin. :-*
Hey Rose. ;]
Just ignore them. They will go away. You have more important things to do. ;]
Mags
Good bye Magluvin, rose has already apologized to me so no need for me to continue here. Anyone with any intelligence at all can see the truth and I'll leave it at that.
You really are a politician you twist everything that is said, you do anything to distract from the main point, you have more spin than a washing machine,
Can you tell me which person here has reproduced your circuit and achieved excess energy please show me their post for which ever circuit this one or the previous one, that has been shown on this forum to produce excess energy,
Quote from: Rosemary Ainslie on July 01, 2011, 10:53:19 AM
WRONG AGAIN. THERE HAVE BEEN MANY REPLICATIONS. THE MOST SIGNIFICANT IS THE ONE THAT FUZZY TOM CAT MANAGED. BUT HE CLAIMED that it was ACTUALLY HIS DISCOVERY :o NOT A REPLICATION AT ALL.
None of us EVEN CONSIDER THAT ANY VARIATION OF THIS CIRCUIT CONSTITUTES A DISCOVERY. THEN WHEN HIS PUBLIC LOST ALL THEIR CREDIBILITY HE THEN TRIED SOMETHING NEW. HE THEN RAN A WHOLE LOT OF TESTS THAT WERE DESIGNED TO FAIL. THEN HE WITHDREW THE RESULTS THAT SHOWED THAT IT WORKED. BUT. HE HAS STILL LEFT OUR PAPER SHOWING A FULL REPLICATION ON HIS SCRIBD FILE. SO. WE NONE OF US KNOW WHAT THE HELL HE IS CLAIMING. NOR DO I CARE. THAT CIRCUIT IS NOW SO OLD HAT THAT IT'S ALREADY OBSOLETE. THIS NEW CIRCUIT IS WAY, WAY MORE EFFECTIVE.
Rosemary
Rosemary your a lying sack of dog do do .....
1) If I actually did a scientific replication of your DEVICE I demand you show proof of your bogus claim of your device including any and all device photos , images and data files of the replication, as you stated in many postings on many forums that you have all this in your possession and refuse to show to anyone in the open source community.
2) I have never claimed your piece of junk as a discovery of mine ..... as I stated in many posts in many forums "SHOW PROOF" of a link in a posting or anything where I claimed this .... you cheep excuse for a liar
3) So I did testing to throw the results off .... you better have proof of this you ..... I'm sick of your lies and so is everyone else.
4) The scribid file is a optional electronic preprint that was released prior to the submitting of the paper to IEEE and is "NOT THE SAME CONTENT, TEXT OR FORMAT AS THE FIVE TIME REJECTED SUBMITTAL"May I remind everyone ( ROSEMARY ) again ...... and again .... what is a replication !!!!!!!
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Replication_%28scientific_method%29Reproducibility is the ability of a experiment or study to be accurately reproduced, or replicated, by someone else working independently. It is one of the main principles of the scientific method.
The results of an experiment performed by a particular researcher or group of researchers are generally evaluated by other independent researchers who repeat the same experiment themselves, based on the original experimental description (see independent review). Then they see if their experiment gives similar results to those reported by the original group.http://rosemaryainslie-publicblog.blogspot.com/
Quote from: MrMag on July 01, 2011, 01:23:30 PM
You mean MOSFET's? I don't have the expensive scope and probes required to see this alleged gigantic COP>infinity and OU. I wish I got paid to bring frauds out into the public. Really, 80 vids. So does IST, and this means what? You just don't understand. I've been playing with electronics for many years. What you may think is a interesting result that should be posted on youtube, I don't think it's that big of a deal. Most people that do not have a background or experience in electronics get pretty excited over menial things.
Good bye Magluvin, rose has already apologized to me so no need for me to continue here. Anyone with any intelligence at all can see the truth and I'll leave it at that.
An expensive scope? I thought all you needed to see was the batteries charging while the circuit was running.
Is that not what you have been asking of Rose?
Rose apologized to you? Where, here in her last post before my last post???
"I don't think MaNag's paid to distract. It's a natural talent. Cat's another story. Just not sure there."
Well, ok. I suppose ill have to accept that from you.
One down Rose. ;] Think you can handle the pussy's and the "not quite human yet" guy? ;]
Mags
Quote from: Magluvin on July 01, 2011, 04:35:47 PM
An expensive scope? I thought all you needed to see was the batteries charging while the circuit was running.
Is that not what you have been asking of Rose?
If you are going to comment, maybe you should go back a bit and see exactly what I asked her and what she said it
would take to do. To just drop by and start making presumptions, shows your understanding of my request.
Quote from: Magluvin on July 01, 2011, 04:35:47 PM
Rose apologized to you? Where, here in her last post before my last post???
Who said it was in the last post. So again you make comments when you haven't read previous posts. Either you
are too lazy or too incompetent to go back and read the thread
Quote from: Magluvin on July 01, 2011, 04:35:47 PM
One down Rose. ;] Think you can handle the 's and the "not quite human yet" guy? ;]
Golly rose, you have some solid followers don't you. I was going to stop posting here but this idiot drops by
and tries to start something again.
Hi guys,
Can I impose on someone here to ask Glen a simple question? Here it is. Did he replicate that
circuit widely, and possibly incorrectly, referenced as 'the Ainslie Circuit'? It's a question that can
be answered very simply but confined to two options - 'yes' or 'no'.
IF ANSWER IS NO - then - the next question is this. Why is he clinging on for dear life to a
publication in his SCRIBD FILE that claims that he HAS replicated the Ainslie circuit? The
PRIMARY AUTHOR OF THAT PAPER is Rosemary Ainslie. His own name is down there as an
experimentalist. The preamble, introduction and discussions related to that paper unequivocally
state that it is a REPLICATION. Therefore when he says NO he is lying.
IF THE ANSWER IS YES - then I rest my case.
It's that simple.
Regards,
Rosemary
Modified to FIT THE PAGE. Glen is trying YET AGAIN to render this thread unreadable.
Magsy Hi.
MaNag - as we all know - has a PROBLEM. 'Problem' is here used as a euphemism for what is
politely referred to as being 'intellectually challenged'. I don't want to come straight out with it
and use the word 'stupid' because that may be construed as being insensitive and unnecessarily
hurtful. So. Back to the point. His 'problem' leaves him in a general state of mental confusion.
He 'misread' your 'nickname' - Magsy - as being roughly approximate to 'Mag' which, as we also
all know is just a single consonant away from his own name 'Nag'.
So when I wrote to you to thank you and when I then also listed your general excellence he chose
to consider that I was flattering him. I rather encouraged him to try and emulate you and
suggested he 'think what he liked'. And. Being subject to those many 'confusions' as a result of
his 'problem' he then decided I must have forgiven him. I was anxious to let it go - ON
CONDITION THAT HE STOPPED POSTING HERE. But there it is. His 'problems' also leave him
with a short attention span. He's already forgotten his undertakings.
Which may or may not explain anything at all. Golly. This thread really needs some fresh air.
;D
Rosie.
Quote from: powercat on July 01, 2011, 01:32:48 PM
You really are a politician you twist everything that is said, you do anything to distract from the
main point, you have more spin than a washing machine,
The SPIN cycle that you reference is ENTIRELY YOUR OWN. It's a freewheeling oscillation that
competes with the our own circuit efficiencies.
Quote from: powercat on July 01, 2011, 01:32:48 PM
Can you tell me which person here has reproduced your circuit and achieved excess energy please
show me their post for which ever circuit this one or the previous one, that has been shown on this
forum to produce excess energy,
I propose you ask this question of Glen. I also want a straight answer. AS DO WE ALLR
Here AGAIN is the question you need to ask. Then it'll answer your own question and OURS.
Hi guys,
Can I impose on someone here to ask Glen a simple question? Here it is. Did he replicate that
circuit widely, and possibly incorrectly, referenced as 'the Ainslie Circuit'? It's a question that can
be answered very simply but confined to two options - 'yes' or 'no'.
IF THE ANSWER IS NO - then - the next question is this. Why is he clinging on for dear life to a
publication in his SCRIBD FILE that claims that he HAS replicated the Ainslie circuit? The
PRIMARY AUTHOR OF THAT PAPER is Rosemary Ainslie. His own name is down there as an
experimentalist. The preamble, introduction and discussions related to that paper unequivocally
state that it is a REPLICATION. Therefore when he says NO he is lying.
IF THE ANSWER IS YES - then I rest my case.
It's that simple.
Regards,
Rosemary
Guys,
The BLOGSPOT THAT GLEN REFERENCES IS, unfortunately, NO LONGER ACCESSIBLE. IT WAS PUT
THERE BY MY SON WHO OMITTED TO STATE THE WORDS PATENT APPLICATION. AND WE
NEITHER OF US HAVE THE PASSWORDS TO ACCESS IT.
MEANWHILE IF YOU REFERENCE THIS BLOGSPOT - YOU WILL SEE THE REQUIRED AMENDMENTS.
KINDEST REGARDS,
ROSEMARY
http://newlightondarkenergy.blogspot.com/
Guys,
it seems that Glen is in a PANIC. He is trying very hard to distract you all from a rather PERTINENT
QUESTION which he is entirely reluctant to answer. He's damned if he does and he's damned if he
doesn't. So. One can understand his dilemma - but that hardly excuses it.
Since you're there Glen. May we all impose on you to answer this question. Here it is again. You
see the problem is that unless this is answered then none of us knows how to answer Cat's claim
that there have been NO REPLICATIONS of that early rather OUTMODED - and somewhat
OBSOLETE circuit that you reference with such tedious repetition.
Here's that question AGAIN
Can I impose on someone here to ask Glen a simple question? Here it is. Did he replicate that
circuit widely, and possibly incorrectly, referenced as 'the Ainslie Circuit'? It's a question that can
be answered very simply but confined to two options - 'yes' or 'no'.
IF THE ANSWER IS NO - then - the next question is this. Why is he clinging on for dear life to a
publication in his SCRIBD FILE that claims that he HAS replicated the Ainslie circuit? The
PRIMARY AUTHOR OF THAT PAPER is Rosemary Ainslie. His own name is down there as an
experimentalist. The preamble, introduction and discussions related to that paper unequivocally
state that it is a REPLICATION. Therefore when he says NO he is lying.
IF THE ANSWER IS YES - then I rest my case.
It's that simple.
It's a very pertinent question. It's dominated the subject of this thread for the last 20 pages or so.
Regards, again,
Rosemary
Quote from: MrMag on July 01, 2011, 11:38:28 PM
Golly rosy, just because Fuzzy has proved you as the liar that you are, Why are you taking it out on me?
Mental confusion? Looking at what Fuzzy is saying and Cat has said all along, do you think that it may be you who is
mentally confused?
At least I'm not delusional and I don't flat out lie to people.
I really don't think it matters how many people tell you that 1+1=2. You will always say that 1+1=3, we just don't understand the new math.
Maybe you should try to get that waitress job back.
Hmm Rose, these are some very valid points here in this quote above that seem to truly show that your circuit does not work. Astounding evidence!
lol
Mags ;]
Quote from: Magluvin on July 01, 2011, 11:55:23 PM
Hmm Rose, these are some very valid points here in this quote above that seem to truly show that your circuit does not work. Astounding evidence!
lol
Mags ;]
;D
Take care Magsy - and let me know if Fuzzy ever answers that question of ours. I really want to
see that! I am now going to get back to some work.
Kindest as ever,
Rosie
Quote from: Magluvin on July 01, 2011, 11:55:23 PM
Hmm Rose, these are some very valid points here in this quote above that seem to truly show that your circuit does not work. Astounding evidence!
lol
Mags ;]
Not really, I think your reading more into it. That post was regarding rosy getting caught in her lies. She just isn't very smooth getting out of this one.
Quote from: Rosemary Ainslie on July 01, 2011, 10:38:38 AM
THERE HAVE ONLY BEEN REPLICATIONS OF OUR PREVIOUS CIRCUIT.
Rosemary
Are you finally admitting that your PREVIOUS CIRCUIT didn't work as you claim, you had no excess energy at all.
You attack anyone who disagrees with you, you refuse to do any long-term tests that might prove your circuit works as you claim.
It's a big conspiracy, it would appear that anyone that says your circut doesn't workor or indicate's a measuring error, is then part of a conspiracy.
Your understanding of how you should conduct yourself on this forum is ridiculous, and you wonder why the scientific community won't recognise your work as valid.
Many members have made reasonable requests that you ignore including Stefan,Mr Mag amongst others,but you ignore them and carry on regurgitating your same old arguments.
Go on Rosie proof that 99 is wrong in his analysis and makes something that runs and runs and put it on the Internet after all,
(Quote from Rosemary)
"All one needs are the the measurements and some reasonable account of the apparatus that produces those measurements".
If you are going to claim excess energy on this forum you are expected to interact with reasonable requests for new tests, I think that it's only reasonable when making such claims.
Groundloop, if you're still reading here - and guys,
We've just finished those tests using capacitors. Unfortunately it does not work. The oscillation
holds for less than a minute and then collapses to zero.
Here are the waveforms
Kindest regards,
Rosemary
Quote from: Rosemary Ainslie on July 02, 2011, 02:33:51 PM
We've just finished those tests using capacitors. Unfortunately it does not work. The oscillation holds for less than a minute and then collapses to zero.
Here are the waveforms
Kindest regards,
Rosemary
Capacitor start voltage = 37.6V @ 17:47:47
Capacitor end voltage = 32.0V @ 17:48:32
Voltage drop over the 45 seconds = 5.6V
Evidently the circuit functioned normally for a short period, and there was no recharge.
The capacitor value was not given, but for interest sake assume 1000uF:
The energy used then is 1/2 x 1000uF x (37.6
2 - 32
2)
=
194.88mJ, and the average power supplied over the 45 seconds =
4.33mW.
.99
btw,
Power = Energy / Time =>
P = E/t =>
W = J/s => therefore
J = W x s
.99
Quote from: Rosemary Ainslie on July 02, 2011, 02:33:51 PM
Groundloop, if you're still reading here - and guys,
We've just finished those tests using capacitors. Unfortunately it does not work. The oscillation holds for less than a minute and then collapses to zero.
Here are the waveforms
Kindest regards,
Rosemary
Rosemary,
Thanks for taking time to test capacitor(s) on your new circuit.
May I ask the size and type of the capacitor(s) you tested?
GL.
Quote from: poynt99 on July 02, 2011, 08:09:14 PM
Capacitor start voltage = 37.6V @ 17:47:47
Capacitor end voltage = 32.0V @ 17:48:32
Voltage drop over the 45 seconds = 5.6V
Evidently the circuit functioned normally for a short period, and there was no recharge.
The capacitor value was not given, but for interest sake assume 1000uF:
The energy used then is 1/2 x 1000uF x (37.62 - 322)
= 194.88mJ, and the average power supplied over the 45 seconds = 4.33mW.
I can't comment. Just don't know anything about capacitors. I'm not sure that it took 45 seconds
to collapse. I think it was rather quicker than this. It takes a while for each screenshot to
download.
Groundloop - I'll check on that capacitor number. I forgot to make a note. I'll tell you during the
course of today.
But guys - before anyone gets too carried away here - in retrospect I think we had open circuit
conditions. From memory the circuit was still connected to the battery terminals. Surely that
wouldn't work? I'll need to check on this as well. Actually I think I've made a mistake. Sorry. I'll
get back here.
Kindest again,
Rosemary
Actually - I've just seen that there are something in the order of a million plus hits on my name in Google. Golly. There's way more interest than I realised. Thanks for pointing this out to me Fuzzy. It's AMAZING. At least everyone's talking.
Gosh. I had no idea. :o
Regards,
Rosemary.
Quote from: Rosemary Ainslie on July 02, 2011, 11:33:23 PM
WHY? Fuzzy's insults don't constitute proof of anything. And I'm MORE than happy to do long
term tests.
Hey Mr Mag, Rosemary Ainslie is more than happy to long-term tests, can you repost that simple low-cost test of yours.
what a politician you truly are, you use fuzzy to support your arguments when he's not around,
but when he is around you tell people not to listen to him. :D You're great at contradiction.
You attack anyone who disagrees with you, anyone that says your circut doesn't workor or indicate's measuring error, is then part of a conspiracy.
You can't tell me of any member on this forum that has produced excess energy with your circuit, because nobody has after two and half years of you being on this forum.
Guys remember it's that claim off excess energy that I have a problem with, if you are a supporter of Rosemary's claims and you don't believe the evidence against, then you can help her by showing us all your working circuit producing excess energy.
Interesting how none of the people here that support your claims have never shown their version of your circuit, they must be relying on blind faith, some people really do believe anything politicians tell them.
Groundloop - the caps were 2 x 40 volt 150 000 ? micro farad in parallel. I hope I've got that right.
Apparently the circuit leads were directly across the caps. So, I guess the caps must have been in parallel to the batteries.
Which means that the test was a definite FAIL. The caps DO NOT WORK. What stuck me is that the waveform just COLLAPSES. Unless we should have been using different caps? Not at all sure. Frankly I never thought that a cap would work. I just don't know why it should. Anyway. That test, at least, is put to bed.
Kindest regards,
Rosemary
Quote from: Rosemary Ainslie on July 03, 2011, 05:08:33 AM
Groundloop - the caps were 2 x 40 volt 150 000 ? micro farad in parallel. I hope I've got that right.
Apparently the circuit leads were directly across the caps. So, I guess the caps must have been in parallel to the batteries.
Which means that the test was a definite FAIL. The caps DO NOT WORK. What stuck me is that the waveform just COLLAPSES. Unless we should have been using different caps? Not at all sure. Frankly I never thought that a cap would work. I just don't know why it should. Anyway. That test, at least, is put to bed.
Kindest regards,
Rosemary
Rosemary,
Thanks for the information regarding the capacitors.
GL.
Quote from: powercat on July 03, 2011, 03:42:48 AM
Hey Mr Mag, Rosemary Ainslie is more than happy to long-term tests, can you repost that simple low-cost test of yours.
lol. INDEED. Let's see your proposals here. If it's doable and it constitutes unequivocal proof - then I'm in.
Quote from: powercat on July 03, 2011, 03:42:48 AM...you use fuzzy to support your arguments when he's not around,...
Golly. STILL wrong Cat. Fuzzy HIMSELF supports our claim. Nothing to do with me. He's got it all down on his Scribd file. Here it is again.
http://www.scribd.com/doc/23455916/Open-Source-Evaluation-of-Power-Transients-Generated-to-Improve-Performance-Coefficient-of-Resistive-Heating-Systems
Quote from: powercat on July 03, 2011, 03:42:48 AMbut when he is around you tell people not to listen to him.
And again. I am happy that he references our work. EVERYWHERE. It all contributes to that escalating interest in our technology. It's not MEANT to. But it DOES. ;D
Quote from: powercat on July 03, 2011, 03:42:48 AM:D You're great at contradiction.
So? Where's the contradiction?
Quote from: powercat on July 03, 2011, 03:42:48 AMYou attack anyone who disagrees with you, anyone that says your circuit doesn't work or or indicates measuring error, is then part of a conspiracy.
NOT AT ALL. I welcome discussion. What I tend to attack is 'opinion' when it's as ill founded as your own.
Quote from: powercat on July 03, 2011, 03:42:48 AMYou can't tell me of any member on this forum that has produced excess energy with your circuit, because nobody has after two and half years of you being on this forum.
STILL WRONG. Here's that link AGAIN.
http://www.scribd.com/doc/23455916/Open-Source-Evaluation-of-Power-Transients-Generated-to-Improve-Performance-Coefficient-of-Resistive-Heating-Systems
This is a document on Fuzzy's SCRIBD FILE. In it he CLAIMS TO HAVE REPLICATED OUR EARLIER NOW, RATHER OBSOLETE, CIRCUIT.
Quote from: powercat on July 03, 2011, 03:42:48 AMGuys remember it's that claim off excess energy that I have a problem with, if you are a supporter of Rosemary's claims and you don't believe the evidence against, then you can help her by showing us all your working circuit producing excess energy.
This is redundant. WE HAVE FUZZY'S OWN CLAIM TO HAVE REPLICATED. IT'S ON HIS SCRIBD FILE. Two links given above. And guys. PLEASE. Don't waste your time on that circuit. This new one is WAY, WAY better.
Quote from: powercat on July 03, 2011, 03:42:48 AMInteresting how none of the people here that support your claims have never shown their version of your circuit, they must be relying on blind faith, some people really do believe anything politicians tell them.
I know of NO-ONE who supports our claim. How UTTERLY ABSURD! It's NOT a matter of belief of disbelief. It's a question of weighing the scientific evidence. I am NOT out to win a popularity contest. I would HATE to have 'followers' who 'support me' or NOT. That doesn't feature. It simply isn't the issue. We have MEASUREMENTS that are unequivocal. THAT'S what needs to be discussed. That's it. What you're implying is that we're lying about these measurements. Frankly I'm not clever enough to lie about those measurements. I'd have to know a lot more about the workings of a LeCroy before I could manage to fudge its results. I'm not sure that anyone could manage that. I'm reasonably sure it's tamper proof. But NOTA BENE. I am NOT ALONE in making the claim. Just check out the report. Then we must all be collaborating in promoting some kind of elaborate hoax? Golly. I'm not clever enough to manage that either.
Rosemary
Cat, Fuzzy, MaNag - has it not yet occurred to you guys to wonder why it is that I so patiently and repeatedly answer your posts? Why I take the trouble? It would be so easy to simply walk away from here. I read somewhere on these threads that 'if you're going to wrestle with pigs - you'll both get dirty. But the pig will enjoy it'. Something like that. Well. I know that it does my 'name' no good. But I'm not interested in my name. And it does nothing to advance my popularity. But I'm not interested in my popularity. Here's what it achieves. You guys are actually giving me an almost infinite variety of ways to attest to the truth of the claim - precisely because you keep challenging it. And I WONT TIRE of defending it. EVER. There's a mission involved here. And I'm equal to it - while I've still got some kind of life in me. More than equal to it.
So. Really. From the bottom of my heart. Thank you.
Rosemary
With the actual capacitor value:
Capacitor start voltage = 37.6V @ 17:47:47
Capacitor end voltage = 32.0V @ 17:48:32
Voltage drop over the 45 seconds = 5.6V
Capacitor = 2x 150,000uF, 40V, in parallel
Evidently the circuit functioned normally for a short period, and there was no recharge.
The energy used then is: 1/2 x 300,000uF x (37.62 - 322)
= 58.46J, and the average power supplied over the 45 seconds = 1.3W.
.99
Quote from: poynt99 on July 03, 2011, 10:29:10 AM
With the actual capacitor value:
Capacitor start voltage = 37.6V @ 17:47:47
Capacitor end voltage = 32.0V @ 17:48:32
Voltage drop over the 45 seconds = 5.6V
Capacitor = 2x 150,000uF, 40V, in parallel
Evidently the circuit functioned normally for a short period, and there was no recharge.
The energy used then is: 1/2 x 300,000uF x (37.62 - 322)
= 58.46J, and the average power supplied over the 45 seconds = 1.3W.
.99
Poynty? As I understand it Joules relates to the energy dissipated as work. And that resistor of ours was measuring over 150 degrees centigrade. Ambient at about 16 degrees centigrade. Surely that's got to be factored in? Somewhere?
Temperature over ambient indicated 33 watts dissipated or thereby. The downside of this value is that the temperature was still climbing fast. We never tested it to the duration. Frankly, if I'd known that you could determine the actual energy dissipated over this period I'd have kept closer record.Regards,
Rosemary
Added.
Quote from: Rosemary Ainslie on July 03, 2011, 05:08:33 AM
Groundloop - the caps were 2 x 40 volt 150 000 ? micro farad in parallel. I hope I've got that right.
Apparently the circuit leads were directly across the caps. So, I guess the caps must have been in parallel to the batteries.
If the battery voltage was 60V, then it is highly unlikely the batteries were connected throughout the test. 40V capacitors would not cope too well with 60V across them (they tend towards explosion under these conditions), and hopefully your assistant knew this. Perhaps he had only 3 batteries connected in order to charge the capacitor to about 36V.
Quote
Which means that the test was a definite FAIL. The caps DO NOT WORK.
The circuit did work (oscillate) until the voltage dropped to a certain level.
Quote
What stuck me is that the waveform just COLLAPSES. Unless we should have been using different caps? Not at all sure. Frankly I never thought that a cap would work. I just don't know why it should.
It stopped oscillating because the circuit is not optimized to work at lower voltages. It's a matter of tweaking the circuit.
Quote
That test, at least, is put to bed.
Actually, no.
.99
Quote from: poynt99 on July 03, 2011, 10:39:24 AM
If the battery voltage was 60V, then it is highly unlikely the batteries were connected throughout the test. 40V capacitors would not cope too well with 60V across them (they tend towards explosion under these conditions), and hopefully your assistant knew this. Perhaps he had only 3 batteries connected in order to charge the capacitor to about 36V.
Yes it was only connected to 3 batteries. No he is NOT MY ASSISTANT. GOLLY. He's a professional engineer.
Quote from: poynt99 on July 03, 2011, 10:39:24 AMThe circuit did work (oscillate) until the voltage dropped to a certain level.
Yes. It did. Momentarily.
Quote from: poynt99 on July 03, 2011, 10:39:24 AMIt stopped oscillating because the circuit is not optimized to work at lower voltages. It's a matter of tweaking the circuit.
He's satisfied that it won't continue to oscillate. And I'm happy to rest on his advices.
Rosemary
Quote from: Rosemary Ainslie on July 03, 2011, 10:45:02 AM
Yes it was only connected to 3 batteries. No he is NOT MY ASSISTANT. GOLLY. He's a professional engineer.
Yes. It did. Momentarily.
He's satisfied that it won't continue to oscillate. And I'm happy to rest on his advices.
Rosemary
How does this constitute a valid scientific test when the voltage used is half, or a little better than half of what is used from the batteries (i.e. 36V vs. 60V)?
Alternatively, if those two 150,000uF capacitors were charged to 30V each then put in series, you would have 60V as a starting voltage. That would be a true comparison to how the circuit is operated when powered by the batteries.
Then, if the 60V across the two series capacitor holds, then there is recharge. If the voltage continuously drops until the oscillation ceases, then there is no recharge back to the source.
.99
Quote from: poynt99 on July 03, 2011, 11:14:42 AM
How does this constitute a valid scientific test when the voltage used is half, or a little better than half of what is used from the batteries (i.e. 36V vs. 60V)?
Where do you get 60 volts? We used 3 batteries only. The caps were in parallel to the batteries.
Quote from: poynt99 on July 03, 2011, 10:39:24 AMAlternatively, if those two 150,000uF capacitors were charged to 30V each then put in series, you would have 60V as a starting voltage. That would be a true comparison to how the circuit is operated when powered by the batteries.
I presume you mean 'when powered by caps? Anyway. Here's the thing. I'm now rather sorry we didn't run that test at least until the shunt voltage flat lined. The fact is that the resistor temp was climbing and that always makes me nervous. But without the oscillation the chances are that the temperature would have dropped. To my shame I didn't even make a record of it. And I hear you Poynt. We probably didn't put enough effort into the test. I've spoken to my friend. We'll try and redo that test next week. Maybe on Friday. And this time I'll take better measurements. But you must remember that the idea is to keep that oscillation. But then again. I suppose there was still a kind of oscillation. Perhaps it does just need tweaking. It's just that I am SO SICK AND TIRED OF THESE EXPERIMENTS. I need to move on.
Sorry I missed this second bit.
Quote from: poynt99 on July 03, 2011, 10:39:24 AMThen, if the 60V across the two series capacitor holds, then there is recharge. If the voltage continuously drops until the oscillation ceases, then there is no recharge back to the source.
I get it. We'll try this again.
Regards,
Rosie
Quote from: Rosemary Ainslie on July 03, 2011, 11:31:10 AM
Where do you get 60 volts? We used 3 batteries only. The caps were in parallel to the batteries.
60V (and also at times 72V) as used when powering the circuit from the batteries before this capacitor test. One would think you would want to
compare the circuit operation with the same starting voltage in both cases, i.e.
60VDC.
.99
Quote from: poynt99 on July 03, 2011, 11:38:17 AM
60V (and also at times 72V) as used when powering the circuit from the batteries before this capacitor test. One would think you would want to compare the circuit operation with the same starting voltage in both cases, i.e. 60VDC.
.99
Are you getting sniffy again? Here's the point. I was trying to see if we could sustain an oscillation using only caps. I CAN sustain an oscillation at 36 volts PROVIDED that the OFFSET IS adjusted to allow AMPLE CURRENT FLOW during the ON time of each period. That's how we set it because he determined that the 2 caps would be required. BUT. We'll TRY THIS AGAIN. I've already told you.
You've no IDEA what a waste of time I consider this test. I don't even care if those caps KEEP the circuit oscillating or the current flowing. If it runs for an hour - you'll all want 2 hours. If it runs for 2 hours you'll want 2 days. And so it goes.
Rosemary.
Quote from: Rosemary Ainslie on July 03, 2011, 11:50:39 AM
Are you getting sniffy again? Here's the point. I was trying to see if we could sustain an oscillation using only caps. I CAN sustain an oscillation at 36 volts PROVIDED that the OFFSET IS adjusted to allow AMPLE CURRENT FLOW during the ON time of each period. That's how we set it because he determined that the 2 caps would be required. BUT. We'll TRY THIS AGAIN. I've already told you.
You've no IDEA what a waste of time I consider this test. I don't even care if those caps KEEP the circuit oscillating or the current flowing. If it runs for an hour - you'll all want 2 hours. If it runs for 2 hours you'll want 2 days. And so it goes.
Rosemary.
Rosemary,
Actually, it is a very good test. It will show if it is possible to build a practical implementation
of your circuit running from a mains power supply (that have electrolytic capacitors) for water
heating purposes. Based on your first capacitor test I already see a possibility for just that.
I think your goal also must be developing this circuit so that people actually can use it to save
power when heating a water tank. Let us say that you get a COP 3 or something and the
product can be cheap enough so that you get your money back in a year time, then after
that you will save a lot of money each year.
GL.
Quote from: Groundloop on July 03, 2011, 12:22:44 PM
Rosemary,
Actually, it is a very good test. It will show if it is possible to build a practical implementation
of your circuit running from a mains power supply (that have electrolytic capacitors) for water
heating purposes. Based on your first capacitor test I already see a possibility for just that.
I think your goal also must be developing this circuit so that people actually can use it to save
power when heating a water tank. Let us say that you get a COP 3 or something and the
product can be cheap enough so that you get your money back in a year time, then after
that you will save a lot of money each year.
GL.
Groundloop - I have way too much respect for
your opinion to quarrel with this. But I was rather hoping to replace the mains with batteries. Why is that not doable? From what we've seen it may need up to 10 batteries and some really robust FETs. But then it's in the bag. My preference would be to see this OFF the grid. But you're right. It can also be used in conjunction with a grid supply. And I really don't understand enough about those capacitors to know whether or not we still need worry ourselves about those transistor tolerances. In any event. I shall certainly try and get those tests redone. I see it's required.
Kindest regards,
Rosemary
added
I'll get back here when I've repeated those tests that Groundloop and Poynt want. Meanwhile I'm off this thread. It's just way too disgusting.
God help us all.
Rosemary
If this circuit is open source then what is the point of arguing over authorship
No one can get it to work at this point anyway.
Quote from: happyfunball on July 04, 2011, 08:48:48 PM
If this circuit is open source then what is the point of arguing over authorship
No one can get it to work at this point anyway.
WHO IS ARGUING OVER AUTHORSHIP? I know I'm not. And I'm not sure which circuit you're referring to. The first circuit Glen 'claims' he got working. It's all there in his SCRIBD file. And there is absolutely NOT A SINGLE MEMBER that I know of who has built this new circuit of ours.
Rosemary
Well. Now, hopefully, this thread can 'fall of the cliff' as MileHigh put it. I need to concentrate on some real work. What a pleasure to wake up to an entire absence of flaming posts.
Guys - here's what I've got to do. I need to do a rerun of the caps tests. That's for Poynty and Groundloop. I'll have to slot this in with my friend's time constraints. I also need to finish a paper that has, thus far, defeated me. But without those flaming posts here - then I'll have run out of excuses to not work on it. When those results are to hand I'll post here. And when the papers are finished I hope to post some of it here and the most of it in my blog. Meanwhile - hopefully this thread will just go into hibernation.
Just for the record - I complained to Harti about the x rated references. I believe that there's been some appropriate action taken. Thank you for that.
Hopefully now we can stay on topic. And the topic is NOT our earlier test. THIS IS A NEW CIRCUIT. ONLY BEEN MADE PUBLIC SINCE MARCH THIS YEAR.
Regards,
Rosemary
Hi,
as this topic is now too controvers and I was threatened with lawyers,
I will lock now all the Rosemary threads.
Also there was no recent updates of any sorts about the technology and
the only postings I see here are about bitching about the old outdated papers
and scribd files etc..
So it is only annoying.
I have put all the members who got into this flame war into moderation now
and will delete new topics, if they should start again this topic...
Regards, Stefan.
P.S: All further issues about this circuit can be discussed at Ms.
Aisnley´s blog:
http://newlightondarkenergy.blogspot.com/
but not anymore over here.